Showing 41–60 of 126 results
groups. 12 Therefore, we hold Appellants succeeded in establishing a prima facie case that the Security Deposit Policy had a significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect on members of a protected class. 3. Robust Causation
That stated rationale is supported by the evidence: The dollar figure of the increased security deposit in the policy ($180) is nearly equivalent to the District’s largest outstanding delinquency in the record ($184.45).
98. Appellants here provide arguments but fail to present evidence sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that any equally effective, less discriminatory alternatives exist to the Security Deposit Policy. Moreover, these arguments are not persuasive.
“any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security...
"any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security...
We found it appropriate to condition the stay on monthly security deposits by appellant, 2 and we pegged the standard *1282
The security deposits will, of course, be made in accordance with the procedure outlined in our previous opinion. 10 So ordered.
...Waidman about the rent and security deposit. Ms. Waidman said that the apartment rented for $700, with a $700 security deposit for a $1,400 move-in requirement. When Ms. Bautista indicated that she liked the unit, Ms. Waldman invited...
The District’s decision to apply the Security Deposit Policy only to public housing tenants of Pinal County was directly related to its interest in protecting itself against unrecovered delinquencies. It is uncontested that the SW. FAIR HOUSING V. MARICOPA...
The District provided evidence that the amount of its security deposit significantly served its legitimate business interest. Appellants are not entitled to assert in response that, in their estimation, the District could have recouped most, 34 SW. FAIR HOUSING V...
...Wolf agreed to return their deposit by check but not without a self-serving restrictive endorsement. Plaintiffs refused. Later plaintiffs again went to seek the return of their security deposit. Wolf said the return could be made only if the...
...To resolve whether the District’s decision to apply the Security Deposit Policy only to public housing residents resulted in a disparate impact, the proper comparative population is the District’s public housing and non-public housing residents.
-9- the cost of repairing the damage (or deduct it from the standard security deposit imposed on all tenants), if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for any damage they cause to the premises.
1 Although IAG clients (or their legal guardians) are technically the lessees of a particular residence, IAG enters into written agreements with landlords to pay any security deposit and, if necessary, supply a new dis- abled tenant in the event...
...However, the District established a nondiscriminatory legitimate business interest in applying the Security Deposit Policy only to Pinal County tenants and for raising the deposit to $180, and that these interests were served in a significant way by that policy...
Prominent in the logic underlying that proscription was the extraordinary character of prejudgment security deposits in American jurisprudence and their chilling effect upon efforts of the poor to seek justice in the courts. 22
...14 We conclude there is no genuine issue of material fact that the District demonstrated a legitimate business justification for implementing the Security Deposit Policy and that the policy served that interest in a significant way.
...Fair Housing Act a District policy increasing to $180 the refundable security deposit required of new public housing customers before the District would agree to provide water services while non-public housing customers were subject only to a $55 deposit.
The Seminole property was offered for rent to the public at $1000 per month with a $600 security deposit. Mr. Flood did not request, nor did he ever receive, a rental application from the Badamis. On July 7, 1994, Mr...
*613Because the security deposits and arrear-age arrangements required by TECO are not paid to THA, are not within the HUD definition of rent, and are not compensation for the use of land, they are not considered rent under the...