- Court of Appeals of Virginia Published Opinions
- SJC & Appeals Court Cases By Name, C-E
- SJC & Appeals Court Cases By Name, C-E
- 1. Example Searches
- August 2017
The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 5, Loveless v. Milton and Richard Grant Co. Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council v. Gundacker Real Estate, Co. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. Township of Mount Holly 3rd Cir. National Fair Housing Alliance v.
Facebook, Inc. Facebook S. Facebook moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the Communications Decency Act immunizes it from the FHA. National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. Spanos N.
Court of Appeals of Virginia Published Opinions
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs 5th Circuit. Facebook N. In the case, the plaintiffs allege that Facebook uses its data collection and advertising tools to segregate users of the platform into different groups by race and national origin. That, according to the lawsuit, allows property owners and developers to target and exclude certain users according to those characteristics from seeing housing-related advertisements, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The statement of interest argues that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, and that Facebook does not have statutory immunity under the Communications Decency Act for the development of its data collection and advertising tools. Property Casualty Insurers Association of America v. Donovan N. The United States signed a modification agreement with Pulte Home Corporation Pulte to supplement and amend a settlement agreement previously entered into with Pulte in July The settlement agreement resolved the United States' allegations that Pulte had failed to design and construct certain developments in Florida, Illinois, and Virginia to be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act.
The modification agreement covers three additional properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, and includes provisions requiring Pulte to annually notify current owners, for a period of three years, of their option to have Pulte retrofit their units at no expense to them in order to bring them in compliance with the Act, as well as to report to the United States the names and addresses of those persons who elect to have their units retrofitted. Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. Township of Mahwah D. The tribe also alleges that the Township treated it differently from other similarly situated nonreligious groups.
Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v.
Town of Edisto Beach D. The case, Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v.
SJC & Appeals Court Cases By Name, C-E
Town of Edisto Beach , involves a small Christian congregation that sought to rent space for Sunday worship in the Civic Center, which is available for rental by community groups to hold events and activities. The Town responded by enacting a policy barring worship services at the Civic Center, citing separation of church and state concerns. The church filed a First Amendment suit and sought a preliminary injunction to allow it to rent the facility. On December 31, , the Town voluntarily rescinded its ban on religious worship services at its Civic Center.
Reed, et al. Penasquitos Casablanca Owner's Association 9th Cir. A federal court jury in San Diego, California found that the defendants employee, a condominium security guard, had sexually harassed the plaintiff. However, the judge refused to let the claims of the plaintiff's two sons and grandson go to the jury.
SJC & Appeals Court Cases By Name, C-E
The judge also refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief on November 7, , arguing that the claims of the children should have gone to the jury, and the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. City of Middletown S. City of Mission Woods D. The Tenth Circuit has defined substantial burden under the statute as government actions that prevent participation in religious conduct motivated by a sincerely held belief.
The United States argued that to decide whether government action prevents participation in religious conduct requires a holistic analysis that focuses on whether a religious institution has a reasonable expectation of approval, the existence of feasible alternatives for religious exercise and whether pursuing alternatives would cause the religious institution substantial delay, uncertainty, and expense. The United States contended that other federal courts had considered these factors, and that the Archdiocese had presented sufficient evidence of each to avoid summary judgment on its substantial burden claim.
1. Example Searches
Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association v. District of Columbia D. Southwest Key Programs, Inc. City of Escondido S. The United States had filed a statement of interest in this case on November 3, , to address the question whether the protections of the Fair Housing Act extend to group homes for unaccompanied children in the care and custody of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff in the case sought to operate such a home in the City of Escondido and alleges that the city discriminated on the basis of race and national origin when it denied the request for a conditional use permit to operate the group home.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the FHA does not apply.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The Supreme Court's ruling was consistent with the position taken in an amicus brief filed by the United States on December 23, The United States argued that HUD, the agency charged with interpreting the Act, has authoritatively interpreted the FHA to provide for disparate impact claims by means entitled to deference under Chevron U. NRDC, including in a formal regulation promulgated in and in formal adjudications. Finally, the United States argued that a state or local government does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause merely by considering whether a proposed action will have a disparate impact on the basis of race.
Settlement Agreement U. On April 1, , the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the developer, architect, site engineer, and homeowners association of Spanish Gardens Condominiums respondents in suburban Las Vegas, Nevada. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the respondents will within 60 days of the Agreement, submit a plan for completion of the remaining required retrofits to the common areas, for approval by the Division.
After an initial notice, owners shall receive additional notices of the opportunity to retrofit their units, at no cost to them, on an annual basis for three years. The respondents shall also report information regarding future design or construction of multi-family housing and certify to the Department that such design or construction fully complies with the Act. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission 9th Cir.
This case was referred to the Division by HUD as a pattern or practice case. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents Trop-Edmond, L. Respondent Danielian will conduct annual in-house training for a period of three years to its employees involved in the design of multi-family dwellings.
Trujillo v. On September 8, , the court entered a consent order resolving Trujillo v. The United States' complaint , which was filed on May 13, , alleged the condominium association engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability when they established a written policy prohibiting persons in wheelchairs from using the front door to the condominium building and when they applied that policy to a ten-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair who lives in the building.
The consent order also requires the president of the association's board of directors to resign, issue new by-laws, and require training of its members on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The complainants filed a lawsuit in this matter in March, DeStefano D. This is a Fair Housing Act disability discrimination case filed by the owners of two recovery houses for people with addictions, who allege that the city of New Haven failed to make a reasonable accommodation by allowing more than eight to ten persons to reside in the houses.
On February 22, , the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae to address legal issues raised by defendants, without taking a position on the merits of the summary judgment motion.