Plaintiff applied to the Regulations and Permits Administration for a special use permit to open an AIDS hospice. Under considerable and sustained pressure from community groups opposed to the hospice, the defendant rejected the special use application, and plaintiff brought suit claiming violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The court found that, despite evidence that most of the discriminatory animus directed towards the hospice came from community groups, the defendants acted in support of those “misguided and discriminatory notions,” thus indicating both discriminatory intent and disparate impact. Moreover, the defendant’s assertion that the permit denial was based on a zoning conflict was dismissed by the court as pretext that did not actually factor into the defendant’s decision regarding the permit.
For a copy of this opinion, please contact us at email@example.com.