A.L.M. v. Board of Managers of the Vireum Schoolhouse Condominium
19-2771-cv
| 2d Cir. | Nov 4, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff A.L.M., a minor through her parent Scott M. Moore, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of the Vireum Schoolhouse Condominium on FHA and Civil Rights Act claims.
- Alleged post-acquisition hostile-housing conduct: repeated excessive banging/stomping/scraping noises from the upstairs unit, frequent "intersecting" encounters where residents came uncomfortably close or blocked the Moore family, damage to multiple packages and the family car, a private investigator retained in 2010, and a log documenting over 100 intersecting incidents; the Moores moved out in 2012.
- The district court granted summary judgment on two independent grounds: (1) the record did not show a hostile housing environment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive; and (2) the Moore family failed to produce evidence that the harassment was because of a protected characteristic.
- The Second Circuit acknowledged evidence of frequent/excessive harassment but held that a reasonable juror could not infer discriminatory intent from the record; much testimony was self-serving or conclusory and non-discriminatory explanations (longstanding personal conflict between Scott Moore and the Board over common-area use) were well supported.
- §1981 and §1982 claims failed for the same reason—no admissible evidence that race (or other protected traits) motivated the conduct. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment; each side to bear its own costs.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged conduct constituted a hostile housing environment under the FHA (severity/pervasiveness) | The pattern of excessive noise, repeated intersecting encounters, property damage, logs, PI investigation, and eventual move-out show pervasive/severe harassment | Conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment as a matter of law | Court: Evidence acknowledged but insufficient as a matter of law to create a triable hostile-environment issue (district court ruled no hostile environment; Second Circuit upheld on other grounds) |
| Whether harassment was motivated by plaintiff’s membership in a protected class (discriminatory intent) | Moore contends faces made by Mulazzi, targeting of the “family,” and the Moore family being the only victims support an inference of race/sex/age/national-origin animus | Conduct resulted from interpersonal disputes and long‑running conflict with Scott Moore; no direct evidence of discriminatory animus | Court: Plaintiff failed to provide minimally sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent; self‑serving/conclusory testimony insufficient; summary judgment proper |
| Whether misconduct can be imputed to the condominium Board (basis for landlord liability) | Some incidents involved a Board member or Vireum residents acting with Board members, and noise originated from a unit above — imputable to landlord | Board argued lack of evidence tying discriminatory motive or systemic policy to the Board; interpersonal disputes explain incidents | Court: Even assuming some conduct attributable to Board, plaintiff still failed to show discriminatory motive required to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether §1981 and §1982 civil‑rights claims were supported | Plaintiff asserted race‑based interference with property/contract rights arising from the same incidents | Board argued absence of racially motivated intent defeats §1981/§1982 claims | Court: §1981/§1982 claims fail for lack of evidence of race‑based intent; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2021) (applies burden‑shifting framework and reduced pleading burdens for FHA discriminatory‑intent claims)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (explains minimal support required to plead discriminatory motive under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Haber v. ASN 50th St. LLC, 847 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (conclusory assertions alone cannot establish prima facie housing discrimination)
- Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1993) (elements required to state claims under §§ 1981 and 1982)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes the burden‑shifting framework for proving discrimination)