Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc.
916 F. Supp. 2d 375
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege MA and Abba discriminated against Keith Short, a disabled HASA subsidized tenant, in housing rental services.
- Plaintiffs pursue FHA claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(c), (d), (f)(1)-(2) and NYCHRL claims for disability and source-of-income discrimination.
- FHJC conducted testing and recorded conversations showing treatment of HASA clients versus non-HASA; MA and Abba allegedly refused or limited HASA clients’ access.
- HASA rental program details: subsidies, payments for rent/fees, and processing delays; defendants claim landlords’ preferences and program rules influence outcomes.
- Court held four-day trial; found no FHA-disparate-impact liability but did find NYCHRL source-of-income discrimination against both Defendants, and dismissal of FHA disparate-impact claims.
- Court awarded compensatory damages to Short and FHJC, and issued a broad injunction plus a non-discrimination policy/training mandate for MA and Abba.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHA disparate-impact claims exist | Short/ FHJC rely on disability and subsidy impact. | No disparate impact; no statistically proven correlation. | Plaintiffs fail to prove prima facie disparate-impact under FHA |
| Whether FHA § 3604(c) claims against Abba survive | Statements indicating HASA/subsidy preferences violate 3604(c). | Statements do not reflect protected-class preference; not discriminatory. | Abba wins on § 3604(c) claim |
| NYCHRL disability discrimination viability | Discrimination against HASA-disabled individuals under liberal NYCHRL reading. | No disproportionate impact shown; NYCHRL floor does not widen to prevent assistance delays. | Defendants prevail on NYCHRL disability claims |
| NYCHRL source-of-income discrimination viability | Direct evidence of discrimination against HASA/SG subsidies; intentional withholding. | Burden-shifting analysis required; claims lack smoking-gun evidence. | Plaintiffs prevail; MA and Abba liable for source-of-income discrimination |
| Appropriate damages and injunctive relief under NYCHRL | Seek compensatory, punitive damages; injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices. | Limited damages; no punitive damages due to lack of malice and lack of awareness. | Awarded $20,000 to Short; $5,000 to FHJC; injunctive relief with training and policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Soules v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir.1992) (ordinary listener standard for 3604(c))
- Sassower v. Field, 752 F.Supp.1190 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (agency liability and substantial assistance in discrimination)
- Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (broad, liberal FHA construction)
- Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.1988) (statistical proofs in disparate impact cases)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (burden-shifting framework relevance to discrimination claims)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (agency liability and vicarious liability principles)
- Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman LLC, 808 F.Supp.2d 606 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (3604(c) ordinary listener approach and context)