DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

2,312 chars 
4 See Brief for the State of New York as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant
at 5–6 (the panel dissent “errs in attempting to limit § 3604(b)’s post-acquisition scope to
conduct that results in constructive eviction” because the FHA covers more extensive
post-acquisition conduct); Brief for Debo Adegbile as Amicus Curiae Supporting
Plaintiff-Appellant at 5 (“[T]he FHA unambiguously prohibits intentional
discrimination against a tenant after he obtains housing.”); Brief for the City of New
York as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 6; Brief for Nat’l Fair Hous.
All. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 7–10 (urging this Court to
join the “uniform holdings of its sister circuits” that the FHA bars post-acquisition
discriminatory conduct); Brief for the ACLU et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-
Appellant at 16; Brief for LatinoJustice PRLDEF et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting
Plaintiff-Appellant at 11; Brief for Georgetown Univ. L. Ctr. C.R. Clinic as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 11 (the FHA holds landlords liable for
“negligently allowing a hostile environment”); Brief for Paralyzed Veterans of Am. &
Pub. Just. Ctr. as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 4–10 (a landlord’s duty
to address tenant-on-tenant harassment is consistent with the FHA’s intent to end
harassment and segregation); Brief for AARP et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting
Plaintiff-Appellant at 23–29 (landlords are liable for failing to take corrective action for
discriminatory tenant-on-tenant harassment); Brief for Laws.’ Comm. for C.R. Under L.
as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 6. The remaining two amici did not
address the issue. See Brief for the NAACP Legal Def. and Educ. Fund as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant at 3–5 (arguing that Francis stated a claim for
post-acquisition housing discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 without
addressing the FHA); Brief for New C.L. All. as Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Neither
Party at 6 n.4 (noting that this Court has not reached the question of whether the FHA
covers post-acquisition conduct and taking no position on the issue).
                                             9
United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party at 14–15, 21 (the FHA