Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from 2013

Disparate Impact saved again….

Back in October, we reported on a crucial housing case that had the potential of reversing the long standing disparate impact theory in housing discrimination law.  Housing advocates nationwide closely followed the case of the Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc . The fundamental issue was whether disparate impact claims can be brought under the Fair Housing Act. The disparate impact standard has helped in the fight against housing discrimination, by enabling plaintiffs prove discrimination by focusing on the disparate impact of discriminatory housing policies and practices.  As our October report indicated, all U.S Appellate Courts have ruled on this issue and have held that the Fair Housing Act allows claims under a “disparate impact” theory. The case was scheduled to be heard before the US Supreme Court on December 4, 2013. However, lawyers from both sides reached a settlement agreement las

Supreme Court to Decide on Fair Housing Rule Potentially Crucial to Housing Discrimination Claims

The U.S Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that could potentially reverse decades of settled housing discrimination law.  The case deals with residents of a low-income neighborhood called The Gardens in Mount Holly, New Jersey. The residents sued the township when it bought and demolished homes in a predominately minority neighborhood.  Several years ago, the township adopted a controversial plan that called for the demolition of all of the existing homes in the township’s only predominantly African-American and Hispanic neighborhood. The town’s council voted to buy all the homes in the low-income neighborhood for existing market prices ranging from $32,000 to $49,000.  The plan was to replace the homes with 520 new homes ranging in price from $200,000 to $250,000 . The prices are well beyond what the current residents could afford. Approximately 260 families already moved out. Seventy remain, including approximately 30 that are parties to the lawsuit

SAME SEX DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES, BUT HELP IS ON ITS WAY…

Thiago Derucio and his partner were denied an apartment because they are gay. They responded to an online ad for housing but were turned down once their sexual orientation was revealed. Their experience is not unique. Same-sex couples often have to pay more in taxes when they buy or sell a home, or transfer ownership interest, than married heterosexual couples do. In other instances, they are denied housing loans . This is mainly because; there is no national law that protects against sexual orientation discrimination in housing. The federal Fair Housing Act as Amended (FHAA) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap but not sexual orientation and gender identity. A patchwork of state and local laws offers some of the much needed protections to gay and transgender people. But the lack of a comprehensive federal law means that people like Thiago and his partner, do