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

1,925 chars
-16-
policy or decision that reduces low-income housing. See, e.g., Tsombanidis v. W.
Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 575–76 (2d. Cir. 2003) (plaintiffs can establish
disparate impact by showing statistics that (1) x% of all of a protected class in an area
depend on a type of housing affected by the challenged policy or practice, (2) y% of
all of the non-protected population depends on that type of housing, and, crucially, (3)
x is significantly greater than y); Huntington Branch, 844 F.2d at 938 (disparate
impact was established by evidence showing the number of African-American
families that need subsidized housing, currently occupied subsidized rental projects,
hold Section 8 certificates, and are on the waiting list for such certificates is
disproportionate to the percentage of African-American families in the general
population); Smith v. Town of Clarkton, N.C., 682 F.2d 1055, 1065 (4th Cir. 1982)
(“The undisputed statistical picture leaves no doubt that the black population of
Bladen County was adversely affected by the termination of the housing project, as
it is that population most in need of new construction to replace substandard housing,
and it is the one with the highest percentage of presumptively eligible applicants.”);
Owens v. Charleston Hous. Auth., 336 F. Supp. 2d 934, 943 (E.D. Mo. 2004), aff’d
in part, Charleston Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 419 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2005)
(inferring a disparate impact based on evidence “that African-Americans represent a
disproportionate number of low-income residents in need of low-income housing”);
cf. Artisan/Am. Corp. v. City of Alvin, Tex., 588 F.3d 291, 298–99 (5th Cir. 2009)
(plaintiff’s claim failed due to absence of the types of evidence typically used to show
a disparate impact: a waiting list for affordable housing, a demonstrated shortage of
affordable housing, or identifiable tenants affected by the challenged action).