Linkletter v. Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc.
851 F.3d 632
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Linkletter accepted a job with Western & Southern but the offer was rescinded after company learned she signed an online petition supporting the Anna Louise Inn, a women’s shelter in Western & Southern’s neighborhood.
- Western & Southern had an ongoing, contentious real-estate dispute with the Inn; residents previously sued Western & Southern under the Fair Housing Act and later settled when the company purchased the property.
- Linkletter sued under 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (prohibiting interference for aiding or encouraging others’ exercise of rights under §§ 3603–3606) and analogous Ohio Civil Rights Act provisions, alleging the rescission was retaliation for her encouragement of the Inn residents’ housing rights under § 3604.
- The district court granted the defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion, finding Linkletter failed to plausibly plead that she “aided or encouraged” or that the rescission constituted prohibited “interference,” and dismissed the state-law claims for similar reasons.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed: it held (taking facts in plaintiff’s favor) that (1) rescinding an employment agreement can constitute “interference,” (2) signing the petition plausibly amounted to “aiding or encouraging,” and (3) there was a sufficient nexus to § 3604 to state a § 3617 claim; the state claims were reversed as well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescission of an employment offer is "interference" under § 3617 | Rescinding the offer hampered her employment prospects and therefore is interference | § 3617 is aimed at housing actors, not non-houser employers; rescission not within statute | Held: Rescission can be "interference"; employment retaliation falls within § 3617's scope |
| Whether signing a petition qualifies as "aided or encouraged" others' housing rights | Signing a public petition supporting the Inn encouraged residents to remain and oppose pressure to leave | Petition was minor, indirect, not sufficiently concrete or direct encouragement | Held: Petition-signing plausibly constitutes encouragement given context and effect (it led to termination) |
| Whether Linkletter’s actions sufficiently nexus to rights in § 3604 (sex-discrimination in housing) | The petition was tied to the Inn’s struggle over location and therefore implicated § 3604 protections for women | Underlying company conduct was economic, not discriminatory animus; no housing actor requirement | Held: Allegations (and the Cooper litigation) sufficiently tie the petition to § 3604; discriminatory effect or animus can be shown by effect, not motive; non-housers can be liable |
| Whether Ohio state-law claims should be dismissed | State statutes mirror federal law; same facts support state claims | Same defenses as federal; district court dismissed them | Held: State claims reversed along with federal claim; treated analogously to § 3617 analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001) (employment rescission can be "interference" under housing-retaliation analysis)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (standing and injury principles in Fair Housing Act enforcement)
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (broad, inclusive reading of Fair Housing Act’s scope)
- Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood, Ohio, 734 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2013) (§ 3617 requires a nexus to protected housing rights but not proof of underlying violation)
- Mich. Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 18 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1994) (remedial statutes like the FHA construed broadly; discussion of when non-housers may be reached)
- Cooper v. Western & Southern Fin. Group, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (district-court findings detailing Western & Southern’s campaign against the Anna Louise Inn residents)