section 100

Citation: section 100
Parent Document: Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1998-12-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/73387/gonzalez-v-lee-county-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,988 chars

52
     R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 30, at 7-8.
53
   Similarly, Moran did not respond effectively to the allegation that
Gonzalez resisted Moran’s orders to “skip” individuals on the housing
waiting list because of race.     See id., ¶ 12, at 5.      Moran simply
contended that this allegation was “founded upon a single instance in
which defendant Moran purportedly told the plaintiff not to offer low-
income housing to an individual who was felt to be suffering from a
mental disorder.”   R1-33, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment of Defendant Moran in her Individual Capacity, at 8.
      Section 3617, however, prohibits interference with the housing
rights of the mentally disabled. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) (stating
that § 3617 prohibits the dismissal of an employee based on the
employee’s effort to provide rental housing to a person with a handicap);
see also 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (prohibiting interference with       efforts to
assist others in enjoying rights established under § 3604); 42 U.S.C. §
3604(f) (prohibiting discrimination based on renter’s handicap); 42
U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1),(3) (defining handicapped person as person with
substantially limiting mental impairment or person regarded as such).
Because Moran did not dispute that Gonzalez resisted Moran’s orders to
“skip” individuals on the housing waiting list, Moran’s admission that
she ordered Gonzalez to skip an individual based on that person’s mental
condition tends to support, rather than refute, Gonzalez’s claim that
Moran fired her “in retaliation of her complaints and refusal to
participate in the discriminatory rental practices of the Defendants.”
R1-15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 30, at 7-8.
54
  See R1-37, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Moran’s
Motions for Summary Judgment, at 3 (“The facts, as relied upon by the
Court for the purposes of these motions, should be as they have been
presented by the Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint and the Affidavit

Other Sections in This Document (884)

Full Text