The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above

. * 09-0 553 -cv C h ay a an d M ich ael Un gar , et a l. v . New Y ork C ity H ou sin g A u th ority
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y FE D ER A L R U LE O F A PP EL LA TE PR O C ED U R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.
At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 26 day

of January , two thousand and ten. th Present: AMALYA L . KEARSE,

RAL PH K. WI

NTER RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Cir c uit Judg e s.

_____________________________________________________ CH AY A A

ND MI CH AE LUN GA R, Y I TT Y N I EM AN , F RI ED RI CH AN D REG I NAWEI SER , MOSHE DEUTSCH, I SAAC TEL L ER, SOL OMON WOL L NER, SHI A PI

NCHUS SCH WART Z , I REN E A CKERM AN , Y EH UD A ST EI N, SOL OM ONWERZ B ERG ER, J OSHUA ADL ER, CHAI M EI DL I SZ, A Z RI ELKATZ , MOSHE STERN, and ESTHER S C HW AR T Z, * Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts ,
-v- No. 09-0553-c v NEW YORK CI TY HOU SI NG AUT HORI TY,

Def endant- Appellee

.2

Appea ringfor Appe llants: MI CHAEL H. SUSSM AN, Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, Ne w York. Ap pe ari ngfo r A

pp e lle e : STE VEN J. RA PPA POR T, of c ouns e l to Sony a

M. Ka loyanid e s, ActingGene ral Counsel, Ne w York City HousingAuthority , New York, Ne w York.
Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Rober

t W. S wee t, J udg e). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and it h e re by is AF F IRM ED

. Plaintiffs-Appellants (“ plaintiffs”) a ppeal f rom a de cision of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Swe et, J .) g rantingsummary judgme nt for defe ndant-a

ppellee ( “def

endant” ). Plaintiffs are sevente en orthodox J ews who a lleg e def endant excludes them from public housingin violation of the Fa ir HousingAct (“ FHA ”), 42 U .S.C. § 3601 et seq., a

nd burdens their

relig ious practice in violation of the Fre e Exercise Clause of the First Amendme nt by

failingto exempt t hem from its Tena nt Selection and Assig nment Plan (“TSAP”) based on r elig ious hardship. We r e vie w the de c isi on

be low de no vo , c on str

uin gthe e vid e nc e in t

he light m os t favor able to the non- moving pa rty . World Trade Cente r Props., L .L .C. v. Hartfor d Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154, 165- 66 (2d Cir. 2003). We may aff irm on any

basis supported by

the re cord. Ka m env . Ke mp er

Fi n . S erv s . , In c. , 5 0 0 U. S

. 9 0 , 9 9 (1 9 9 1 ); AC E qu i p L t d

. v . Am er i canE n g'g Corp., 315 F.3d 151, 155 ( 2d Cir. 2003). We assume the pa rties’ fa miliarity with the underlying f a c t s an d p r o c e d ur a l h i s t o r

y. Summary judgme nt for def

endant wa s appropr iate bec ause pla intiffs have not e stablished a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e th atT S A P h a s a d i s p ar at e i mp a c to nO rth o d o x J e w i s hf am i l i e s . T i t l e V II disparate impact ana ly sis applies also to claims arisingunder the FHA . See Hunting ton Bra nch, NAACP v. Town of Hunting ton, 844 F.2d 926, 934 (2d Cir. 1988). “ Under disparate impact analy sis ... a prima fa cie c ase is esta blished by

a showingthat the cha lleng ed pra ctice of the de fe nd ant ‘ a c tua lly

or pr e dic ta bly re su lts in .

. . dis c ri min atio n; i n o the r w or ds that it ha s a discriminatory

eff ect.’ ” I d. (quotingUnited States v. City of B lack Jack, 508 F .2d 1179, 1184-85 (8th Cir. 1974)). “ I f a pla intiff makes a prima fa cie showing , the burde n shifts to the defenda nt to prove that its actions fur there d, in theory

and in pra ctice, a

leg itimate, bona fide g overnme ntal interest and that no alternative would serve that interest with less discriminatory eff ect.” Tsombanidis v. W est Have n Fire Dept., 352 F .3d 565, 575 (2d Cir. 2003) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). In the pre sent ca se, there was no e vidence that Orthodox J ewish applica nts are un de rr e pr e se nte d e ve n amon gne w Wi lli amsb ur gte na nts . “ Th e ba sis fo r a

su c c e ssf ul d isp arate impact claim involves a c omparison betwe en two groups—those af fec ted and those una ffe cted by the fa c ia lly

ne utr a l po lic y . T his c omp ari so n mu st r e ve a l th at a lth ou g h n e utr a l, t he po lic y in3

question imposes a ‘sig nificantly adver se or dispropor

tionate impact’ on a

protec ted g roup of individuals.” Tsombanidis, 352 F.3d at 575. He re, pla intiffs did not compare T SAP’s effe cts on J ewish families with i ts effe cts on non-Jewish families. Furthe r, the re cord c ontains evidenc e as to t he pe rc e nta g e s o f H a sid ic fa mil ie s th at ha

ve mov e d into t

he Willi amsb ur gde ve lop me nts s i n c e 1 9 9 2

. D e f

e n d an t s a s s e rtth ate v i d e n c e s h o w s th atb e tw e e n1 9 9 2 an d 2 0 0 6 a p p r o x i m at e l y 4 perc ent of the f

amilies moving in we re H asidic, and that betwee n 1998 and 2006 that number was ne arly

