Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fair Housing Act Permits Disparate Impact Liability
For nearly 50 years, the Fair Housing Act has been a weapon available to individuals, community groups and governmental entitles seeking to combat housing discrimination. Among the targets of Fair Housing Act litigation have been landlords, co-op and condominium boards, local governments, and publishers of allegedly discriminatory advertisements. Until this past term, however, the United States Supreme Court had not resolved a basic question about the statute's meaning: Does the statute require a showing of discriminatory intent or discriminatory treatment, or can a plaintiff prevail by establishing the discriminatory effect or disparate impact of the defendant's action, even without a showing of discriminatory treatment? In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc, the Court, over the objection of four dissenting justices, held that proof of discriminatory intent or treatment was not essential to a Fair Housing Act claim.
The majority and dissenting opinions marshaled conflicting evidence to support their respective statutory construction arguments. There is not space in this article to rehash or evaluate those arguments. Instead, my focus is on the implications of the Inclusive Communities decision for future Fair Housing Act litigation.
The Facts
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?