Bennett Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., and Paul Hanley
610 F.2d 1032, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10245 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Act, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of housing discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the rejection. A defendant relying on subjective criteria does not meet this burden by offering hypothetical justifications without producing testimony from the individuals who cast the determinative negative votes.
Facts:
- Bennett Robinson, a Black research physicist, entered into a contract to purchase shares for a cooperative apartment from Paul Hanley in a building owned by 12 Lofts Realty, Inc.
- At the time, the corporation had ten shareholders, all of whom were White, and had never had a Black shareholder.
- After Robinson's contract was presented, the shareholders created a new screening committee and procedure which was not applied to a White buyer, Donald Kuspit, who was approved around the same time.
- During an interview, the screening committee questioned Robinson about potential criminal connections, despite which they issued a written report stating his credit, resume, and landlord check were all 'satisfactory'.
- Immediately before voting on Robinson’s application, the shareholders changed the by-laws to require a 66⅔% majority for approval, up from 51%, and instituted a secret ballot.
- Robinson’s application was subsequently rejected because only seven of the eleven shareholders (fewer than the newly required ⅔) voted in favor.
Procedural Posture:
- Bennett Robinson sued 12 Lofts Realty, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act.
- Robinson moved for a preliminary injunction to compel the corporation to permit the sale.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, which was consolidated with a trial on the merits of the injunction claim.
- The district court found that Robinson had established a prima facie case of discrimination but concluded that the defendant corporation had met its burden by coming forward with legitimate, non-racial motivations.
- The district court denied Robinson's application for an injunction.
- Robinson, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant in a Fair Housing Act case successfully rebut a plaintiff's prima facie case of racial discrimination by offering subjective, non-racial justifications for the rejection without producing testimony from the individuals who cast the decisive negative votes?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant in a Fair Housing Act case cannot rebut a plaintiff's prima facie case of racial discrimination with merely hypothetical, subjective reasons; where the decision-makers' motives are at issue, their testimony is required. The court established that a plaintiff can make a prima facie case under the Fair Housing Act by showing: (1) they are a member of a racial minority; (2) they applied for and were qualified to purchase the housing; (3) they were rejected; and (4) the housing opportunity remained available. Once Robinson established this, the burden shifted to 12 Lofts Realty, Inc. to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the rejection. The corporation's defense—relying on rumors and subjective assessments of Robinson's personality as 'abrasive'—was insufficient because the four shareholders who cast the deciding negative votes never testified. Without their testimony, their actual motivations could not be determined, and allowing the corporation to prevail on the basis of hypothetical reasons would 'effectively nullify the Act.' The court emphasized that subjective explanations for rejecting minority applicants must be viewed with skepticism and that race need only be one motivating factor, not the sole factor, for a denial to be unlawful.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the defendant's evidentiary burden in Fair Housing Act cases, particularly those involving secretive, collective decision-making bodies like cooperative boards. By rejecting subjective, unsubstantiated justifications and requiring testimony from the actual negative voters, the court makes it substantially more difficult for defendants to conceal discriminatory intent behind vague claims about 'personality' or unsubstantiated 'rumors.' The case strengthens the application of the Title VII burden-shifting framework to Title VIII housing cases and establishes that courts must be highly skeptical of subjective criteria that can serve as a pretext for discrimination. This precedent empowers future plaintiffs by ensuring that their prima facie case cannot be overcome by a defense that is not subject to meaningful cross-examination.