5 perc ent. Plaintiffs, analy zing par t of the evide nce, a ssert that only 2.4 perc ent of the families moving into the Williamsburg de velopments since 1992 we re H asidic. Howe ver, since plaintiffs did not present e vidence that Hasidic Jews make up more that 2.4 perc ent of the applicant pool, the dispute is not materia l, as plaintiffs have not shown that Hasidic Jews are un de rr e pr e se nte d amon gne w t e na nts in t he Willi amsb ur gde ve lop me nts
. Pla int if fs argue that e ve n if

5 p e rc e nt o f n e w Wi lli amsb ur gte na nts are Ha sid ic , th is repr esents a “ stark dec line.” Howe ver, e ven if ther e we re e vidence of this, NYCHA had pr e vio us ly

se ttl e d a laws uit a lle g ingthat it

ha d h ist or ic a lly

dis c ri min ate d in

fa vo r o f H a sid ic families in the Will iamsburgdevelopments. See Wil liamsburgFa ir Hous. Comm. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 450 F. Supp. 602 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) . Indeed, pla intiffs acknow ledg e the “historic over -re prese ntation of Hasidic in the Williamsburg pr ojects.” ( Pl.’s Br. at 30). Thus, a stark dec line in the perc entag e of ne w Hasidic te nants would not nece ssarily be evide nce of discrimination. This is why statistics are important. Tsombanidis, 352 F.3d at 575 (“[P] laintiffs are ordinarily

require d to include statistical evidenc e to show disparity in outcome betwe en g roups.”) (citingSmit h v. Xer ox Corp., 196 F.3d 358, 365 ( 2d Cir. 1999)). To know whether TSAP has disparate impac t on Hasidic Jews, we would nee d to know, at a minimum, the pe rc e nta g e of

the a pp ro ximate ly

80 ,0 00 pe op le wh o a

pp ly fo r p ub lic ho us inge a c h ye ar t hat is Ha sid ic . B e c a

us e pla int if

fs have no t pr ov ide d th is i nf or matio n, the y

fa ile d to e sta

bli sha pr ima fac ie ca se of discr imination. Nor have plaintiffs e stablished that they are entitled to an exemption from TSAP under the Fr ee E x erc ise Clause. “[T]he rig ht of fre e exerc ise does not re lieve an individual of the obligation to comply

with a valid and ne utral law of g ener al applica

bility on the g round that the law prosc ribes (or

presc ribes) c onduct that his relig ious prescr ibes (or pr oscribes) .” Employ ment Division, Dep’t of Huma

n Resource s v. Smi th, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (interna l quotation marks omitted). A “ law that is neutra l and of g ener al applica bility need not be justified by co mp el l i n g go v ern m en t al i n t er es t s ev eni f t h e l aw h as th e i n ci d en t al ef fe cto f b urd en i n g a particula r re ligious pra ctice.” Church of the Lukumi Baba lu Ay e, I nc. v. City

of Hiale ah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993). In the pre sent ca se, TSAP is facially neutra l, making no r efe renc e to re ligious pra ctice. Pla int if fs c onte nd

that T SAP is n ot g e ne ra lly a pp lic a ble be c a us e de fe nd ant m ake s e xce pti on s to its ge nera l policy

of ac ting on a

first-come , first-ser

ved basis for

victims of domestic violence, those living in substandar d housing, a nd others, while r efusingto acc ommodate their re ligious needs. H oweve r, def

endant grants exceptions only for spe cified c ateg ories, not on an a d hoc basis, and these exceptions are a vailable to Ha sidic J ews if they fall into one of those c ateg ories. Be cause TSAP is neutral and g ener ally applicable , defe ndant nee d only demonstrate a

rational basis for the pla

n. Def endant’ s stated re ason for TSAP, “assur[ing] that it rece ives and proc esses a pp lic atio ns fo r c onve nti on a l pu bli c ho us inge ff

ic ie ntl y and in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he laws ,” is a4

rational ba sis for the plan. B eca use TSAP is neutral, g ener ally applicable , and has a

rational basis, plaintiffs failed to e stablish a Fr ee E x erc ise violation. We have c onsidered the plaintiffs’ re maining a rguments and conc lude that they are without merit. The judg ment below is AF FI RMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk