Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
2011-08-24

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

894 chars
Like Judge Motz, I join Judge Gilman’s conclusion that the conspiracy claim was properly dismissed because an agreement was not sufficiently alleged. I also join Judge Gilman’s conclusion that the retaliation claim was properly dismissed because Virginia Commonwealth University’s (“VCU”) alleged promise to provide transportation was merely gratuitous. However, I disagree with Judge Gilman’s and Judge Motz’s conclusion that A Society Without A Name’s (“ASWAN”) claims under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Equal Protection Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accrued when the Conrad Center opened and that subsequent acts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint do not constitute continuing violations.1 Because I conclude that ASWAN plausibly alleged continuing violations against Homeward, VCU, and the City of Richmond, I must respectfully dissent in part.