United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment in favor of defendant-city on claims that a city ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Equal Protection Clause by having the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes for recovering alcoholics and drug users from opening in most residential zones, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the district court erred in disregarding the evidence that defendant-city's sole objective in enacting and enforcing its ordinance was to discriminate against persons deemed to be disabled under state and federal housing discrimination laws; 2) where, as here, there is direct or circumstantial evidence that defendant-city has acted with a discriminatory purpose and has caused harm to members of a protected class, such evidence is sufficient to permit the protected individuals to proceed to trial under a disparate treatment theory; and 3) the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the losses that their businesses suffered were caused by the enactment and enforcement of the ordinance.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/20/2013
• Published 09/20/2013

Judges

• REINHARDT

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel