On December 27, 2016, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in Arnal v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. On remand, the plaintiffs alleged that HUD violated the APA because the regulation impermissibly interprets the FHA to provide for disparate impact claims against insurance underwriting and pricing practices that exceed the contours of disparate impact claims permitted by Inclusive Communities. HUD's opening brief, filed August 30, 2016, and its reply brief, filed October 28, 2016, argued that the plaintiffs misread Inclusive Communities and misconstrue the Rule's requirements.Īrnal v. On September 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision and remanded for consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. On November 7, 2014, the district court denied HUD's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, homeowners insurance trade associations, filed a lawsuit on June 26, 2013, alleging HUD violated the Administrative Procedure Act in its February 2013 regulation formalizing that the Fair Housing Act provides for disparate impact liability. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 8, 2001.Īmerican Insurance Association v.
#102 SALEM RD TO UNITY HOSPITAL ROCHESTER NY TRIAL#
On March 22, 2000, the appellate court reversed the district courts' judgment for the defendants by holding that "in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm," and directed the district court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to hold a new jury trial on whether the plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on June 3, 1999, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. The Division's brief argues that the Townships' commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.Ī federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. On July 20, 2007, the court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. The court agreed, finding that the failure to provide “unimpeded access” to the front door to persons who use wheelchairs, including not just those who live in the unit but also a “neighbor, friend, or family member, a political candidate, or a repairman,” is “in effect, to send them away as if unwelcome,” and “precisely the discrimination the FHAA forbids.”Īlbanian Associated Fund, Inc. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that, under the Act, the front doors and walkways are “public use and common use portions” of covered dwellings and therefore required to be accessible, regardless whether there is another accessible route into the unit. Defendants argued that their only obligation was to provide an accessible route into the unit, which, they alleged, they had done by providing an accessible route through the garage. At issue was whether, under the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility requirements for newly-constructed multifamily dwellings, the front door and walkway leading to a covered unit are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. On August 10, 2020, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in Ability Center, et al.
0 kommentar(er)
