Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc.
394 U.S. App. D.C. 239
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- ERC sued Post under FHA and ADA alleging inaccessible housing and that Post harmed ERC's mission and forced resource diversion.
- District court granted summary judgment for Post, finding ERC lacked standing because injury was self-inflicted by ERC's investigation/litigation.
- Court reviews standing de novo and applies Article III standing; precedents discuss whether organizational injuries may be fairly traceable to defendant's conduct.
- Court concludes ERC failed to show injury in fact existed at time suit was filed; documents offered post-discovery do not establish concrete, imminent injury.
- Court adopts a less demanding standing test for organizational plaintiffs than the district court applied, focusing on injury to ERC's interest and counteracting actions taken by ERC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERC has organizational standing under the FHA | ERC's injury to its mission and need to counteract discrimination constitutes injury in fact | ERC's costs are self-inflicted and not due to Post's conduct | ERC lacks standing at filing; requires concrete injury since filing |
| Whether expenditures on testing and litigation support standing | Diverting resources to counteract discrimination counts as injury | Testing expenditures are self-inflicted and not recoverable | Testing/litigation costs alone do not establish standing; must be linked to injury from defendant’s action |
| Whether the post-discovery documents establish injury in fact at filing | Documents show countermeasures to pursue mission | Documents do not specify timing or concrete injury | Documents fail to show injury in fact existed when suit was filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (injury to open housing could be a cognizable injury in fact for standing)
- Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (organizational standing for advertising discrimination)
- Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc. v. BMC Mktg. Corp., 28 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (testing expenditures may be self-inflicted; but counteracting effects can support injury in fact)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires actual or imminent injury at time of filing)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1989) (jurisdiction facts generally assessed at time complaint is filed)