986 F. Supp. 2d 14
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are homeless men who allege DC’s closure of La Casa Shelter caused a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics under the FHA.
- La Casa Shelter closure reduced emergency shelter capacity by 90 beds in a single location, affecting a subset of the homeless population.
- District points to its broader shift toward Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and away from emergency shelters, purportedly increasing overall shelter availability.
- District sold the La Casa site to Donatelli Development in 2008; land ownership and sale timing are argued to be part of the legal justification.
- District asserts PSH expansion is a legitimate policy objective; plaintiffs contest that PSH can coexist with low-barrier shelters.
- Court granted DC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the FHA claim, finding no triable issue for disproportionate or segregative impact given the record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a disproportionate effect is shown under the FHA | Plaintiffs argue minority homelessness is disproportionately affected | District argues no robust statistical showing; impact is on a small subset | No genuine issue of material fact; disproportionate effect not proven |
| Whether the closure perpetuated segregation under the FHA’s segregative effect theory | Closure contributed to segregation of homeless populations | Record lacks measurable impact on racial composition of neighborhoods | No measurable segregative impact established |
| Whether there were viable, less discriminatory alternatives to the closure | Keep La Casa open while expanding PSH | Resources must be allocated; policy shift to PSH justified | No genuine dispute; no viable alternative shown by plaintiffs. |
| Whether Second/Seventh Circuit tests support liability | Tests support liability for discriminatory impact | Tests favor defendant given strong policy justification and lack of alternatives | District entitled to summary judgment under both tests |
Key Cases Cited
- Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Ctr. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 639 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (settled framework for disparate impact review and burdens)
- 2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n v. Dist. of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (disparate impact with burden-shifting framework in Second Circuit context)
- Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (burden-shifting test for FHA disparate impact claims)
- Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977) (four-factor balancing approach to discriminatory impact claims)
- Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (less discriminatory alternatives can defeat liability when shown)