854 F. Supp. 2d 832
D. Mont.2012Background
- Fair Housing sues Bozeman for exclusionary zoning and discrimination in housing-related enforcement and licensing under federal and Montana law.
- Bozeman adopted the Unified Development Ordinance in 2004, including § 18.16.020 (Authorized Uses) and § 18.80.1390 (Household Definition).
- Authorized Uses restricts Assisted Living/Elderly Care Facilities in several districts and conditions their use in others, while single-household dwellings are permitted everywhere.
- Household Definition defines household and explicitly limits certain configurations, including handicapped-related restrictions, with complex disjunctive language.
- Fair Housing asserts counts under FHA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act (Counts III–V), Montana Human Rights Act (Counts VII), and Montana Governmental Code of Fair Practices (Count VIII) seeking summary judgment.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Fair Housing’s motion for summary judgment on Counts III–VII, but denies summary judgment on Count VIII.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial discrimination of Authorized Uses under federal acts | Fair Housing contends the table excludes facilities for disabled/elderly in certain districts. | Bozeman argues not facially discriminatory due to interpretation of the ordinance and related provisions. | Authorized Uses facially discriminatory under FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act. |
| Discriminatory statement under FHA via Authorized Uses | Authorized Uses communicates preference/discrimination based on handicap. | Discrimination not proven as facial policy justified. | Yes, violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). |
| Unlawful steering under FHA via Authorized Uses | Policy directs disabled to certain districts, effectuating steering. | Not enough evidence of discriminatory intent; intent mixed with policy interpretation. | Summary judgment denied on unlawful steering due to evidentiary issues. |
| Household Definition Section facially discriminatory and discriminatory statement under federal acts | Section purportedly discriminates against handicapped and unmarried by restrictive clause. | Not facially discriminatory; redundancy not equal to discrimination. | Not facially discriminatory under FHA; discriminatory statement claim denied; later granted under Montana HR Act. |
| Affirmative duties under Montana Governmental Code (Count VIII) | Bozeman failed to engage in affirmative duties to eliminate discrimination. | Bozeman evidence shows internal reviews and policy changes; issues of motive factual. | Summary judgment denied; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Edmonds v. Washington State Building Code Council, 18 F.3d 802 (9th Cir.1994) (ihi application of federal housing acts to zoning)
- Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 490 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2007) (facial discrimination standard under FHA)
- Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.1999) (reasonable/legitimate safety concerns required for discrimination)
- Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300 (9th Cir.1997) (McDonnell Douglas/Burdine not applicable to facial discrimination)
- Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2008) (McDonnell Douglas/Burdine not applicable to facial discrimination)
- Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521 (7th Cir.1990) (discriminatory intent not required for effect-based analysis)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (constitutional zoning power does not exempt compliance with anti-discrimination laws)
- Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) (zoning and housing restrictions subject to due process/equal protection constraints)