SCALES Property Final

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

is a provision in the United States Constitution that prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law.

What is the purpose of the FHA?

1. To eliminate housing discrimination and

2. Promote integration

Who must comply with FHA laws?

• Landlord and their employees

• Real estate brokers, salesperson, agents, and their employees

• Savings and loan associations, mortgage lenders, banks, or other financial institutions

• Apartment managers, superintendents, and employees

• Builders, appraisers, contractors and developers

• Homeowners advertising and selling their home

• Condo and townhome owner associations

• Government agencies

Who does the FHA exempts to?

Owner occupied buildings with less than 4 units, religious and private clubs

Who is a “protected Class” under the FHA?

• Race

• Color

• Religion

• Sex

• Familial Status (presence of children under 18)

• National Origin

• Disability (mental or physical)

What are the two types of FHA violations?

Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact

What is Disparate Treatment?

From overt discrimination to more subtle disparities in treatment where a party treats and applicant differently based on their protected status.

Example of Disparate Treatment?

• a real estate agent only shows a black couple homes where neighborhood is almost exclusively black or non-white

• landlord requires single mother to pay a higher security deposit

What is disparate Impact?

a neutral policy has a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected class

Examples of disparate impact?

• zoning restrictions

• residency preferences

What is a motion to dismiss?

a request made to a court, usually by the defendant to terminate a case before it proceeds to trial. It argues that even if all the facts presented in the plaintiff’s complaint are true, the law does not support the claims being, or there are other legal reasons why the case should not continue. Failure to state a claim, test the legal sufficiency of the claim (you just need a complaint), so is this complaint legally sufficient. (JUST NEED A COMPLAINT)

What does precedent mean when a court says “we used precedent”?

 prior court decision/case that serves as an example or authority for deciding cases involving similar issues or facts. 

What is a summary judgment?

If the evidence is sufficient then there is no need for a full trial,requires evidence 

What is the two prong test for motion for summary judgment?

1. No real argument about the important facts

Both sides agree on the key facts, or the evidence clearly shows what happened. There’s nothing major to fight over in terms of what the facts are.

2. The law is on the moving party’s side

Based on those facts, the law clearly supports the person asking for summary judgment. Even if the other side disagrees, they can’t win under the law.

What do you need to have standing in court

A distinct plausible injury to have standing

1. Injury

You must be personally harmed in some real way.

• This can be physical, financial, or even a loss of rights.

• It can’t just be that you’re upset or don’t like what happened — it has to affect you directly.

2. Causation

The harm you suffered must be caused by the person or group you’re suing.

• There has to be a clear link between what they did and how you were hurt.

3. Redressability

The court must be able to do something to fix it.

• A win in court should actually help or solve your problem.

Difference between Civil Case vs Criminal?

Civil requires intent, Criminal does not.

What is the difference between a claim under the statue The FHA (42 U.S.C. Section 3604) and FHA (42 U.S.C Section 1982) claim?

Intent is required for a Section 1982 claim.

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only apply to state action?

Yes it only applies to state action, not purely private conduct

Are private racial covenants unconstitutional by themselves?

No, private racial covenants are not unconstitutional by themselves, as they do not involve state action. But once state courts enforce them, that enforcement counts as state action, which brings the 14th Amendment into play and can render them unconstitutional.

Can Courts enforce a racially restrictive covenant?

No, using the courts to enforce a racially restrictive is the state acting to discriminate, which is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Reinforces that all citizens, regardless of race, have the same right to buy, own, and occupy property.

The FHA (42 U.S.C. Section 3604)

prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing, based on race, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.

• Cross burning and racial threats that interfere with peaceful residence violate this section.
  

FHA 42 U.S.C Section 3604

It is illegal to refuse to rent or negotiate for housing based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Is discriminatory Intent required in the FHA 42 U.S.C Section 3604?

