Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)

Citation: Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Parent Document: Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2004-01-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8438047/edwards-v-marin-park-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,039 chars

While Swierkiewicz arose in the context of employment discrimination, its reasoning applies to any claim to which the McDonnell Douglas framework is applicable, and courts have readily applied Swier-kiewicz to FHA claims. See, e.g., Hamad v. Woodcrest Condo. Ass’n, 328 F.3d 224, 232-33 (6th Cir.2003); Nat’l Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 46, 51-52 (D.D.C.2002); Burrell v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 226 F.Supp.2d 427, 434 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Moreover, Smerkieuncz’s liberal reading of Rule 8(a) applies with equal force to discrimination and retaliation claims, so it must similarly apply to FHA retaliation claims. See Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1011 (7th Cir.2002) (applying Smerkiewicz to prisoner retaliation claim); Castillo v. Norton, 219 F.R.D. 155, 160-62 (D.Ariz.2003) (applying Swierkiewicz to employment discrimination and retaliation claims). Edwards’s FHA claim thus need only satisfy the Rule 8(a) notice pleading standard reaffirmed in Swierkiewicz to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text