Andrew Ellis v. The City of Minneapolis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11388
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Andrew and Harriet Ellis are for-profit landlords in Minneapolis who own several older, low-income rental units largely occupied by minority tenants; they allege intensified city code enforcement since 2012 has reduced the availability of rental housing for protected classes under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- Minneapolis faces a large shortage of very-low-income housing and disproportionately high representation of African Americans on public-housing and Section 8 waiting lists; vacancy rates for affordable units were under 1%.
- The Ellises allege repeated, sometimes vague or erroneous housing-code citations, threats to revoke rental licenses, and prolonged vacancy of certain units after city inspectors deemed them substandard despite the Ellises’ claims of habitability and attempts to comply.
- They contend the City applies stricter standards to for-profit rentals while tolerating serious violations in public housing, and they identify a 2009 City report with comments reflecting hostility toward rental housing as evidence of a policy to discourage rentals.
- The district court granted the City’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying the Supreme Court’s standards from Inclusive Communities regarding disparate-impact claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ellises pleaded a prima facie disparate-impact FHA claim | City enforcement has a disparate impact on protected classes causing reduced housing availability; City policy discourages rental housing | Enforcement reflects the housing code and legitimate health/safety objectives; plaintiffs failed to plead a causally connected, arbitrary or unnecessary policy | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts showing a policy that caused the disparity under Inclusive Communities |
| Whether misapplication of code citations can, on pleading, show a municipal policy | Repeated erroneous or vague citations and selective enforcement indicate a municipal policy to discourage rentals | Alleged events are one-off decisions, disagreements, or errors, not an established policy; city needs leeway to enforce codes | Dismissed: alleged incidents are insufficient to plausibly allege a policy rather than isolated errors |
| Whether inconsistent standards (public housing vs. private rentals) make out an FHA disparate-impact claim | City tolerates serious violations in public housing while strictly enforcing private rentals, producing disparate impact | FHA does not allow forcing a reordering of governmental priorities; inconsistent standards alone do not prove arbitrary/unnecessary policy | Dismissed: plaintiffs must allege the questioned standards are arbitrary/unnecessary; inconsistent application does not, by itself, meet Inclusive Communities’ causation requirement |
| Pleading standard post-Inclusive Communities: is robust causality required at pleading stage? | Plaintiffs need not satisfy detailed causation at pleading per older employment-case precedents | Inclusive Communities requires pleading facts demonstrating causal connection between policy and disparity | Held: Inclusive Communities applies; plaintiffs must plead facts showing a causal link and an arbitrary/unnecessary policy, which Ellises failed to do |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (FHA authorizes disparate-impact claims but requires robust causation and limits to avoid displacing legitimate policies)
- Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior Eighth Circuit decision allowing disparate-impact challenge to code enforcement; limited by Inclusive Communities)
- United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179 (8th Cir. 1974) (recognizing disparate-impact claims under the FHA)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required; labels and conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plaintiffs must plead factual content to cross line from conceivable to plausible)