Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center, Inc. v. Plantation Management Company, LLC
2:20-cv-02339
| E.D. La. | Mar 2, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center (LFHAC), a testing/advocacy nonprofit, alleges Greenbriar Community Care Center staff refused in-person or VRI-assisted ASL interpretation for prospective deaf residents based on testing contacts in 2018.
- LFHAC asserts CommCare Corporation and CommCare Management Corporation own, operate, or manage Greenbriar and that Greenbriar employees acted as their agents.
- LFHAC brings claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Rehabilitation Act, the ACA (incorporating Rehabilitation Act standards), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Louisiana negligent supervision/training law; seeks declaratory, injunctive, damages, and fees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement, arguing LFHAC failed to plead how Movants are liable, lacked standing, and improperly grouped distinct corporate roles.
- The court considered the pleadings, briefing, and controlling pleading/standing standards and denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (organizational injury) | LFHAC diverted significant resources to testing and investigations after learning of discrimination, impairing its mission. | LFHAC is not an "aggrieved person"; testers cited are not parties; LFHAC failed to plead concrete organizational injury. | LFHAC has standing: alleged diversion of resources and impairment of mission suffices at pleading stage. |
| Sufficiency of pleading generally (12(b)(6)) | Complaint alleges ownership/operation/management roles and that staff (agents) refused accommodations; includes detailed tester interactions. | Allegations lump entities together, fail to show how Movants committed violations, and do not give fair notice to prepare an answer. | Complaint pleads sufficient factual matter to make liability plausible and to permit discovery; 12(b)(6) dismissal denied. |
| FHA claim | Movants, as owners/operators/managers, are liable for agents' refusals to make reasonable accommodations (ASL/VRI). | Owners/operators/managers are distinct; liability should not be presumed without clearer allegations of control/role. | Allegations that Movants are owners/operators/managers and agents refused accommodations are sufficient to state an FHA claim. |
| Rehabilitation Act / ACA claims | Greenbriar received federal financial assistance and denied benefits to deaf individuals by refusing interpreters; ACA incorporates Rehab Act framework. | Movants (esp. management corp) may not receive federal funds or provide covered programs; pleadings insufficient. | Pleadings adequately allege qualifying disability, denial of benefits based on disability, and receipt of federal assistance; claims survive. |
| ADA claim | Greenbriar is a place of public accommodation; owners/operators are liable and can be vicariously liable for agents' discrimination. | Distinction between owners/operators and managing entities matters; insufficient facts tying Movants to operation of public accommodation. | Allegations that Movants own/operate/manage Greenbriar and that agents discriminated are sufficient to state an ADA claim. |
| Louisiana negligent supervision/training | Movants breached duty by failing to provide interpretive services, causing LFHAC's diversion of resources. | Movants argue state-law claim not tied to specific statute and corporate role unclear. | Pleadings meet duty-risk negligence framework at pleading stage; state-law claim survives. |
| Rule 12(e) more definite statement | N/A — LFHAC contends complaint is detailed and gives notice. | Complaint is too vague to permit a response. | Complaint provides sufficient short, plain statement and factual detail (including quotations); 12(e) motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (summary of pleading standard; legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim beyond speculation)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (pleading standard and civil complaints)
- Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (standing principles for testers/organizations in fair housing context)
- Francois v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 8 F.4th 370 (5th Cir.) (ACA incorporates Rehabilitation Act framework for disability claims)
- Neff v. Am. Dairy Queen Corp., 58 F.3d 1063 (5th Cir.) (liability of owners/operators under public-accommodation statutes)
- Rodriguez v. Baird’s Bakery, Inc., 111 F.3d 893 (5th Cir.) (vicarious liability for agent actions under ADA)