993 F.3d 970
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Stanley Webb, a disabled veteran, was referred to U.S. Vets for housing and qualified for a one-bedroom unit under its Shelter Plus Care program but was placed in a multiple-occupancy unit under a different program.
- Webb alleges that U.S. Vets later placed a less-qualified female applicant in a one-bedroom Shelter Plus Care unit and told Webb she received preferential treatment because she was female.
- Webb filed a HUD complaint; the D.C. Office of Human Rights found no probable cause. He then sued U.S. Vets pro se in federal district court under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1), reasoning Webb paid no rent and thus lacked a legally protected interest under the FHA; it also granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege actual injury.
- The D.C. Circuit considered whether §3604(a)’s prohibition on making a dwelling “unavailable” for a protected reason allows suit by someone who did not pay rent and whether Webb’s pro se filings adequately preserved his allegations.
- The court reversed and remanded, holding Webb may be an “aggrieved person” under the FHA and that his consolidated pro se filings sufficiently alleged discrimination for the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person who paid no rent can be an “aggrieved person” under the FHA to sue for discrimination under §3604(a) | Webb: §3604(a) bars making a dwelling “unavailable” based on sex, so paying rent is not required to be an aggrieved person | U.S. Vets: FHA claims require being a buyer/renter; because Webb paid no rent he lacks standing/ a protected interest | Held: Reversed — §3604(a)’s “otherwise make unavailable” covers conduct beyond refusing to sell or rent; paying rent is not required to sue |
| Whether Webb’s amended complaint abandoned allegations in his original complaint (and so failed to state a claim) | Webb: Pro se filings should be read together; the HUD complaint and other filings preserve the original factual allegations | U.S. Vets: The amended complaint superseded and did not repeat the original factual allegations | Held: Reversed — under pro se standards courts consider all filings; Webb’s subsequent filings show intent to supplement, so allegations survive pleading challenge |
| Whether Webb’s lack of deprivation of housing (he was not made homeless) defeats an FHA claim for making a dwelling unavailable | Webb: Being denied a qualifying one-bedroom on account of sex is an injury under §3604(a) whether or not he lost his current housing | U.S. Vets: No actual injury because Webb was never deprived of a place to live or rent-free apartment | Held: Rejected — §3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable; plaintiff need not be rendered homeless to state a claim |
| Whether the FHA applies only to pre-acquisition discrimination (not transfers or post-acquisition requests) | Webb: The refusal occurred at the outset when he sought a one-bedroom; in any event FHA reaches post-acquisition transfers | U.S. Vets: FHA does not cover post-acquisition grievances/transfer requests | Held: Rejected — FHA is not limited to conduct at sale/rental moment; courts have recognized post-acquisition claims are covered |
Key Cases Cited
- 2922 Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Ass’n v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (construing §3604(a) to cover making housing “unavailable” beyond simple refusal to sell or rent)
- Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, 137 S. Ct. 1296 (2017) (FHA standing can include plaintiffs who are not buyers or renters)
- Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards)
- Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 789 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts should consider all filings by a pro se litigant together when evaluating claims)
- In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2000) (amended complaint generally supersedes the original complaint)
- Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange, 940 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2019) (the FHA is not limited to discriminatory conduct occurring only at the moment of sale or rental)
- The Committee Concerning Community Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2009) (the FHA reaches post-acquisition discrimination)
- Clifton Terrace Assocs. v. United Techs. Corp., 929 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (distinguished here as addressing standing of property owners under §3604(b), not timing of discriminatory conduct)