Mhany Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5441
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Nassau County owned a 25-acre "Social Services Site" in Garden City and sought to sell it; Garden City controlled zoning. County initially supported BFJ planners’ recommendation to rezone the site R-M (multi‑family up to ~311 units), which would have permitted affordable rental housing.
- Local residents strongly opposed multi‑family / affordable housing at public hearings, citing traffic, schools, property values, and preserving the "character" of Garden City; rhetoric used by residents invoked common code words tied to race/class fears.
- After months of study supporting R‑M, Garden City rapidly shifted to enacting an R‑T (townhouse / single‑family‑oriented) zone that effectively barred multi‑family affordable housing on most of the Site; the County later sold the Site to a single‑family home developer.
- Plaintiffs (MHANY and New York Communities for Change, successor to ACORN) sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause alleging disparate‑treatment and disparate‑impact discrimination in Garden City’s rezoning; they also sued Nassau County for related claims and for steering affordable housing to majority‑minority communities.
- The district court, after a bench trial, found Garden City liable for intentional discrimination and disparate impact under the FHA and for violations of § 1981, § 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause; it entered injunctive and remedial relief. The Second Circuit affirmed liability for disparate treatment, vacated the disparate‑impact ruling for reconsideration under HUD’s 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c), affirmed standing and non‑mootness, and remanded certain County‑related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Plaintiffs had a realistic, competitive bid and thus a concrete injury and redressability | Garden City: Plaintiffs couldn’t prove they would have won or completed project even under R‑M | Affirmed: Plaintiffs satisfied Article III standing; need not prove certainty, only a realistic opportunity |
| Mootness (voluntary cessation) | County’s courthouse plan is pretextual; threat of resumed discriminatory zoning remains | Defendants: courthouse construction makes FHA claim moot; challenged conduct ceased | Affirmed non‑moot: defendants failed to show it is "absolutely clear" conduct won’t recur; voluntary cessation exception applies |
| Disparate treatment (intent) | Rezoning was a capitulation to race‑coded resident opposition; officials knowingly responded to discriminatory animus | Garden City: decision motivated by legitimate concerns (traffic, schools, townhouses), not race | Affirmed: district court’s finding of intentional discrimination not clearly erroneous; mixed‑motive analysis showed discrimination was a determining factor |
| Disparate impact / burden allocation | Rezoning had disproportionate adverse effect on minorities; Plaintiffs need show less‑discriminatory alternative | Garden City: justified by bona fide interests; HUD rule shifts burdens differently than prior Second Circuit test | Vacated in part and remanded: HUD regulation (24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c)) governs burden‑shifting; remand to apply HUD framework (plaintiff must prove alternative with less discriminatory effect) |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory intent using circumstantial evidence and factors)
- United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987) (local resistance to subsidized housing as evidence of racially motivated municipal action)
- Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 689 F.2d 391 (2d Cir. 1982) (zoning that excludes multi‑family housing can violate FHA; standing principles for housing plaintiffs)
- Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (Supreme Court recognizing disparate‑impact claims under the FHA)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed‑motive burden‑shifting framework applied to discrimination claims)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)