269 F. Supp. 3d 1219
M.D. Ala.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (an African‑American family) rented at Grand Reserve Pike Road in Montgomery, AL (moved in Aug 2014; left by summer 2016) and challenge several rules and enforcement practices as discriminatory and retaliatory.
- Disputed rules (variously effective 2012–2015) restricted minors: adult supervision requirement (children ≤17), curfew (under 18 inside by 8:30 pm), playground limited to grades K–6, pool restriction (under 19 must be accompanied), and gym/sauna off‑limits to persons under 19 (with fines).
- Plaintiffs allege race, familial‑status, and disability discrimination under the FHA and Alabama Fair Housing Law (ALFHL); retaliation; steering; negligent hiring/supervision; breach of contract / quiet enjoyment; damages and punitive damages sought.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds; Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on familial‑status, retaliation, quiet‑enjoyment, and negligence‑per‑se claims.
- The court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for racial discrimination (FHA/ALFHL), familial‑status discrimination (FHA/ALFHL), retaliation (FHA/ALFHL), breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, compensatory and punitive damages; granted summary judgment to Defendants on injunctive relief (standing), steering, disability discrimination (FHA/ALFHL), all disparate‑impact claims, and negligent hiring/supervision; denied Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiffs sought prospective relief for ongoing practices | Plaintiffs no longer residents so lack likelihood of future injury | Granted for Defendants — Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief |
| Steering (§3604(a)) | Defendants steered Black residents to rear units | Defendants: no evidence of steering | Granted for Defendants — Plaintiffs produced no evidence of steering |
| Race discrimination (FHA/ALFHL) | Management statements and affidavit evidence show discriminatory motive and disparate enforcement | Defendants: rules were nondiscriminatory safety/facility rules | Denied for Defendants — genuine dispute of fact exists on discriminatory intent/enforcement |
| Familial‑status discrimination (FHA/ALFHL) | Five challenged rules are facially discriminatory against families/children | Defendants: rules necessary for safety, noise control, property image | Denied for Defendants — rules are facially discriminatory and justification is disputed; material facts for trial |
| Disability discrimination (FHA/ALFHL) | Plaintiffs asserted disability claims | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to plead under correct FHA subsection and offered no evidence | Granted for Defendants — no pleaded/proved disability theory or evidence |
| Disparate‑impact claims (race, familial status, disability) | Rules had disproportionate effect on protected groups | Defendants: rules legitimate and plaintiff offered no statistical proof | Granted for Defendants — plaintiffs failed to present proportional/statistical evidence of disparate impact |
| Retaliation (FHA/ALFHL, §3617) | Plaintiffs say complaints and enjoyment led to threats, fines, harassment | Defendants: actions were nonretaliatory enforcement for complaints/noise/security | Denied for Defendants — plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for prima facie retaliation; factual disputes remain |
| Negligent hiring/supervision | Plaintiffs: employer responsible for agents’ discriminatory conduct | Defendants: employees properly trained; no evidence owners knew of incompetence | Granted for Defendants — plaintiffs did not point to evidence that owners had notice of incompetence |
| Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment / constructive eviction | Plaintiffs: threats, enforcement, and restrictions materially interfered with lease benefits | Defendants: rules not strictly enforced; minimal interference; fines/payments disputed | Denied for Defendants — factual dispute whether landlord substantially interfered; damages triable |
| Compensatory & punitive damages | Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for FHA violations | Defendants: no evidence of recoverable damages or intentional discrimination | Denied for Defendants — plaintiffs presented evidence of emotional and financial harms and evidence supporting punitive damages inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Furcron v. Mail Ctr. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (sham affidavit doctrine—when courts may disregard inconsistent affidavit)
- Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1986) (discrepancies in testimony often go to credibility; standards for striking affidavits)
- Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry., 692 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2012) (contradictions from misunderstanding affect weight, not admissibility)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1999) (standard for punitive damages in employment discrimination; focus on actor’s state of mind)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (injunctive‑relief standing requires real and immediate threat of future injury)
- Woodard v. Fanboy, LLC, 298 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2002) (proof of intentional discrimination and relevance of evidentiary context)
- Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 468 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for justifying rules that disparately affect families/children)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (disparate‑impact requires more than a few affected units; need proportional/statistical showing)