Sep 1, 2015

The clash between disability law, medical marijuana law and criminal law--what gives?

In a case of first impression the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that a recipient of a legal medical card to use marijuana for medical purposes was not entitle to a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act and that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was preempted by the Controlled Substance Act.
The Plaintiff suffered from Multiple Sclerosis and received social security supplemental income. The Plaintiff’s doctor prescribed medical marijuana to help with her symptoms. The state of Michigan provided Plaintiff with a medical marijuana card pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. 

Plaintiff began smoking marijuana in her apartment. The landlord filed for eviction due to her smoking. Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act. The complex is  project-based, Section 8, federally assisted and the lease states that Defendant “may terminate the agreement for various reasons, including: drug-related criminal activity engaged in on or near the premises by any Resident, household member, or guest, or any such activity engaged in on the premises by any other person under the Resident’s control; “if the landlord determines that the Resident, any member of the Resident’s household, a guest or another person under the Resident’s control has engaged in the criminal activity, regardless of whether the Resident, any member of the Resident’s household, a guest or another person under the Resident’s control has been arrested or convicted for such activity.” Forest City Residential Management v. Lashawn Beasley and Eugene Kenyon, Case No. 13-14547 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

Jun 25, 2015


The question of whether "disparate impact" is a legal
and valid theory of discrimination under the Fair
housing Act is finally answered by our highest Court:


The Supreme Court in, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ET AL. v.
INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC., ET
AL., affirmed that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as Amended
in 1988, does allow not only claims for intentional
discrimination but also for claims that cover practices that
have a discriminatory effect even if not motivated by an
intent to discriminate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/25/us-usa-court-discrimination-idUSKBN0P51UO20150625

Feb 17, 2015

THE PUBLIC IS STILL WAITING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS COLLECTED IN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION HOUSING CASE IN NY

The Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York has repeatedly sued private landlords and, in its most high-profile case, sued Westchester County, NY, for violating federal racial equality laws. Of the millions of dollars awarded to the ADC, it appears that ADC has not distributed any of the proceeds to develop affordable housing in the past five years.
“It’s frightening to think that there are self-deputized social-equity arbiters who are running around bringing costly racial quota lawsuits against communities that taxpayers have to fund,” said Mike Stenhouse, founder of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity. “The end result is that they can grab millions in taxpayer dollars in a judgment and keep it to themselves rather than spending it on the cause that they claim they are promoting.” www.watchdog.org
http://watchdog.org/199374/non-profit-hoards-millions/