De Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Ltd. P'ship
903 F.3d 415
4th Cir.2018Background
- Waples Mobile Home Park required all occupants 18+ to present original Social Security cards or passport/visa/I-94 to renew leases; noncompliance led to nonrenewal, surcharges, month-to-month leases, and potential eviction.
- Four Latino couples (male tenants had SSNs; female partners were undocumented) alleged the Policy disproportionately ousted Latinos and filed an FHA claim under a disparate-impact theory (42 U.S.C. § 3604).
- Plaintiffs alleged statistics showing Latinos are overrepresented among undocumented immigrants statewide and at the Park (e.g., 60% of Park tenants Latino; 11 of 12 noncompliant tenants were Latino), and argued the Policy would predictably cause disparate impact.
- The district court denied dismissal at Rule 12(b)(6) initially but later treated disparate-impact theory as defeated at the pleading stage, considered only disparate-treatment at summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for Waples.
- The Fourth Circuit majority vacated and remanded: it held plaintiffs plausibly alleged the ‘‘robust causation’’ element at the pleading stage and that the district court erred by not addressing disparate-impact at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a prima facie FHA disparate-impact claim (robust causation) | The Policy (document/immigration requirement) causes disproportionate eviction risk to Latinos; statewide and Park-level stats support causation | Causation lacking: disparate effect flows from undocumented status, not race/national origin; coincidence of geography means Policy does not ‘‘cause’’ Latino disparity | Held: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged robust causation at pleading stage; dismissal of disparate-impact theory was error |
| Whether district court should have considered disparate-impact on summary judgment | Court must analyze Inclusive Communities three-step framework at summary judgment if prima facie case exists | District court viewed disparate-impact theory as foreclosed and therefore did not address it at summary judgment | Held: Vacated and remanded so district court can consider step two (legitimate interests) and step three (less discriminatory alternatives) in the first instance |
| Whether plaintiffs’ undocumented status precludes disparate-impact relief (i.e., illegal status is independent cause) | Correlation between undocumented status and Latino identity does not defeat disparate-impact claim; effect, not motive, controls; HUD guidance supports this approach | Because immigration status—not race—causes noncompliance, FHA protection should not attach; would improperly extend FHA to immigration status | Held: District court erred to treat undocumented status as automatic bar; correlation does not preclude disparate-impact showing |
| Remedy and scope on remand | Remand for full disparate-impact analysis under Inclusive Communities; plaintiffs preserved only disparate-impact on appeal | N/A | Held: Summary judgment vacated and case remanded for consideration of disparate-impact framework (district court may also address disparate-treatment if warranted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (Sup. Ct.) (adopts three-step disparate-impact framework and requires "robust causation")
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (Sup. Ct.) (disparate-impact causation analysis; plaintiff must identify specific practice causing disparity)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (Sup. Ct.) (statistical disparities must be substantial enough to raise inference of causation)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (disparate-impact theory addresses effects of neutral practices)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for using disparate-impact evidence to infer intent in disparate-treatment claims)
- Betsey v. Turtle Creek Assocs., 736 F.2d 983 (4th Cir.) (upheld disparate-impact prima facie showing where policy caused disproportionate terminations)
- Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir.) (disparate-impact shown where termination of housing disproportionately reduced availability for blacks)
- Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (Sup. Ct.) (Title VII: citizenship-based policies may be illegal if they have the purpose or effect of discriminating on basis of national origin)
- Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory exceptions are not to be implied beyond those Congress enumerated)