Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Feemster v. BSA LTD. PARTNERSHIP, 548 F.3d 1063 (2008)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2008-11-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/187255/feemster-v-bsa-ltd-partnership/ ↗

Full Text

1,227 chars

The tenants do not dispute that, during the time in which
they “remained in their units -- while their challenge to BSA’s
eviction claim was pending in the local D.C. courts -- they were
liable for monthly rent payments.” Appellees’ Reply Br. 1. Nor
does BSA dispute that, during this same period, it demanded that
the tenants pay rent from their own funds and not through the
Section 8 voucher program. BSA insists that this was not
“source of income” discrimination, however, because it was not
motivated by animus against vouchers or their users but rather
by “a desire to vacate the units so it could sell them.”
Appellant’s Reply Br. 8. The district court accepted BSA’s
argument that motive was dispositive. Applying what it
described as a “mixed motive” analysis, Feemster, 471 F. Supp.
2d at 100-01, the court concluded that “plaintiffs have not
established a prima facie case of discrimination under the
[Human Rights Act] because they have not shown that an
impermissible factor played a motivating or substantial role in
the action [BSA] has or has not taken; namely, that BSA refused
to accept the plaintiffs’ enhanced vouchers because their source
of income was the tenant-based Section 8 program,” id. at 102-
03.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text