DOE v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY
1:23-cv-03360
| D.D.C. | Jun 24, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe, a recipient of D.C.'s Family Re-Housing and Stabilization Program (FRSP) housing subsidy, applied to rent an apartment managed by Bozzuto Management Company.
- Bozzuto required her to complete a different (paper/in-person) application process and pay a security deposit by money order, citing her voucher status.
- Her application was denied, with Bozzuto citing insufficient income and credit score, despite her voucher covering full rent.
- Doe filed suit alleging violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) and the Consumer Protection and Procedures Act (CPPA), on behalf of herself and a putative class of voucher recipients.
- Bozzuto moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to strike the class allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bozzuto's actions violated the DCHRA (source of income discrimination) | Denied application based on income/credit and imposed extra burdens due to voucher | Requirements apply uniformly; no animus; process is more complex for vouchers | Sufficient to plead DCHRA violation; disparate treatment and impact pled |
| Whether "different terms" for voucher applicants violate DCHRA | Being required to apply in-person/pay by money order is unlawful discrimination | Administrative necessity; materiality requirement for claims | No materiality threshold; claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Whether CPPA claim survives regarding misrepresentations/omissions | Misrepresentations/omissions about process caused harm | No standing; no injury alleged from misrepresentation | Dismissed CPPA claim based on these misrepresentations for lack of standing |
| Whether class allegations should be struck at pleading stage | Discovery should determine class certification issues | Class not properly defined under Rule 23 | Motion to strike class allegations denied; discovery allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (Disparate treatment framework)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (Disparate impact legal standards)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Burden-shifting in discrimination claims)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (Pleading standards in discrimination cases)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Injury-in-fact for Article III standing)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (Disparate impact recognized as discrimination)