No, discriminatory intent is not required. The plaintiff only needs to show that the refusal to rent occurred because of race. The Fair Housing Act does not require proof of discriminatory intent; it is sufficient to demonstrate that a housing refusal was based on protected characteristics such as race.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 ( 42 U.S.C Section 1982)

prohibits racial discrimination in property transactions, ensuring that all U.S. citizens have the same rights to lease, sell, or purchase property as white citizens.

Is intent discrimination required in Civil Rights Act of 1866 ( 42 U.S.C. 1982)?

Yes, intent to discriminate is required under this statute. It can be proven through direct statements and actions

Can a property owner be held liable for the discriminatory acts of an agent (like manager)?

Yes, if the agent was acting within the scope of their authority. However, punitive damages require proof that the owner knew of or approved the discriminatory conduct.

What is the first thing you have to do to file under the 42 U.S.C Section 1982 statute from the Civil Rights Act of 1866?

prima facie case

What do you need to make a prima facie case of racial discrimination in property transactions?

1. Demonstrate that you are a member of a protected class, and the discriminator knew

2. You were qualified for the housing

3. You were denied, and the property remained available to other applicants outside the protected class

Is verbal statements the only thing that qualifies as “intent” under 42 U.S.C section 1982?

No, intent can also be demonstrated through actions and conduct that imply discriminatory motivation. (new rules, unequal treatment, racial remarks)

After you establish a prima facie case what happens?

1. The burden of proof shifts to the opposing party to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their actions

2. Then after the party who initiated the prima facie case can show those reasons are pre-textual. (so false or made up reasons used to conceal the truth)

Are rumors and hearsay sufficient to rebut a discrimination claim?

No.

Can subjective or speculative excuses justify a denial if racial bias might be involved?

No

True or False: Discriminatory intent is not required to prove a violation, disparate treatment or impact is enough to file a violation under the statue FHA (42 U.S.C Section 3604)

True

Can a landlord be held responsible for discriminatory acts or statements made by agents even unpaid ones?

Yes, if they are acting on the landlords behalf according to Harris v. Itzhaki

What happens if material facts like credibility, motivation, or intent are in dispute?

The case must go to trial/not be dismissed by summary judgment

Is disparate impact enough to prove a violation?

Yes a neutral policy can be unlawful if it disproportionately harms a protected group. There is no need to show racial intent, just effect

Disparate Impact Legal Framwork?

• Step 1 (Plaintiff): Show a prima facie case of discrimination (e.g., statistics proving minorities are disproportionately harmed).
  
  

• Step 2 (Defendant): Prove the policy serves a legitimate, nondiscriminatory goal (e.g., eliminating blight).
  
  

• Step 3 (Plaintiff): Show there’s a less discriminatory alternative that would meet the same goal.
  
  

Can Statistical Evidence Prove Discrimination?

Yes like in Mt. Holly Gardens v. Township of Mount Holly, the court used that black and hispanic residents were 8-11 times more likely to be displaced than white residents.

To prove a consitutional violation what do you need?

Plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination, but for FHA claims disparate impact alone is sufficient.

What do you need to do to have standing/sue in federal court?

• Injury in Fact: A real and concrete harm (e.g., lost tax revenue, increased city service costs).
  
  

• Causation: A direct link between Citi’s conduct and the City’s harm.
  
  

• Redressability: A court decision could remedy the harm (through damages or injunctive relief).
  
  

The court held that statistical evidence and specific allegations of reverse redlining satisfied these requirements.

Is there a limitation on the statue/ timing?

• FHA claims must generally be brought within 2 years of the discriminatory act.
  
  

• But if the discrimination is part of a pattern or continuing violation, the time limit resets with the last act in that pattern.
  
  

The court agreed the City alleged a continuing violation over eight years, so the claim was timely. In city of Los angeles v. citigroup

18 U.S.C. Section 241 - Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights

• The government must prove that:
  
  

  • The defendant knowingly agreed with another person,
    
    

  • To injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone's exercise of rights under federal law.
    
    

• No overt act is required under this statute.
  
  

An agreement can be shown by circumstantial evidence (e.g., shared motive, presence, statements, or coordinated action).

