Jeremy Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Add., 104 F.4th 1128

Background

Jeremy and Kristy Morris planned multi-night, large-scale Christmas displays (lights, live nativity, costumed characters, buses, volunteers) after moving into West Hayden Estates; HOA CC&R provisions limit uses, nuisances, and exterior lighting.
Prior to closing, Morris asked the HOA whether the program would be permitted; the HOA circulated a January 2015 letter warning the program likely violated CC&Rs and included a sentence referencing "non-Christians or of another faith" and "undesirables." A draft contained harsher language that was revised before mailing.
The HOA called a February 2015 membership meeting that warned residents about the event (exaggerating size/traffic), and the membership present voted against allowing the event; the HOA later sent an October 2015 enforcement letter threatening legal action if no written approval was obtained.
The Morrises nevertheless hosted the event in 2015–2016; neighborhood hostility and some threatening incidents occurred (including an alleged death threat by a neighbor); the HOA did not sue but later sought to enjoin future events via counterclaim.
The Morrises sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) §§ 3604(b), 3604(c), and 3617 alleging religion-based discrimination and hostile-housing conduct; a jury found for the Morrises and awarded damages, but the district court granted JMOL for the HOA, or alternatively a new trial/remittitur, and enjoined the Morrises for future CC&R-violating events.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit: affirmed JMOL for §§ 3604(b) and 3604(c); reversed JMOL on § 3617 (interference) because sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict; affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial as an alternative; and vacated the injunction pending retrial on the § 3617 claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Morris)	Defendant's Argument (HOA)	Held
Whether HOA’s pre- and post-sale conduct constituted disparate treatment under § 3604(b)	HOA discouraged purchase and selectively enforced CC&Rs based partly on anti-Christian animus	Actions were neutral enforcement/legitimate neighborhood concerns (traffic, safety, lighting), no concrete adverse impact	JMOL affirmed for HOA — no sufficient evidence of concrete adverse action supporting § 3604(b) disparate-treatment claim
Whether HOA’s January 2015 letter violated § 3604(c) (statement indicating religious preference)	Letter’s mention of faith and “undesirables” conveyed an ordinary-reader message preferring non-religious buyers	Letter, read objectively, expresses concern about disturbance/traffic, not a seller-buyer religious preference	JMOL affirmed for HOA — ordinary-reader standard shows letter did not indicate a preference that non-religious buy the home
Whether HOA’s conduct "threatened, intimidated, or interfered" with Morrises’ FHA rights under § 3617	Board’s letters, meeting, circulated materials, and statements (e.g., “someone in this association doesn’t like Christmas”) show interference motivated at least partly by religion	Conduct reflected legitimate efforts to enforce CC&Rs and address disruption; statements are ambiguous/isolated	JMOL reversed as to § 3617 — sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find interfering conduct motivated in part by religion
Whether HOA may be liable under § 3604(b) for neighbor-on-neighbor harassment the HOA tolerated	HOA’s failure to stop or use remedial tools made it liable for a hostile housing environment tied to religion	HOA lacks landlord-like control over homeowners; CC&R remedies did not clearly cover the conduct alleged	Court affirmed JMOL for HOA on harassment theory — HOA not shown to have had and failed to deploy remedial tools to stop third-party harassment

Key Cases Cited

McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (FHA construed broadly; generous construction of anti-discrimination provisions)
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1995) (FHA’s broad remedial compass; interpret liberally)
Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (HOA’s discriminatory enforcement of neutral rules can violate FHA)
Pacific Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2013) (direct or circumstantial evidence may establish discriminatory motive; adverse effects requirement)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment; but not the only path to prove intent)
Jancik v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., 44 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 1995) (adoption of objective "ordinary reader" standard for § 3604(c) claims)
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018) (landlord liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment where landlord had notice and failed to take remedial steps)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile-environment theory adapted from Title VII to analogous contexts)