Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-09-01

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

906 chars
As alluded to in the previous section, Appellants allege that the City violated
the FHA because aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code had a disparate impact
on racial minorities. We apply a three-step analysis to Appellants’ disparate impact
claim. First, Appellants must establish a prima facie case, which requires showing
“that the objected-to action[s] result[ed] in . . . a disparate impact upon protected
classes compared to a relevant population.” Darst-Webbe Tenant Ass’n Bd. v. St.
Louis Hous. Auth., 417 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005). Stated differently, Appellants
“must show a facially neutral policy ha[d] a significant adverse impact on members
of a protected minority group.” Oti Kaga, Inc. v. S.D. Hous. Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d
871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003). Appellants are not required to show that the policy or
practice was formulated with discriminatory intent. Huntington Branch, NAACP v.