United States: Opening Doors On A Fair Housing Decision

Last Updated: April 16 2014
Article by Robert L. Schonfeld

The recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the much-publicized federal Fair Housing Act case MHANY Management v. Incorporated village of Garden City, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172326 (EDNY Dec. 6, 2013) presents a classic example as to how a municipality can run afoul of the federal Fair Housing Act even if none of its officers or employees directly express animus toward members of a protected class or take an action directly against a member of such a class.

MHANY Management stems from a decision of Nassau County to sell unneeded public property. One of the properties the county selected for sale contained various county buildings in an area of the suburban Incorporated village of Garden City which was located near single-family houses. The property was situated in the village's zoning district which only allowed public uses and did not permit residential housing.

The village retained a planning firm to provide a recommendation with regard to the rezoning of the property. The firm recommended that the property be rezoned to allow up to 311 residential units on part of the property and that the construction of multifamily housing be permitted on the property. Those recommendations were initially accepted by a committee appointed by the village to review the zoning for the property, the Superintendent of the village's Buildings Department, and the village's Board of Trustees.

Before enacting the zoning changes, the village held a public hearing at which village residents voiced concerns that multifamily housing would generate traffic and parking problems and place a burden on the local schools. At subsequent hearings, village residents raised further opposition to multifamily housing, with one village resident stating that she "moved here from Brooklyn so that when I walked out of my house I did not turn to my left and see apartment buildings." A flyer distributed throughout the village suggested that any multifamily housing would be used for "affordable housing" and that such would lower property values in the village. None of these statements directly referred to persons of any particular race or national origin and none of these statements were attributed to village officials or employees.

Ultimately, in response to the opposition of its constituents, the village's Board of Trustees enacted a different zoning law than it had initially accepted. In comparison to the initially accepted zoning law, the zoning law that was adopted by the village placed greater restrictions on the number of units that could be built on the property and limited the amount of the county property that could be used for multifamily dwellings. The zoning law enacted by the village did not directly place restrictions on any particular race or national origin using the property at issue.

Disparate Treatment Claim

According to plaintiff MHANY Management, a developer of affordable housing, the more restrictive zoning law that was adopted by the village made it financially infeasible to build affordable multifamily housing on the site and it would have been futile for it to submit a bid to develop the property. Consequently, in 2005, plaintiff MHANY Management and several others filed an action in the U.S. District Court against the village, asserting that its rezoning of the property to effectively preclude affordable multifamily housing violated, among other civil rights laws, the federal Fair Housing Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the village's decision rezoning the property to make it infeasible to establish affordable multifamily housing constituted "disparate treatment" of African-Americans and Latinos because of their race and national origin, and that the rezoning had a "disparate impact" on African-Americans and Latinos.

After the village's motion for summary judgment was denied, an 11-day bench trial was held in 2013 before Judge Arthur D. Spatt. In a 65-page decision, Spatt found that the village's decision to change the zoning scheme from what it had approved initially in the face of community opposition constituted discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

With regard to the plaintiffs' "disparate treatment" claim, Spatt held that the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that animus against a protected group was a significant factor in the positions taken either by the municipality or to whom the municipality was knowingly responsive, citing the Second Circuit's decision in LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d. Cir. 1995). Spatt noted that direct evidence of discrimination "is rarely available to plaintiffs."

In citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 522 (1977), Spatt stated that discrimination could be inferred from whether a challenged decision impacts more heavily on one race than another, the historical background of the decision, the specific events leading up to the decision, departures from the normal procedural sequence, substantive departures from usual actions of the municipality, and any contemporary statements by the decision-making body.

Of the factors that could be used to infer discrimination, Spatt was most persuaded by the sequence of events. Spatt found that while the village's Board of Trustees initially supported a proposal allowing affordable multifamily housing, it changed its tune after village residents expressed their opposition to multifamily housing at public meetings and that that change inferred discrimination.

Significant Findings

It is significant that Spatt found that discrimination could be inferred from the village's rezoning even though there were no discriminatory remarks made by any of the members of the village's Board of Trustees and the remarks made by residents of the village did not specifically mention the race or national origin of the prospective residents of any proposed housing. In other words, as Spatt correctly held, even if municipal decision-makers have no animus toward persons in a protected class and even if the remarks made by their constituents do not specifically mention race or national origin, municipal officials can be held liable under the federal Fair Housing Act for their responsiveness to remarks that can be perceived as seeking to preclude persons from residing in housing because of their race or national origin.

