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.
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.