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

1,252 chars 
9To suggest otherwise would render the FHA, a central civil rights statute, an outlier
among civil rights statutes. See Wetzel, 901 F.3d at 863–64 (concluding that the FHA
prohibits a landlord’s deliberate indifference to known harassment because, among
other reasons, Title IX is “comparable” to the FHA and “[m]uch of what the [Supreme]
Court said [about discriminatory harassment in the Title IX context] can be applied
readily to the housing situation”); see also, e.g., Davis, 526 U.S. at 648–49 (Title IX); Zeno
v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 664–66 (2d Cir. 2012) (Title VI); Garcia v.
State Univ. of N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr., 280 F.3d 98, 115 (2d Cir. 2001) (Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act); Gant, 195 F.3d at
140–41 (§ 1981); cf. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (Eighth Amendment);
Charles v. Orange County, 925 F.3d 73, 86–87 (2d Cir. 2019) (Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process); DiStiso v. Cook, 691 F.3d 226, 240–41 (2d Cir. 2012)
(Fourteenth Amendment equal protection).
                                             22
clearly unreasonable. Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 665–66 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Davis, 526 U.S. at 643–50).