Boykin v. Fenty
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143580
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Nine plaintiffs formerly resided at La Casa Shelter, a low-barrier homeless shelter in Columbia Heights; District closed La Casa Oct. 15, 2010 to expand its Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) program.
- Plaintiffs alleged FHA, ADA, and DCHRA discrimination based on race, disability, and place of residence, contending closure targeted marginalized groups and displaced residents.
- Court previously denied injunctive relief and allowed limited amendment; by Sept. 28, 2012, it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss most counts and granted amendment to add new claims, with one viable count remaining.
- Plaintiffs sought to add 33 new plaintiffs and two new claims under DC HSRA and Due Process; defendant opposed as futile.
- Court analyzed in phases: whether La Casa was a “dwelling,” whether claims stated plausible discrimination, and which counts could survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- Result: only the disparate-impact claim based on race under the FHA (Count III) survived dismissal and permitted amendment to proceed on that count only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FHA race discrimination survives scrutiny? | Plaintiffs contend La Casa closure unlawfully denied housing to residents based on race. | District argues lack of direct/discriminatory intent and insufficient factual pleading. | Count I dismissed; no plausible factual basis for intentional race discrimination at this stage. |
| FHA disability discrimination survives scrutiny? | Discriminatory impact on disabled residents from La Casa closure. | Disability claims inadequately pleaded and not clearly cognizable under FHA. | Count II dismissed; no plausible disability-discrimination claim stated. |
| Disparate-impact FHA claim based on race survives? | Disparate impact shown via segregative/disproportionate effects of PSH/closures. | Need robust evidence and proper framework; may require statistical proof and comparisons. | Count III survives at motion to dismiss; plausible disparate-impact theory possible. |
| ADA claims survive? | ADA claims alleged disability discrimination in public services related to shelter closure. | Same defects as FHA disability claims; insufficient disability-specific allegations. | Counts V and VI dismissed; no viable ADA discrimination claim stated. |
| DCHRA and HSRA and due-process claims survive? | Allege discriminatory placement by residence and violation of housing-related rights. | Statutes do not support broad discriminatory-place-of-residence or HSRA claims here; not actionable. | Counts VII-XI dismissed; no viable DCHRA disability/place-of-residence/HSRA/substantive due process claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must plead plausible claims with factual content)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely plausible in theory)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- 2d Am. Compl. (hypothetical reference), 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (disparate treatment framework under FHA in Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n)
- Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pleadings must state plausible claims; discuss pleading standards)