66 F. Supp. 3d 285
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiff sued the Town of Oyster Bay and Town Supervisor Venditto under the Fair Housing Act for a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans through two affordable housing programs.
- Defendants moved to stay all proceedings pending the Supreme Court's Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project decision on disparate impact under the FHA.
- The Next Generation program, adopted in 2004, provided zoning incentives and residency preferences favoring Oyster Bay residents for first-time homebuyer units via LHIP administration.
- Lotteries for Next Generation units at Seasons at Plainview and Seasons at Massapequa predominantly awarded units to Oyster Bay residents or their children, with a largely white recipient pool and few, if any, African American winners.
- The Golden Age program, created in 1993, offered zone variances and residency preferences, with virtually all units purchased by whites and a racial makeup of eligible applicants skewed toward whites.
- Plaintiff alleges significant racial disparities in eligible pools and outcomes when compared to broader county and metropolitan area demographics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the case be stayed pending Texas DHCA decision? | Dispositive issue limited to disparate impact; intentional claims may survive. | Stay warranted as Texas DHCA could dispose of the case. | Denied; stay not warranted. |
| Does the complaint plausibly state an intentional discrimination claim under the FHA? | Statistics show disparate impact plus discriminatory intent supported by statements and sequence of events. | Disparate impact alone insufficient; intent not plausibly inferred. | Plaintiff pleads plausible intentional discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987) (intent may be inferred from cumulative circumstantial evidence)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (Supreme Ct. 1977) (contemporary statements and sequence of events inform discriminatory intent)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Ct. 1936) (stay decisions are incidental to court's control over docket with economy of time)
- Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (discourages reliance on naked disparate impact without considering context)