Smith v. NYCHA, 410 F. App'x 404

Smith, pro se, sued NYCHA in the SDNY alleging disability-related housing discrimination and disrepair in her building.
The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The court treated FHA and ADA claims as potentially parallel and analyzed them together.
Smith alleged that disrepair in her apartment and building related to her disabilities and sought relief under FHA and ADA theories including disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
The majority of complained-of conditions affected the entire building and Smith did not show discriminatory animus by NYCHA.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding Smith failed to plead facts supporting any discrimination theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith stated a claim of disability discrimination.	Smith alleged NYCHA discriminated due to disability.	NYCHA lacked discriminatory animus and failed to link disrepair to disability.	No plausible discrimination claim; dismissal affirmed.
Whether Smith stated a plausible disparate treatment claim under FHA/ADA.	Disrepair and maintenance delays were tied to disability status.	No evidence of discriminatory motive by NYCHA.	Disparate treatment claim inadequately pled; affirmed.
Whether Smith stated a viable disparate impact claim.	Neutral policy could have a discriminatory effect on disabled tenants.	No identified facially neutral policy with discriminatory impact.	Disparate impact claim not stated.
Whether Smith stated a viable reasonable accommodation claim.	Requests for accommodations were denied or not adequately considered.	No evidence Smith requested a considered accommodation under established procedures.	No reasonable accommodation claim stated.

RECAP v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002) (disparate impact framework requires showing facially neutral policy with discriminatory effect)
Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (disparate impact and discrimination analysis guidance; requires neutral policy with impact)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires factual pleading showing discriminatory purpose)
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (pleading standards for claims must be plausible)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (factual allegations must render claim plausible, not merely possible)
Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Cuomo, 624 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2010) (court may affirm district court on any ground in the record)