Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Property

PropertyFair Housing ActRedevelopmentDisparate impactFair Housing ActTitle VIIIdisparate impactredevelopment

Facts

Mount Holly Township adopted redevelopment plans for the Gardens, a predominantly African-American and Hispanic, low-income neighborhood, that would demolish existing homes and replace them with significantly more expensive housing. The revised plan provided only 56 deed-restricted affordable units, 11 with priority for existing residents, while evidence showed most existing residents could not afford the new housing or market-rate units elsewhere in the Township. The Township acquired and demolished many homes, leaving others vacant and creating deteriorating conditions that pressured remaining residents to leave. The residents submitted statistical evidence that African-American households would be 8 times more likely and Hispanic households 11 times more likely than white households to be affected by the redevelopment, and that only 21% of African-American and Hispanic households in Burlington County could afford new market-rate housing in the Gardens compared with 79% of white households.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Township on the residents' FHA disparate-impact claim by rejecting their prima facie statistical showing and by concluding, at that stage, that no viable less discriminatory alternative had been shown. Also, whether summary judgment was proper on the residents' intentional-discrimination theory.

Rule

Under the FHA, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that a challenged policy has a racially discriminatory effect, meaning it disproportionately burdens a protected group. If the plaintiff makes that showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action and to establish that no alternative course of action could serve that interest with less discriminatory impact; only then does the burden shift back to the plaintiff to demonstrate a less discriminatory alternative. At summary judgment, courts must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor, and proportional disparities rather than absolute numbers are the proper focus.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Dayton approves a redevelopment plan for the River Bend district, a low-income neighborhood. Residents submit an expert report showing that Black households in Dayton are 7 times more likely, and Latino households 9 times more likely, than white households to lose their homes because of the plan, and that most displaced minority households cannot afford the replacement units.

If the city moves for summary judgment on the residents' Fair Housing Act claim, what is the strongest basis for denying the motion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, plaintiffs may establish a prima facie FHA disparate-impact case by showing that a challenged policy disproportionately burdens a protected racial group. Statistical evidence showing that minority households are several times more likely than white households to be displaced, and less able to afford replacement housing, is sufficient at summary judgment when viewed in the nonmovants' favor. Intent is not required for disparate impact, and redevelopment can make housing 'otherwise unavailable.'