insurance benefits and social security administration what were their disabilities i do not know your honor i have not inquired because out of respect the confidentiality is not in dispute in this case that they are they feel dismissal of the complaint alleging that they were illegally discriminated against in applying for a mortgage in violation of the fair housing act american with just americans with disabilities act in the rehabilitation act each of these three claims requires that a plaintiff allege first that they are disabled second that they were discriminated against because of their disability in third if they were otherwise qualifying for the benefit that they were seeking now as i said previously there is no dispute that the wiggins and are able to within the meaning of the statutes however the district court heard concluding that they had failed to allege that they were discriminated against because of their disability and if they had otherwise failed to allege that they were otherwise qualified for the mortgage that they were seeking first bank of america's primary contention is that it was entirely and requirements to see proof that their income would continue continuation of income notwithstanding that world advice from at that time fake america continue to demand documentation that my clients had already provided showing that they had been receiving s s the i've be banks processing loan applications from disabled africanus should seek documentation attesting to the three year continuation of the receipt of those benefits however bank of america cannot continuation of income second this policy forms our bank of america's implementation of this policy form the basis of a justice department lawsuit in two thousand and twelve pursuant to which the bank of the bank agreed should require proof of a three year to new way chanelle income does not insulate the behavior now third reason for that is that whether or not the bank was in reasonable reliance on that guideline which it contends and which just the court found and it's all on a motion to because he couldn't show continuity of income since he had just changed jobs right banks you're to be requiring proof of continuity for non disabled people  why how is it discriminatory to do the same thing for disabled well i think the the theory of discrimination that is a leisure expressly on here your honor is that the bank refused for approximately seven weeks accept valid per continuation of income making it all but impossible for my clients to unemployment is not an allegation of discrimination to say the bank made a mistake but maybe bernanke he thinks the bank made a mistake in his case too but if the bank made a mistake you don't have a discrimination claim well it's more than just a mistake your honor it's a mistake made pursuant to a policy yes and then you have to show that there is not a similar policy with respect to not to say well i think that the the facts as developed as during discovery and before trial would show that your honor i think for purposes of meeting the rule a notice pleading standard that my clients have set forth a theory of discrimination that is sufficient to get them to a discovery stage to where they can develop those facts and develop the predicate facts that show how they were treated differently than non disabled loan applicants i think for meeting the rule a standard here it is sufficient to show that they alleged that the bank refused to accept valid proof of their income for seven weeks so the my client's did adequately allege i believe under rule eight the the two elements the district court found that they had failed to set forth in the complaint first they showed that they weeks and this shows back and with additional predicate facts would show at trial that they were treated differently than an evil or non disabled loan applicants second they have adequately pled if they were otherwise qualified for the loan that they were seeking the they were not required to show documentation of three or continuance of their income contrary to the bank's assertion and the district court's reasoning in it motion to dismiss order so that if they did show that they produced evidence are produced documentation of the continuation of income that was sufficient to meet the f h a guidelines in place at the time and the bank's own standards at the time found that they had not alleged that they were otherwise qualified for the loan because they had not pears on the property as required by the conditions alone it was approved on august twenty first two thousand and nine you to relieve and whether they are enough to raise a right to relief or fall just like you know while in particular if the allegations give rise to an obvious alternative explanation then the complaint may stop short of the line between possibility implausibility of entitlement relief in the reviewing court is to draw from its judicial experience and common sense here of polys have alleged claim discrimination claims under the f h a eighty eight rehabilitation act under each of those they must allege that they were disabled that they were discriminated against because of their disability and that they were otherwise qualified for the benefits they see the police failed on two of these fronts they felt to allege that they were otherwise qualified for the loan and they also failed to plausibly allege that they were discriminated against because of their disability an obvious alternative explanation is present here bank of america was following the f h a guidelines when it was requesting additional documentation from the a pelleas the sole and real only basis for a discrimination claim here was bank of america's request for continuation of of or documents showing continuation of that disability income is a district court properly found there is nothing suggesting that there was any discriminatory intent or discrimination there it was merely bank of america following the f h a guidelines the fair housing administration promulgated guidance for lenders regarding the documentation of an applicant's income including disability income for non wage income for example disability the f h a provides that such income can be considered as  effective when properly verified and documented by the lender for government assistance programs income received from government assistance programs is acceptable as long as the paying agency provides documentation indicating that the income is expected to continue for at least three years as for social security benefits the f h a guidelines make a distinction between age based in disability benefits and they provide that not also security income is for retirement age recipients therefore a document to continuation is required a pallies in this case also hired a client with the us department of housing and urban development hud determined that there was no reasonable cause to find any discrimination in the under the f h a here they determined that the plausible explanation for bank of america's request for this information that it was merely following the f h a guidelines there was also verbal guidance giving during this long process and bank of america subsequently did approve along but the hud considered this as well and said the fact that an f h a official rooter allowed the bank account to poly's disability income is qualifying in light of the receipt of such income for over three years does not diminish the reasonableness of the bank's reliance upon f h a his guidance particularly when is here the verbal guidance provided by what officials was not reflected in and the f h a got in their rely on a mortgage lender while fifteen however the outlet or waste issued three years after the loan in this case was denied and certainly bank of america cannot be expected to follow guidance that was not yet issued at that time the police also rely on a settlement the bank of america and in two it's important to distinguish that settlement it did not involve f h a loans which as discussed their guidance requires that there must be documented continuance of the disability payments for three years rather fannie mae underwriting guidelines required lenders to verify the future continuation of disability income and social security on income only if the benefits have a defined expiration date those guidelines go on to specifically instruct lenders that disability benefits do not have defined expiration dates and thus a lender may conclude that the income is considered stable predictable and likely to continue and it's not expected to request additional documentation from the bars that is in stark contrast to the f h a guidelines that specifically required that the lenders obtain documentation regarding the continuation or the expected continuation of the disability benefits remembered good morning please the court i'm monica mallory says united states attorney i represent the department of housing and urban development and the federal housing administration in this case we made several arguments in our response brief as to why the district court did not abuse its just question when it denied the plaintiffs what opportunity to mend their complaint against the federal agencies that is the issue that was raised by the appellant none of our arguments for responded to by the plaintiffs in their reply brief so i have nothing further to add question that would require discovery to determine whether or not my clients were the first disabled loaner applicants to complain about this policy rather hard to ever informed bank of america on a prior occasion that their interpretation