Are Courts Allowing Business Justifications for Intentional Discrimination?
Legal Issue: Fair housing cases fall into two categories: intentional discrimination and disparate impact. Within the intentional discrimination category, proof may come through direct evidence, such as an advertisement stating “No children allowed” or through indirect evidence. In indirect evidence cases, there are no smoking guns, but suspicious circumstances that might lead to a conclusion of discrimination, unless the defendant can either disprove the circumstantial evidence or provide evidence that the decision was made for valid business reasons. A summary of our analysis is attached. We have seen cases where courts err by applying the indirect evidence standard – which allows the defendant to provide a business justification for the practice – to direct evidence discrimination cases, where no business justification should be allowed. Importance to Low-Income or Disadvantaged People or the Advancement of Equal Justice: The Housing Discrimination Law Project has observed this in s
Related Questions
- Do Department of Justice (DOJ) Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and practices that have a discriminatory impact?
- Do other federal agencies have Title VI regulations that prohibit both intentional discrimination and practices that have a discriminatory impact?
- Can The Courts Force The Sale Of A Business Property If One Partner Goes Bankrupt?
