To have your banner listed here -- Need a website? Check our fees!
To have your banner listed here -- Need a website? Check our fees!
| Re : The question that needs to be asked... - Little John | |||
| Posted by Cristina ® , Jul 19,2008,13:35 | Post Reply | Forum | |
Village fair notice of plaintiffs’ claims and the grounds upon which they rest;1 and (3) plaintiffs
have stated a plausible claim under the FHA based upon a disparate impact theory in that they
have alleged that the actions of the Village eliminated affordable housing and disproportionately
impacted Latinos.2
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s June 16, 2008 Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Village’s motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint (docket no. 68) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
July 8, 2008 /s/
Denis R. Hurley,
United States District Judge
1 In Boykin v. Keycorp., 521 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit found that in
order to state a claim for disparate treatment under the FHA, a plaintiff “need only satisfy Rule
8(a)’s standard of a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that she is entitled to relief.’”
Id. at 213 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). A plaintiff does not need to “plead facts sufficient to
establish a prima facie disparate treatment claim” under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973) as “the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework ‘is an evidentiary
standard, not a pleading requirement.’” Id. at 212 (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534
U.S. 506, 510 (2002)). In addition, contrary to the Village’s contentions, it is also not necessary
to allege discriminatory animus at the pleading stage. Id. at 215.
2 The Village’s argument that the “substance of Plaintiffs’ complaint is an alleged
animus toward day laborers not Latino residents” (Objections 4), and that day laborers are not
entitled to protection under the FHA, unfairly mischaracterizes the nature of plaintiffs’
allegations. As noted by Judge Lindsay, the terms “Latinos” and “Latino day laborers” are used
interchangeably throughout the Amended Complaint. Moreover, drawing all inferences in
plaintiffs’ favor, it can certainly be implied that the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims is that the
Village’s actions were directed at Latinos.
|
Replies to this message
- Response 2 - h gold ( Jul 19 )
- Magistrate Ruling (4) - Cristina ( Jul 21 )
- Magistrate Ruling (3) - Cristina ( Jul 21 )
- Magistrate Ruling (2) - Cristina ( Jul 21 )
- Magistrate Ruling (1) - Cristina ( Jul 21 )
- Magistrate ruling (1)(2)(3)(4) - h gold ( Jul 21 )