Broome v. Biondi
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17349, 17 F. Supp. 2d 211, 1997 WL 691421 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under federal and state fair housing laws, a housing applicant is considered 'qualified' for the purpose of a prima facie discrimination case if they are financially able to rent or purchase the property. A defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reason for rejection can be proven pretextual through circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus.
Facts:
- Simone Demou, a shareholder at the Beekman Hill House cooperative apartment building, sought to sublet her apartment.
- Gregory Broome, a Black man, and Shannon Broome, a white woman, submitted an application to sublet Demou's apartment.
- The Beekman defendants, the cooperative's board, conceded that the Broomes were financially qualified and would make 'excellent tenants' from a financial standpoint.
- After the board president, Nicholas Biondi, met with Gregory Broome, the board required the Broomes to attend an unprecedented second meeting with the full board.
- During the application review, board member Lawrence Weiner wrote Gregory Broome's race on his notes and told Demou he 'felt better' after learning Shannon Broome was white.
- Board member Michael Silverman warned Biondi that if he felt 'uneasy' because Mr. Broome is Black, the board would be sued.
- During the full board interview, board member Richard Appleby aggressively asked the Broomes if they planned to sue for racial discrimination.
- The Beekman Board of Directors formally rejected the Broomes' sublease application.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory and Shannon Broome sued the Beekman Hill House Apartment Corporation and its board members in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging racial discrimination.
- The Beekman defendants filed a counterclaim against the Broomes for defamation and a third-party action against Simone Demou (the apartment lessee) for injurious falsehood.
- Demou counterclaimed against the Beekman defendants for retaliation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with a contract.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Broomes on their discrimination claims, awarding them $230,000 in compensatory and $410,000 in punitive damages.
- The jury also returned a verdict in favor of Demou on her various counterclaims, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages.
- Following the verdict, the Beekman defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur with the trial court.
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 sufficient evidence of pretext support a jury's finding of unlawful racial discrimination when a cooperative board rejects a financially qualified sublease applicant, citing non-discriminatory reasons for the rejection?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, District Judge
Yes. Sufficient evidence of pretext exists to uphold the jury's finding of unlawful racial discrimination. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. First, the Broomes established a prima facie case by showing: (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they were qualified to sublet the apartment, with qualification being defined by financial ability; (3) they were rejected; and (4) the apartment remained available. Second, the Beekman defendants articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the rejection, claiming they perceived the Broomes as 'confrontational and litigious.' Third, the jury had sufficient evidence to find this reason was pretextual. This evidence included the board's discussions of Gregory Broome's race, Weiner’s notes and comments, the unprecedented requirement of a second interview after Biondi met Gregory Broome, Appleby's hostile questioning about potential race lawsuits, and the board's failure to check any of the Broomes' positive references. This accumulation of circumstantial evidence allowed a reasonable jury to conclude that the board's proffered reason was a pretext for unlawful racial discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the primary element for establishing qualification in a prima facie housing discrimination case is financial capability, not subjective assessments of character. The court's analysis provides a clear roadmap for how plaintiffs can use circumstantial evidence to prove that a defendant's facially legitimate reason for rejection is merely a pretext for discrimination. The case demonstrates that actions like unusual procedural hurdles, internal discussions about race, and hostile, race-focused questioning can collectively form a powerful basis for inferring discriminatory intent, making it a valuable precedent for future housing discrimination litigation.
