Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-05-2019
Case Style:
Donahue Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., Corrine Downing
Case Number: 15-1823
Judge: Lohier
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal from the Southern District of New York (New York County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Sasha Samberg-Champion
Defendant's Attorney: Melissa Corwin and Stanley J. Somer
Description:
34 In this appeal, we consider whether a landlord may be liable under §§ 3604
35 and 3617 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3617, and
36 analogous provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”),
37 N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, for failing to take prompt action to address a racially
1 hostile housing environment created by one tenant targeting another, where the
2 landlord knew of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it.
3 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, J.)
4 dismissed the claims of plaintiff Donahue Francis under the FHA, 42 U.S.C.
5 §§ 1981 and 1982, and the NYSHRL, as well as Francis’s other claims under New
6 York State law. We VACATE the District Court’s dismissal of the federal claims
7 and the NYSHRL claims and REMAND for further proceedings. We AFFIRM
8 the District Court’s judgment in all other respects.
9
10 Judge Livingston dissents by separate opinion.
* * *
2 We start with the statutory text. As relevant to this appeal, §3604(b) of the
3 Act makes it unlawful“[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms,
4 conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of
5 services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex,
6 familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §3604(b). Section 3617 of the Act
7 also makes it “unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any
8 person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or
9 enjoyed”any right protected by the Act. 42 U.S.C. §3617.
See: www.ca2.uscourts.gov/
Outcome: Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: