Opinion ID: 765199
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discrimination Claims Under the Fair Housing Act

Text: 28 We apply Title VII discrimination analysis in examining Fair Housing Act discrimination claims. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997). A plaintiff can establish a FHA discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact. Id. at 304-05. 29 To bring a disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. Adapted to this situation, the prima facie case elements are: (1) plaintiff's rights are protected under the FHA; and (2) as a result of the defendant's discriminatory conduct, plaintiff has suffered a distinct and palpable injury. Establishing the prima facie case affords the plaintiff a presumption of discrimination. This test does not permit the court to consider rebuttal evidence at the prima facie case stage. Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1006. 30 After the plaintiff has established the prima facie case, the burden then must shift to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). To accomplish this, the defendant is only required to set forth a legally sufficient explanation. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 (1981). 31 Assuming the defendant can successfully rebut the presumption of discrimination, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to raise a genuine factual question as to whether the proffered reason is pre-textual. Id. at 255-56. A plaintiff may succeed in persuading the court that she has been a victim of intentional discrimination, either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the [defendant] or indirectly by showing that the[defendant's] proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Id. at 256. The trier of fact may consider the same evidence that the plaintiff introduced to establish a prima facie case in determining whether the defendant's explanation is merely pretext. Id. Once a prima facie case is established ...summary judgment for the defendant will ordinarily not be appropriate on any ground relating to the merits because the crux of a [discrimination claim] is the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination. Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1009. 32 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ordinarily commands considerable deference in interpreting the FHA because HUD is the federal agency primarily assigned to implement and administer Title VIII. Pfaff v. HUD, 88 F.3d 739, 747 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we review with deference an agency's interpretation of the statute that it has responsibility to enforce, whether that interpretation emerges from an adjudicative proceeding or administrative rulemaking. Id.; Chevron USA, Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984).