It is also significant that Spatt found that the village's rezoning could be discriminatory even though the rezoning did not preclude entirely either multifamily dwellings or affordable housing from being developed on the site at issue, and certainly did not preclude specifically anyone from living at the site on the basis of being a member of a protected class. Spatt relied upon the plaintiffs' statistical expert who demonstrated that the zoning scheme initially supported by the village "would have created a pool of potential renters with a significantly larger percentage of minority households than the pool of potential renters for the zoning proposal ultimately adopted as law by Garden City." Spatt held that the statistics demonstrated that the village's rezoning affected minority families to a greater degree than Caucasian families, and that, therefore, such statistics could support an inference that the village's rezoning was discriminatory.

After determining that plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifted to the village to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Spatt found that the village had proven that the zoning proposal it enacted would result in less traffic in the neighborhood than the initial zoning proposal and would promote the development of "townhomes" that were previously non-existent in the village.

Nonetheless, Spatt still held that the village's rezoning was discriminatory and thus violated the federal Fair Housing Act. Citing the Second Circuit decision in Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1994), Spatt noted that a municipality "can escape liability if it proves it would have rendered the same decision had it not considered impermissible reasons." However, Spatt found that the traffic figures relied upon by the village and the village's interest in developing "townhomes" came after the increase in public opposition to the initial zoning plan and thus held that the "Plaintiffs have established that discrimination played a determinative role" and that the village "failed to prove they would have made the same decision absent discriminatory considerations."

Therefore, in spite of the fact that there was no direct evidence of animus toward a protected class on the part of any village officials or direct actions taken by any village officials against any members of a protected class, and even though the village had posited some legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its ultimate rezoning decision, the village was still found to be guilty of discrimination because of its responsiveness to the sentiments of its constituents and because of the impact the village's decision to abandon its initial zoning scheme and enact the ultimate scheme had on minorities.

Disparate Impact Claim

Spatt also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their "disparate impact" claim. Spatt found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the village's change from the zoning originally proposed to what it had ultimately adopted had largely eliminated the potential for affordable rental multifamily units. Based on the statistics presented by plaintiffs' expert, Spatt held that the village's change had a disproportionate impact on minorities. Spatt noted that the village had demonstrated that the enactment of its zoning scheme advanced the legitimate, bona fide government interests of reducing traffic and providing for the construction of "townhomes." However, Spatt found that the village failed to establish that it could have achieved these goals with a less discriminatory alternative and held that "the Village's acts had both an adverse impact on minorities and tended to perpetuate segregation."

In the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice granted certiorari on the question of whether "disparate impact" claims are cognizable under the federal Fair Housing Act and both cases, including Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2011), cert granted, 133 S.Ct. 2824 (2013) that Spatt noted in his opinion, settled before being heard by that court. Nonetheless, for the time being and as demonstrated by the MHANY Management decision, with persuasive statistical evidence, a "disparate impact" claim is a powerful weapon in a Fair Housing Act plaintiff's arsenal.

As Spatt correctly noted, even though the village posited legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the zoning scheme it ultimately chose, the fact that the village failed to demonstrate a less discriminatory alternative established liability on the "disparate impact" claim. Again, even without a finding that village officials had any animus toward minorities, the village was found to have acted in a discriminatory manner under the federal Fair Housing Act.

As the property at issue in this action is no longer available for development, it remains to be seen what relief the district court will craft. Judge Spatt has requested that the parties submit to him proposals for relief if they are unable to reach agreement. MHANY Management v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34589 (EDNY March 17, 2014).

Regardless of the plan that is eventually worked out by the parties or imposed by the court, the decision in MHANY Management demonstrates the power of the federal Fair Housing Act to examine not only statements made by municipal officials but also the actions taken by those municipal officials, the responsiveness of municipal officials to the apparent prejudices of their constituents, and the impact of actions taken by municipal officials on minorities in determining whether discrimination has indeed occurred.

Originally published by New York Law Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Robert L. Schonfeld
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions