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

1,170 chars
The first component of Appellants’ prima facie case is an identifiable, facially-
neutral policy or practice. See Mems v. City of St. Paul, 224 F.3d 735, 740 (8th Cir.
2000). The district court interpreted Appellants’ disparate impact claim as a challenge
to the City’s policy of enforcing the Housing Code instead of the Federal Housing
Quality Standard (“HQS”), which applies to all rental properties that receive federal
rent assistance. This interpretation was too narrow. Appellants have consistently
challenged the City’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement practices. The common
denominator in Appellants’ affidavits, allegations, and briefs is that the City issued
false Housing Code violations and punished property owners without prior
notification, invitations to cooperate with DNHPI, or adequate time to remedy
Housing Code violations. Punishments included fines, evictions, condemnations,
revocation of rental registrations, and the financial burden of Code Compliance
Certification. Therefore, turning to the next step in the prima facie case, we evaluate
whether the City’s aggressive code enforcement resulted in a disparate impact on a
protected class.