A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia
655 F.3d 342
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- ASWAN, a homeless advocacy group, sues Virginia, VCU, City of Richmond, and Homeward alleging a conspiracy to relocate homeless services to the Conrad Center at Oliver Hill Way to reduce downtown visibility.
- Conrad Center began operating February 5, 2007, at a site distant from downtown and VCU; ASWAN claims actions pressured downtown service providers to move to the Center.
- ASWAN asserts ADA, FHA, §1983, and §1985(3) conspiracy and discrimination claims, including a retaliation claim by VCU against ASWAN for filing suit.
- Defendants move to dismiss; district court adopts magistrate’s recommendation that claims be dismissed as time-barred or inadequately pled.
- ASWAN appeals the dismissal, challenging the conspiratorial pleading and limitations-period analyses under multiple statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASWAN stated a valid § 1985(3) conspiracy claim | ASWAN alleges a meeting of the minds among Doe(s), City, Homeward, and VCU to relocate services to Oliver Hill Way. | Allegations are conclusory and lack concrete facts showing agreement or acts. | Conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of specific facts showing agreement. |
| Whether ADA, § 1983, and equal-protection claims are time-barred | Limitations should be dictated by applicable Virginia and federal analogs; timely under continuing-violation theory. | Claims accrued at the time of the Conrad Center opening; outside limitations. | Claims time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations. |
| Whether FHA claims are time-barred and whether intake services fall within FHA protection | Relocation of intake and related services to the Center constitutes FHA-relevant discrimination. | Intake services do not constitute FHA services; accrual from opening is controlling. | FHA claims time-barred and not within the |
| Whether ADA retaliation claim against VCU survives | Retraction of funding promise following ASWAN's suit constitutes retaliation. | Withdrawal of a gratuitous benefit is not an adverse action under the ADA. | ADA retaliation claim against VCU properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370 (4th Cir. 1995) (requirements for § 1985(3) conspiracy claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausible claims require more than mere conclusory allegations)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; separate legal conclusions from factual allegations)
- Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 1999) (continuing-violation concept; effects of original discriminatory act)
- Nat'l Adver. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) (continuing-violation accrual when discrete acts occur within limitations period)
- Lendo v. Garrett County Board of Education, 820 F.2d 1365 (4th Cir. 1987) (discrete acts within limitations period may support continuing-violation theory)
- Stiltner v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473 (4th Cir. 1996) (retraction of gratuitous benefits not adverse action under ERISA; relevance to ADA context noted)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard; context matters in determining adverse action)
- Penny v. United Parcel Service, 128 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1997) (Title VII retaliation standard applicable to ADA context)
- Thompson v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 312 F.3d 645 (4th Cir. 2002) (employee retaliation standards; implied broad interpretation of retaliation)