Opinion ID: 2653912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Papillion’s Report

Text: As noted above, after investigating plaintiff Freeman’s allegations of discrimination, HUD “determined that no reasonable cause exist[ed] to believe that a discriminatory housing practice ha[d] occurred.” Plaintiff Freeman’s expert, Willis Papillion, issued a report stating that the HUD investigation was flawed for two reasons: First, the HUD investigator allowed the City to choose the sample of electric bills analyzed by HUD, rather than using a randomly selected sample of electric bills. Second, the HUD investigator misunderstood Freeman’s claim. Specifically, plaintiff Freeman alleged that the City overstated black residents’ electricity consumption (e.g., number of kilowatt-hours consumed). But, the HUD investigator investigated disparities in the rate charged to black residents (e.g., cost 12 Case: 13-14610 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 13 of 14 per kilowatt-hour consumed). Freeman agreed with the HUD investigator that black and non-black residents were charged the same rate for each kilowatt-hour consumed. However, she alleged that the City inflated the amount of electricity that its black residents consumed, and, thus, the City forced black residents to pay higher electric bills than their non-black counterparts. Even if Papillion’s report could be used to demonstrate flaws in the HUD investigation, nothing in Papillion’s report provides evidence that the City inflated the black residents’ electricity consumption because of their race. Nor does Papillion’s report indicate that plaintiff Freeman was similarly situated to any nonblack residents with respect to actual electricity consumption.