Choices in Community Living v. Michael Petkus, Jr.
517 F. App'x 501
6th Cir.2013Background
- FHA plaintiffs CICL and MVFHC allege Storey and Petkus discriminated against four cognitively-impaired individuals by not showing a single-family rental home.
- Storey, Real Living realtor, initially expressed concern about disability and by-laws, then claimed income requirements and lack of tenant identification deterred a showing.
- Storey researching Dayton zoning code concluded the tenancy could be unlawful under zoning, affecting showings and potential licensing/permits.
- Two test renters were used to probe discrimination; Storey showed the house to them while not showing to CICL’s clients.
- Dayton zoning office later advised three or more unrelated residents would be unlawful; CICL leased the home to a veteran’s family in January 2010.
- District court granted summary judgment for Storey and Petkus, holding zoning unlawfulness could be a nondiscriminatory reason; record on appeal permits an inference of discrimination but zoning justification remains valid.
- Court applies McDonnell Douglas framework to FHA discrimination claims and affirms district court’s analysis and judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs show pretext under McDonnell Douglas. | CICL/MVFHC argue zoning justification is pretext. | Storey/Real Living contend zoning law justified non-showing. | No; zoning justification withstands pretext challenge. |
| Whether the prima facie case was established under the catch-all theory. | CICL/MVFHC say evidence shows discrimination by Storey toward disabled. | Defendants argue legitimate zoning-based reason defeats inference. | Yes; prima facie shown, but rebutted by legitimate reason. |
| Whether statements lack of contemporaneous communication negate pretext. | Lack of contemporaneous statement supports pretext. | Not required to be contemporaneous; later-zoning findings suffice. | No pretext; contemporaneous communications not required here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsay v. Yates, 578 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas framework for FHA discrimination)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (jury cannot reject proffered rationale without evidentiary basis)
- Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (pretext analysis; lack of contemporaneous evidence can support pretext)
- Hamilton v. Geithner, ? (D.C. Cir. 2012) (lack of contemporaneous documentation may indicate pretext)
- Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996) (three categories of FHA discrimination; catch-all exists)
- Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc., 571 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard; evaluating factual disputes)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (intro to summary judgment standard)