42 U.S.C Section 3631(a) – Interference with Housing Rights

• Requires proof the defendant willfully acted with the specific intent to:
  
  

  • Injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone
    
    

  • Because of their race and because of their housing status (residence or occupancy).
    
    

Even slight participation in a racially motivated act can qualify as aiding and abetting if the defendant intends the crime to succeed.

How can a defendant be liable with that statute?

• A defendant can be liable if they:
  
  

  • Associate with the criminal venture,
    
    

  • Participate in it by words or gestures,
    
    

And seek to make it succeed.
Like in U.S. Whitney

Use of Co-Defendants Guilty Pleas

• Co-defendants’ pleas can be introduced to explain credibility.
  
  

• They cannot be used as direct proof of the defendant’s guilt.
  
  

• Lack of jury instructions about this is reviewed under plain error:
  
  

  • Was the error clear?
    
    

  • Did it affect the defendant’s substantial rights or trial fairness?

Sentencing Juvenile Status offenses

• Sentencing Guidelines typically exclude juvenile status offenses (like “minor in possession”).
  
  

• But inclusion is not plain error if:
  
  

  • The law is unsettled,
    
    

  • Or if the defendant was not under 18 at the time,
    
    

Or if the conduct (e.g., DUI) is criminal regardless of age.

In Whitney vs. U.S. what did the court decide on him for section 241?

He was found guilty based on: racial slurs, presence during planning, and encouragement of the cross burning.

• Testimony showed he may have initiated the idea.
  
  

• He was informed about the act and responded calmly, which supports an inference of agreement.
  
  

The court said a reasonable jury could find Whitney was part of the conspiracy, even if he didn’t physically burn the cross.

Bottom Line: Whitney’s role—though not physical—was enough for criminal liability under federal civil rights laws. His appeal failed because the evidence supported both the conspiracy and interference charges, and procedural issues didn’t rise to plain error.

True or false, If they own less than 4 units, they would still be liable if they are a real estate agent and if the owner uses real estate professionals or agents they are liable

True like in U.S. Hylton, HREM was liable because 3603 (b)(1) exemption did not apply due to use of HREM as a real estate service, and Mr.Hylton acted as a real estate agent and conducted rental business using company resources.

When are Punitive Damages allowed under the FHA?

• Allowed when a defendant acts with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.
  
  

The court may consider the financial condition of the defendant and whether they showed remorse.

What do compensatory damages include?

• Includes emotional distress, out-of-pocket losses, and loss of housing opportunity.
  
  

• Courts rely on testimony and evidence of actual impact to calculate amounts.
  
  

Is the legal ownership the only hold in 42. U.S.C section 1982?

No, use and enjoyment of the home are included, and racial harassment that disrupts this rights violates section 1982 like in Whisby-Myers v. Kiekenapp.

What does FHA(42 U.S.C Section 3617) say?

• makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with anyone’s exercise of housing rights under the FHA.

• Makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person’s housing rights because of race.
  
  

• This applies even after the housing has already been obtained—use and enjoyment are protected.
  
  

Does the FHA apply even after a property is bought?

Yes and it covers use and enjoyment of the home, not just sales or rentals.

What do you need to sue/have standing under section 1982? A plaintiff must show what?

• Injury in fact (e.g., emotional harm, loss of use of property),
  
  

• The injury is caused by defendant’s conduct,
  
  

• A favorable court ruling could redress the injury.
  
  

The plaintiffs must be within the “zone of interests” the law is meant to protect.

What do you need for federal pleading standards?

What is included in the FHA exemption (42 U.S.C section 3604 (b) )

• Exempts owners of single-family homes from some FHA provisions only during the sale or rental process.
  
  

• Does not apply to post-sale harassment like racial intimidation from a neighbor.
  
  

Thus, Kiekenapp’s conduct is not protected under this exemption.

Does the FHA still apply to post-acquisitions discrmination?

yes, even if there was no rental or sale, it is irrelevant like in Whisby Myers v. Kiekanapp.

true or false: Racial harassment by a neighbor that disrupts a family’s peaceful enjoyment of their home violates both § 1982 and the FHA, even when there is no sale, rental, or transaction involved. The law protects not just the right to acquire housing, but to live safely and equally within it.

