Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 1999 · Property

PropertyFair Housing ActHousing discriminationSummary judgmentFHADCHRAhousing discriminationsexual orientation

Facts

Plaintiff applied to rent a townhouse managed by Brenneman Property Services and disclosed to the agent that earlier credit problems arose because he had devoted his resources to paying the medical bills of his lover, who died of AIDS in 1994. After the owner rejected his application, plaintiff offered additional security, a co-signor, and finally prepayment of one year's rent, but each offer was rejected, and the agent did not run a credit report on the proposed co-signor. Plaintiff, who is gay and HIV positive, claimed defendants discriminated based on sexual orientation and disability and later threatened him when he raised discrimination concerns. The property remained available after his rejection.

Issue

Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's FHA and DCHRA claims for housing discrimination and intimidation/coercion. More specifically, the court considered whether plaintiff had produced enough evidence to establish a prima facie case, to create a material dispute about whether defendants perceived him as disabled, and to show possible pretext in defendants' stated reasons for rejecting his application.

Rule

When a plaintiff offers no direct evidence of housing discrimination under the FHA, the claim is analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The plaintiff must show that he is a member of a protected class and defendants knew or suspected that status, that he applied for and was qualified to rent the property, that his application was rejected, and that the property remained available; once defendants articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, the plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by showing pretext or material factual disputes. In an FHA perceived-disability case involving HIV status, the plaintiff need not provide definitive proof at the prima facie stage of defendants' perceptions; it is enough to show a material dispute supported by clues from which a reasonable jury could infer defendants suspected he had HIV or AIDS.

🔒

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.

In Baltimore, Maya Ortiz applied to rent an apartment managed by Harbor Stone Leasing. She claims the manager rejected her because of a protected trait, but she has no direct statement or document showing discriminatory motive.

Under the majority rule applied in this case, how should a court analyze Maya's housing-discrimination claim at the summary-judgment stage?

Explanation. When a plaintiff offers no direct evidence of housing discrimination under the FHA, the claim is analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case; the defendant then articulates a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; and the plaintiff may avoid summary judgment by showing pretext or genuine factual disputes. (Derived from Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc. (1999).)