Fair Housing Council v. Roommate. Com, LLC
666 F.3d 1216
9th Cir.2012Background
- Roommate.com operates an online platform that requires users to disclose sex, sexual orientation, and familial status in profiles and search filters.
- Users can also express preferences in an Additional Comments section and Roommate matches users based on these preferences.
- Fair Housing Councils of SFV and SD sued in federal court alleging FHA and FEHA violations from Roommate's discriminatory prompts, search limitations, and matching based on protected characteristics.
- Prior district court dismissal was reversed to address only CDA immunity for publishing the Additional Comments, not for discriminatory prompts or matching.
- On remand, the district court held Roommate violated FHA and FEHA by prompting discriminatory preferences, matching based on those preferences, and publishing them.
- The court then granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction, and awarded attorney’s fees to the FHCs, which the cross-appeal contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FHA apply to sharing living units? | FHA reaches shared living arrangements via dwelling expansion. | FHA should not cover roommate selection within a shared living unit. | FHA does not apply to sharing living units. |
| Standing of FHCs to challenge Roommate's conduct | FHCs suffered organizational injury via diversion of resources and mission impact. | No injury-in-fact; standing not established without member-based injury. | FHCs have organizational standing; injury shown through resource diversion and mission impact. |
| Constitutional avoidance and FEHA applicability | FEHA should prohibit discrimination in roommate selection. | FEHA applies; but constitutional concerns may arise applying to roommates. | FEHA does not apply to sharing living units under the constitutional avoidance canon. |
| Scope of constitutional avoidance and statutory interpretation | Reading dwelling broadly to include shared living units is textually plausible. | Constitutional concerns require narrowing interpretation to avoid applying FHA to roommates. | Court adopts narrow dwelling interpretation excluding roommate selection from FHA. |
| Remand and fee implications | Injunction and fees should stand given FHA/FEHA concerns. | Judgment should be vacated and fees reconsidered post-detection of non-applicability. | Vacate district court judgment and remand for entry of judgment for Roommate; fees moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (organizational standing for injurious actions impairing mission)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1984) (right to intimate association includes freedom from compelled association)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (privacy and home intrusion considerations in intimate settings)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (home as center of private life; heightened privacy interests)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1988) (constitutional avoidance when interpreting statutes)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (avoid constitutional problems by choosing reasonable statutory construction)
- Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1987) (fundamental liberty and intimate association protected)
- Fair Housing Council of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (organizational standing and mission injury discussed in FHA context)
- Smith v. Pacific Prop. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (two-prong organizational standing test (mission frustration and resource diversion))