Opinion ID: 778066
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disparate Treatment Theory

Text: 32 The plaintiffs allege that the Planning Board denied RECAP's application for a special use permit for the Formisano property because of the identity of the residents of the proposed halfway houses — recovering alcoholics. The district court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Planning Board's stated reason for the denial was a pretext for discrimination. We disagree. 33 We analyze claims of intentional discrimination under the FHA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act under the familiar McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), burden-shifting analysis established for employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc., 102 F.3d at 790-91; Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372, 380-84 (2d Cir.1994). Under this scheme, the plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. 34 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA and the ADA, the plaintiffs must present evidence that animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by the municipal decision-makers themselves or by those to whom the decision-makers were knowingly responsive. LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412, 425 (2d Cir.1995) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Smith & Lee Assocs., 102 F.3d at 790 (noting that to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the City's decision to deny... [the] petition) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, by contrast, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants denied the permit solely because of the disability. See Flight v. Gloeckler, 68 F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir.1995). 35 If the plaintiffs make out a prima facie case, then the burden of production shifts to the defendants to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their decision. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Heyman v. Queens Vill. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, Inc., 198 F.3d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1999). If the defendants meet that burden; the McDonnell Douglas framework ... disappear[s] and the sole remaining issue [is] discrimination vel non.  Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs must then prove that the defendants intentionally discriminated against them on a prohibited ground. See id. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097. Where, however, the plaintiffs make a substantial showing that the defendants' proffered explanation was false, it is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer's explanation. Id. at 146-47, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (emphasis in original). 36 The district court in this case concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the presence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' articulated, legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, No. 97 Civ. 8808(CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2000), slip op. at 13. We disagree. Based on the evidence in the record, we think that a reasonable juror could conclude that the defendants' proffered reason for denying RECAP a special-use permit was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. 37 Discriminatory intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including ... the historical background of the decision ...; the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision ...; [and] contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body.... LeBlanc, 67 F.3d at 425 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court correctly decided that the plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case. Their initial burden of production under the McDonnell Douglas analysis is minimal. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir.2001). City officials and Planning Board members made numerous statements from which a reasonable juror could infer that they denied RECAP's permit application because of the identity of its clients. For example, Mayor DeStefano began the August 1994 hearing about the Formisano permit by stating: 38 And what I have tried to convey to RECAP and through different surrogate[s] is that enough is enough. And that in order for RECAP to maintain the level of respect in the community, to maintain the level of cooperation from not only governmental agencies, but this people [sic] that live in and around these areas, that they have to recognize that Middletown is not the hub of human services programs.... But at some point we have tried to say to the different not for profit agencies that in regards to housing enough is enough. That the city is over and above has done more than we probably should have done [sic].... Do [this project] in Goshen. Do it in Warwick. Do it in Montgomery. Find a building there. Do it in some other community that has not contributed to the extent, not even close to what Middletown has contributed in regards to participation and human service programs. 39 He later added that I told [the head of RECAP] two or three years ago that he would have trouble getting that type of project through the City; that this City has done more than its share. 40 Other City officials made similar comments. Alex Smith, counsel to the Planning Board, asked at the September 1994 hearing: Does it make more sense to have a facility in Newburgh and Greenville [two other Orange County communities], or maybe we should have two in Newburgh. I think this Board has the right to make those kinds of value judgments. He later expressed concern that the City had no guarantee that these people [RECAP's clients] would or would not have criminal histories. He also echoed Mayor DeStefano's view that [t]he problem is that ... there seems to be a tremendous over-concentration of these types of facilities [i.e., halfway houses] in this City as compared to the surrounding townships. At the November hearing, the City's Director of Economic and Community Development told the Planning Board that if the [Formisano] building is occupied by a certain type of social service or support service program, perhaps occupying the building next door will be deterred. 