A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/612506/a-society-without-a-name-v-commo... ↗

Full Text

1,159 chars

The first action does not establish a continuing violation because it is an allegation of an entirely new violation — a retaliation claim instead of a discrimination claim. See id. at 1167 (concluding that a continuing violation requires that “the same alleged violation was committed at the time of each act” (internal quotation *349marks omitted)). And the second and third actions essentially deal with decisions to add new services for the homeless at the Conrad Center. The fact that the Conrad Center is still located on Oliver Hill Way and continues to offer services to the homeless — including new services that are added from time to time — does not amount to a continuing violation, but rather amounts to the continuing effect of the original decision to locate the Conrad Center on Oliver Hill Way. See Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass’n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180, 189 (4th Cir.1999) (“At bottom, appellants’ continuing violation argument rests on the alleged ongoing effects of the original decision to locate the highway in proximity to Jersey Heights.”) ASWAN’S ADA, § 1983, and equal-protection claims are therefore time barred. D. FHA claims

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text