DISPARATE IMPACT DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES DECISION NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 26, 2015 HARRY J. KELLY, ESQUIRE MICHAEL W. SKOJEC, ESQUIRE NIXON PEABODY BALLARD SPAHR 1
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES Two Primary Theories of Liability under Fair Housing Act (FHAct): Disparate Treatment (Intentional Discrimination): most common; requires direct/implied evidence of intent — Definition: Individual of a protected group is shown to have been singled out and treated less favorably than others similarly situated Disparate Impact (nonintentional discrimination): less common, requires statistical proof of different impact on protected class — Definition: a policy or practice which is neutral on its face but has a statistically significant negative effect on a group of persons protected by the non-discrimination law 2
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES Disparate Impact • No need to show intent for disparate impact claims • Claims based on statistics and expert analysis that suggest a policy/practice has a discriminatory effect on a protected class •But statistics alone don’t establish liability o If plaintiff makes out claim, courts look to defendant to show there is some legitimate grounds for policy/practice 3
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES By definition, disparate impact attacks policies or practices that are neutral on their face but that have allegedly disproportionate impact on minorities — Due to socioeconomic realities in U.S., almost any policy or practice may have a disparate impact on protected classes As a result, disparate impact may expose housing providers to liability for otherwise “normal” operations and policies — E.g., 2-person per bedroom occupancy standards 4
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES Texas Dept. of Hous. And Comm. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2014-2015) — Claim: Texas agency that allocated low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) used criteria that resulted in concentration of LIHTC development in minority communities, making it harder for minorities to locate affordable housing in non-minority communities • Promotes patterns of segregation, makes it more difficult for minorities to find housing in “high opportunity areas” 5
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES District court used burden-shifting approach: — Found that statistics showed disparate impact: • LIHTC housing was disproportionately allocated to minority communities: 92.29% of LIHTC units in Dallas in census tracts with less that 50% Caucasian residents. — Agency had bona fide and legitimate reasons for allocation policies (following IRS rules), but … — Agency did not demonstrate it used least discriminatory alternatives available — Held: Agency violated FHAct 6
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES US SUPREME COURT: JUSTICE KENNEDY’S MAJORITY OPINION (5-4) IN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES Determines that FHAct includes disparate impact liability But warns that broad application of DI can have unintended and adverse consequences that actually result in opposite of what Congress intended and frustrate legitimate decisions by government entities and housing providers. — Recognized that “disparate impact liability has always been properly limited in key respects.” — Needs to allow “practical business choices and profit -related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system” 7
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES HIGHLIGHTS OF KENNEDY’S MAJORITY OPINION Recommends “safeguards” to protect “against abusive disparate impact claims”: 1. Mere statistical disparity is not sufficient to support disparate impact “Racial imbalance does not, without more, establish a prima facie case. . .” 2. “Robust causality requirement” • As part of its prima facie case, plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged practice is the cause of the disparate impact Suggests that if multiple causes for disparity, no disparate impact liability exists. Court said that a single decision to build/not build not a “policy” and no DI claim 8
DISPARATE IMPACT AFTER INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES 3. Legitimate Policy as Defense — Business must be given “leeway to state and explain the valid interest served by their policies.” • Recommends that, when making policy decisions, housing providers explain legitimate basis for their policy. 4. Disparate impact should focus “solely” on removal of “artificial , arbitrary and unnecessary barriers” 5. Providers cannot use racial quotas to avoid DI liability because violates equal protection clause 6. Burden on Plaintiff to show less discriminatory alternative 9
INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES CONTINUES Congress: Pressure to carve out exceptions and safe harbors from disparate impact? Not likely. Lower Federal courts wrestling with details of how to prove disparate impact claims (burden of proof, amount of impact required, etc.) – lots of ways claims being brought Remand of Texas v. Inclusive Communities - Must reconsider statistical proof and prima facie case because now must closely scrutinize and must look for robust causality Inclusive Communities v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury - Administration of LIHTC projects perpetuates racial segregation (like Texas Dept. of Housing practices) - Defendants: fundamental fallacy of claim that FHA requires federal agencies to take specific actions to regulate the racial characteristics of housing locations - Amended Complaint to be tested using Supreme Court factors 10
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS POLICIES SECOND-GUESSED Ellis v. City of Minneapolis Landlords brought action for City enforcement of health and safety codes Claim dismissed because City demonstrated legitimate government interest and Plaintiffs failed to articulate causation between City policy and racial disparity Plaintiffs amended complaint Winfield v. City of New York — City have 50% community preference in new affordable housing — Claim that perpetuates segregation and has disparate impact on City residents — Amended Complaint, and Motion to Dismiss pending 11
INSURERS UNDERWRITING CHALLENGED • Viens v. Great American Insurance — Alleged that refused to insure landlords who leased to Section 8 voucher holders, motions to dismiss denied — Consent Decree – • For 3 years, not consider source of income in underwriting, pricing and eligibility • Pay plaintiffs and Relman, Dane law firm $475,000 • Jones v. Travelers Casualty Similar kind of allegations and settled 7/1/15 12
LENDERS DEFENDING CLAIMS • City of Los Angeles v. Wells Fargo — Alleged that lender targeted minority borrowers with worse loan conditions and terms — Judge applied Supreme Court decision and dismissed: • City’s claim rests just on statistical disparity without evidence of causation • Loans helped minorities and promoted by HUD – legitimate interest • City of Miami v. Bank of America Similar claims 13
OTHER COURT CHALLENGES • Burbank Apts. Tenant Assn. v. Khargman (Mass. SJC) Section 8 owner decides not to renew HAP Contract at end of term Owner provides all required notices to HUD/state agencies Current tenants protected by enhanced vouchers Plaintiffs sue, alleging that nonrenewal violates FHAct and Mass. laws, because non-renewal has a disparate impact on present/future minority tenants Lower court rejected plaintiffs’ claims; not on appeal to Mass SJC 14
COURT ACTION -- SUMMARY — Cases show how disparate impact can be used to attack wide range of policies — While courts to date have applied Inclusive Communities to narrow scope of disparate impact cases, recent cases are looking at proof of each side’s case — So far, courts have not identified “per se” violations or “safe harbors” • Unless that happens, expect more cases coming in every facet of real estate development policies and property management policies 15
HUD DISPARATE IMPACT REGULATION During pendency of earlier disparate impact cases, HUD proposed and finalized a new regulation addressing proof of disparate impact claims — HUD rule adopts “balance - shifting” approach similar to district court in Inclusive Communities : • Plaintiff must identify policy or practice that has disparate impact on protected class under FHAct • If satisfied, Defendant must show “legally sufficient justification” Practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests Interest could not be served by less discriminatory practice Justification must be supported by evidence, not speculative • If satisfied, Plaintiff must show that those interests could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect 16
Recommend
More recommend