True

True or False: Intimidation aimed at making a person feel unwelcome in their home violates § 1982.

True, like in Wells v. Rhode

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) – Civil Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights

• Requires four elements:
  
  

  1. A conspiracy between two or more persons,
     
     

  2. A purpose to deprive a person of equal protection or rights,
     
     

  3. An overt act in furtherance of that goal,
     
     

  4. Resulting injury or deprivation of rights.
     
     

Must show racial or class-based discriminatory intent.

Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.70 – Ethnic Intimidation

• Makes it a civil violation to engage in conduct motivated by racial hostility that intimidates or threatens.
  
  

Plaintiffs may recover for serious emotional distress, even without physical injury or medical testimony, if credible personal accounts are provided.

Summary judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

§ 1985(3) – Civil Rights Conspiracy

In Wells v. Rhodes: Rhodes conspired with D.G. to deprive the family of their civil rights.

There was a concrete agreement, racial motivation (e.g., KKK references, slurs), an overt act (burning the cross), and clear emotional harm to the family.

FHA § 3617 – Interference with Housing Rights

In wells v. Rhodes: Held: Rhodes violated the FHA.

Reason: Burning a racially marked cross to frighten a Black family interfered with their right to live peacefully in their home. Physical injury is not required—emotional harm and disruption of home life are sufficient

Does racially motivated intimidation on a family’s lawn constiutues a violation of civil rights law?

• Yes, Racially motivated intimidation (like cross burning) on a family’s lawn constitutes a violation of civil rights law, including:
  
  

  • § 1982 (property rights),
    
    

  • § 1985(3) (civil conspiracy),
    
    

and FHA § 3617 (interference with housing rights).

True or false: The court does not require medical records to prove emotional harm—personal and corroborated testimony is sufficient.

true

true or false: Intent can be inferred from the act itself; one cannot burn a cross with racial slurs and later claim “I didn’t mean to discriminate.”

true

true or false: Under the FHA, post-rental discrimination is just as illegal as denying housing in the first place.

true

Rule (b) (1) and Rule(b)(6) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL procedure`

• 12(b)(1): Dismiss if the plaintiff lacks standing/jurisdiction.
  
  

• 12(b)(6): Dismiss if the complaint fails to state a legally valid claim.
  
  

• 12(f): Allows a court to strike “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” matter, but the standard is very high.
  
  

The court denied all these motions, ruling the City had met the legal thresholds. In city of Los Angeles v. Citigroup

Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (California Law)

• While “restitution” isn’t its own cause of action, claims can survive if the plaintiff alleges the defendant unfairly benefited at their expense.
  
  

The City claimed Citi shifted the cost of foreclosures (which it caused) onto the City. That was enough to proceed.

Punitive Damages and Injunctive Relief

• Punitive damages are allowed if the plaintiff shows intentional or reckless misconduct.
  
  

• Injunctions are allowed if there’s ongoing harm.
  
  

The court said both were potentially justified based on the City’s allegations of intentional targeting of minority borrowers.

Corporate liability

• A parent company (e.g., Citigroup) can be liable if it approved, directed, or benefited from a subsidiary’s (e.g., CitiMortgage’s) actions.
  
  

• Agency principles apply when companies act in coordination or as each other’s agents.
  
  

• The City’s general allegations about agency relationships were sufficient at the pleading stage.
  
  

In city of Los angeles v. Citigroup what did they say about disparate impact and treatment?

• Disparate Treatment: The City’s complaint alleged intentional targeting of minorities, backed by statistical patterns and lending behavior.
  
  

Disparate Impact: The complaint also showed that Citi’s neutral lending policies had disproportionate effects on minority communities.

What is a motion to strike?

a legal request made to a judge, asking for the removal of specific parts of a party's legal document, such as a complaint, answer, or other pleading, or for the removal of evidence from the court record. This can be done to eliminate irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material, or to strike evidence that is not admissible. 

