844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988), aff'd per curiam, 488 U.S. 15 (1988)
The Town of Huntington is located in Suffolk County on Long Island and had a 1980 population of approximately 201,500, of which 3.7% were black and 3.5% were Hispanic.1 The black population was concentrated in the Huntington Station census tract in the center of the Town, which was 28% minority, while 14 of the 17 bordering census tracts were at least 98% white.2 The Huntington Township Housing Authority operated 175 units of public housing, all located in the Huntington Station census tract, and administered 147 units of section 8 housing, of which 103 were in that tract, resulting in 81% of all low income housing being located there.3
In 1980, the Housing Authority proposed construction of a 162-unit low income housing project on a 14.8 acre parcel known as Elwood Gardens located in the Elwood census tract, which was 98% white and zoned for single family dwellings.4 To proceed, the Authority requested that the Town rezone the site to permit multi-family dwellings, but the Town refused.5 Housing Help, Inc., a nonprofit sponsor, later optioned a similar 14.8 acre parcel at Elwood and Pulaski Roads in January 1980 for a 162-unit project with a goal of 25% minority occupancy and sought rezoning after meetings with town officials, including a February 26, 1980 public hearing request to amend the zoning ordinance townwide.6
The Town's zoning ordinance restricted private multi-family housing to an R-3M Apartment District within the urban renewal area of Huntington Station, which was 52% minority, although the Housing Authority could build townwide.7 On October 14, 1980, Town Supervisor Kenneth C. Butterfield wrote to HUD opposing the project on seven grounds, including inconsistency with the Housing Assistance Plan and zoning, traffic issues, parking and fire protection problems, proximity to the railroad and substation, inadequate recreation areas, and undersized units.8 Following community opposition with a petition of 4,100 signatures and a November 1980 meeting attended by about 2,000 people, the Town Board adopted a January 6, 1981 resolution rejecting the zoning change due to lack of transportation, traffic hazard, and disruption of existing residential patterns.9
The plaintiffs, consisting of the Huntington Branch of the NAACP, the Housing Authority or Housing Help, Inc., and low income minority residents, commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the zoning ordinance and the refusal to rezone under the Fair Housing Act.10 After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Town and its officials in 1987.11 The plaintiffs appealed, and the case reached the Second Circuit after a prior appeal on standing issues in 1982.12
Whether the Town of Huntington's zoning ordinance restricting private multi-family housing to a minority-concentrated urban renewal area and its refusal to rezone the Elwood-Pulaski site violate the Fair Housing Act?13
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).14 It also makes it unlawful for a municipality to deny to any group of persons the benefits of any program relating to the provision of housing because of race under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).15 A violation of these provisions may be established by a showing of discriminatory effect without proof of discriminatory intent.16
Yes. The Town's zoning ordinance confined private multi-family housing to the R-3M district inside the urban renewal area that was 52 percent minority.17 Eighty-one percent of all low income housing already sat inside the 28 percent minority Huntington Station tract.18 The refusal to rezone the 14.8 acre Elwood-Pulaski parcel in the 98 percent white Elwood tract therefore made low income housing unavailable outside a racially concentrated zone.19
These actions actually and predictably resulted in racial discrimination by perpetuating segregation and imposing a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities who comprised 24 percent of families needing subsidized housing compared with 7 percent of all families.20
The zoning ordinance and the refusal to rezone therefore violate the Fair Housing Act.21
Whether a violation of the Fair Housing Act under sections 3604(a) and 3604(b) can be established by a showing of discriminatory effect without proof of discriminatory intent?22
A violation of section 3604(a) may be established on a showing of discriminatory effect without proof of discriminatory intent. The same standard applies to section 3604(b) because both provisions are part of a coordinated scheme of federal civil rights laws that must be construed expansively to end discrimination and promote integration.23
Yes. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the challenged zoning practice actually or predictably resulted in racial discrimination by showing both a disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and perpetuation of segregation.24 The district court found these effects, and the appellate court affirmed them as not clearly erroneous.25 Because the statute reaches de facto segregation produced by facially neutral rules, no separate proof of intent is required.26
A violation of the Fair Housing Act under sections 3604(a) and 3604(b) can therefore be established by a showing of discriminatory effect without proof of discriminatory intent.27
Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discriminatory effect by demonstrating disproportionate adverse impact on minorities and perpetuation of segregation?28
To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory effect under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged practice actually or predictably results in racial discrimination or has a discriminatory effect. This may be shown by demonstrating either a disproportionate adverse impact upon a protected class or that the practice perpetuates segregation.29
Yes. The plaintiffs showed that 28 percent of minorities had incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line compared with 11 percent of whites.30 Twenty-four percent of black families needed subsidized housing compared with 7 percent of all families.31 Minorities comprised 60 percent of Section 8 certificate holders and 61 percent of those on the waiting list.32
The zoning ordinance restricted private multi-family housing to the 52 percent minority urban renewal area. This perpetuated segregation by confining needed low income units to an already racially concentrated neighborhood while the Elwood-Pulaski site lay in a 98 percent white tract. These undisputed facts established a strong prima facie case of both adverse impact and segregative effect.33
The plaintiffs therefore established a prima facie case of discriminatory effect.34
Whether the Town rebutted any prima facie case by producing evidence that its zoning ordinance and refusal to rezone furthered legitimate governmental interests such as health, safety, welfare, property values, and neighborhood character?35
Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discriminatory effect, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce evidence that the challenged practice furthers a legitimate governmental interest.36 If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing that other practices could serve the same interest with less discriminatory effect.37
No. The Town asserted interests in health, safety, welfare, property values, and neighborhood character but produced no evidence that construction of multi-family housing in white neighborhoods would adversely affect those interests.3839 The seven reasons listed in the October 14, 1980 letter were either plan-specific concerns that could be addressed by design modifications or post-hoc rationalizations unsupported by the record.40 The plaintiffs further showed that the Town's interests could be served by less discriminatory alternatives such as amending the ordinance to permit multi-family housing townwide or offering tax incentives to encourage development inside the urban renewal area.41
The Town therefore failed to rebut the prima facie case.42