41 The evidence suggests that the Planning Board members may have been similarly motivated. One board member said: The question that we're all wrestling with ... is if this is very wide spread [sic] in our society and there's a great need for this everywhere, as we will all admit, why do we have to have all the treatment facilities right here in Middletown? At the end of the September hearing, the chairman of the Planning Board concluded that [t]here's a need for this project. There's some issues [sic] about whether it should be in Middletown, and that's what it boils down to.... Before the final vote in December, the chairman recommended that the Planning Board deny RECAP a special-use permit because there's an over-concentration of residential and social service facilities in the City. When he cast his vote, yet another board member remarked: I believe that the City itself has extended itself and embraced significant other services that have come our way, and I have to say that for us to be the magnet for the area is not necessarily the best industrial development of this or any other project. This evidence more than suffices to establish the plaintiffs' prima facie case. 42 Second, as the district court correctly determined, the defendants met their subsequent burden of production, see Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, by articulating legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their denial of the Formisano property permit. They maintain that they denied RECAP a special-use permit in order to preserve the land along the O & W railroad line for industrial development and also to protect the halfway house residents from the nuisance effect of the railroad. 43 We disagree, however, with the district court's third conclusion: that the plaintiffs did not introduce evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. To establish such pretext, in addition to the evidence that supports their prima facie case, the plaintiffs rely on three categories of evidence: (1) the granting of a special-use permit for the Rowley property, (2) deposition testimony, and (3) a map of the surrounding area. A review of the record on appeal indicates at a minimum that this evidence casts doubt on the defendants' proffered reasons for denying RECAP a special use permit. 44 At the August 1994 hearing, the Planning Board approved a special-use permit for the Rowley property, where RECAP intended to build a childcare facility. In December 1994, the Board rejected RECAP's application for a special-use permit for the Formisano property, where RECAP intended to establish the halfway houses. The applications for both properties were made at the same time, by the same entity, for adjoining properties; the principal difference between them seems to be the people whom the projects sought to serve: The Rowley property would serve children, and the Formisano property would serve recovering alcoholics. The plaintiffs argue persuasively that if industrial growth and development were the Planning Board's true concerns, then the Board would have also raised the issue in connection with the Rowley property. Indeed, the two-and-one-half acre Rowley property is five times the size of the Formisano property; it has a rail spur that connects it to the O & W track; and it is zoned for heavy rather than light industrial use. For these reasons, it arguably would be more attractive than the Formisano property for industrial use. 45 The district court found that [t]he Head Start program to be conducted on the Rowley property involves a non-residential facility operating only in daylight hours, which would provide support services that would facilitate desired industrial development. Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc., slip op at 14. We find no support for the conclusion that the Head Start program would facilitate industrial development. The defendants provide no evidence, for example, that industrial workers' children would be eligible for a Head Start program. Cf. Head Start 2001 Poverty Guidelines, at http://www.headstartinfo.org/ publications.htm (last modified Oct. 31, 2001) (detailing income restrictions for Head Start children's families). 46 The plaintiffs also introduced evidence that calls into question the defendants' second proffered reason for denying RECAP a special-use permit: to protect the halfway house residents from the nuisance effect of the railroad. The evidence indicates that at the time of the Planning Board's decision, trains rarely traveled on the O & W line; when they did, it was at very low speeds. A reasonable juror might wonder why the Planning Board worried more about the impact of the railroad on recovering alcoholics than on the children whom it knew would be receiving education, medical attention, and other social services at the adjoining Rowley property. More generally, a juror could infer that if the industrial development and railroad-nuisance concerns led the Planning Board to deny RECAP the special-use permit for the Formisano property, then these same concerns would have led the Planning Board to deny it a special-use permit for the Rowley property. These inferences could establish that the Planning Board's disparate treatment of these two properties demonstrates intentional discrimination against recovering alcoholics and that its stated concerns about the Formisano property were pretextual. 47 The Planning Board members' deposition testimony provides additional evidence of pretext. When questioned about the reason for the Board's disparate treatment of the two properties, one member testified: I cannot recall what I thought at the time, what other people thought at the time and in what detail the economic development argument began to figure in. So I can't really recall specifically what the distinction was. That same member also testified that the concern that Middletown had a high number of treatment facilities in general was certainly brought home to me, was certainly a recurring theme in this overall discussion. Another Planning Board member stated that he was not concerned with industrial or commercial development in relation to the Rowley property permit. 48 Finally, the plaintiffs supplied the district court with a map of the area as it existed in 1994. The map appears to show that the area surrounding the properties in question was not largely industrial. If true, this may cast doubt in jurors' minds upon the defendants' assertion that they sought to preserve it as an industrial area. 49 Based on this evidence, then, a reasonable juror could refuse to credit the defendants' stated reasons for denying RECAP a special-use permit and find that the real reason was discrimination based on the identity of RECAP's clients. The evidence also would suffice to permit a rational juror to find that the defendants denied RECAP the permit solely because of RECAP's clients' disabilities — the more demanding finding required for the plaintiffs to make out a cause of action under the Rehabilitation Act. We therefore hold that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants on each of the three statutory claims.