Nia and her two children, who are African American, move into a rented duplex in a predominantly white neighborhood. Their next-door neighbor, Carl, is visibly unhappy about their arrival. A week after they move in, Carl places a large Confederate flag in his window facing Nia’s unit. He also installs a floodlight that shines directly into her children’s bedroom at night.

One morning, Nia finds a handwritten note taped to her door that says, “You don’t belong here. We like things the way they used to be.” A few nights later, loud banging sounds wake her up. When she looks outside, she sees Carl and two other men laughing and speeding off in a truck.

Over the next month, Nia finds broken glass scattered across her driveway on three occasions. Her landlord is notified and says he “doesn’t want to get involved in neighbor disputes.” Nia calls the police, but they say there’s not enough evidence to press charges.

Nia stops letting her children play outside, installs cameras, and begins searching for a new place to live. She notices her children showing signs of anxiety and having trouble sleeping. When she speaks to other neighbors, she finds out Carl previously said, “I’ll run them out just like the last ones.”

She later learns that one of Carl’s friends posted a photo of her house on social media with the caption: “Let’s make the neighborhood great again.”

Issue 1:

My first issue is Whether Carl’s conduct constitutes unlawful interference with Nia’s housing rights under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Under § 3617 of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), it is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the enjoyment of their housing rights because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. These categories define the protected classes eligible to bring claims under the FHA. Courts interpret this section broadly to include racially motivated harassment by neighbors, even when the discriminator is not a landlord. The purpose of the FHA is to eliminate housing discrimination and promote racially integrated, inclusive communities. In our case, Nia is a Black woman, which places her within a protected class under the FHA. Nia moved into a mostly white neighborhood and her neighbor Carl began displaying a Confederate flag facing her home, left a handwritten note stating “you don’t belong here,” aimed floodlights into her children's bedroom, and made racially charged social media posts. She later experienced broken glass on her driveway and banging on her house at night. These acts created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The conduct was sustained, targeted, and racially motivated. Courts have found similar behavior sufficient to establish interference under § 3617. The fear Nia experienced, including changes in her and her children’s behavior (e.g., not playing outside), shows she could not fully enjoy her home. Therefore, Carl’s racially motivated actions violated § 3617 of the FHA by interfering with Nia’s ability to peacefully enjoy her home based on her race.

My second issue is Whether Carl’s conduct violates 42 U.S.C. § 1982, which guarantees all citizens the equal right to enjoy property regardless of race. 42 U.S.C. § 1982 provides that all citizens shall have the same rights as white citizens to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and enjoy real and personal property. This includes the right to live free from racial harassment and intimidation in one's home. Discriminatory intent may be proven through direct evidence, such as racial slurs or notes. Carl targeted Nia, a Black tenant, with repeated acts of intimidation and hostility that disrupted her ability to enjoy her property. The note saying “you don’t belong here,” the Confederate flag, and continued harassment all demonstrate an intent to make her feel unwelcome. Courts have held that such behavior, especially when race-based, deprives someone of the equal right to enjoy property under § 1982. Carl’s actions were not isolated or accidental , they were deliberately aimed at making Nia’s life in the neighborhood difficult because of her race.Therefor, Carl’s conduct violates § 1982 because he intentionally interfered with Nia’s equal right to enjoy her property as a Black tenant.

My third issue is Whether Nia has standing to bring claims under the FHA and § 1982. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct, and (3) redressability — that a favorable court decision would remedy the harm. Emotional distress, fear, and changes in how one uses their property can constitute injury in fact under the FHA and § 1982. Nia experienced fear, emotional harm, and disruption to her daily life as a result of Carl’s actions. She no longer allowed her children to play outside, altered her routines, and feared for her safety. These injuries are specific and concrete. They were directly caused by Carl’s racially motivated conduct, and court intervention, such as damages or injunctive relief, could address the harm. Therefore, Nia has standing to sue under the FHA and § 1982 because she suffered real, race-based harm that was caused by Carl’s conduct and can be remedied through legal action.