MHANY Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau
819 F.3d 581 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality violates the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause when it changes a zoning ordinance to restrict multi-family housing in knowing response to its citizens' racially motivated opposition to affordable housing, even when that opposition is expressed in coded, facially neutral language.
Facts:
- The Village of Garden City, an affluent and overwhelmingly white community in the more diverse Nassau County, had no affordable housing and a history of resisting its development.
- In 2002, Nassau County initiated a plan to sell a 25-acre parcel it owned within Garden City, known as the Social Services Site, to a private developer.
- From 2002 to early 2004, Garden City officials and their planning consultant, BFJ, developed and supported a rezoning plan for the site (R-M zoning) that would permit the construction of up to 311 multi-family apartment units.
- During public hearings in late 2003 and early 2004, Garden City residents voiced strong, vocal opposition to the R-M zoning, citing concerns about multi-family and affordable housing changing the "character" and "flavor" of the village.
- At a February 2004 meeting, in response to direct questions about affordable housing, both the County Executive and a Village Trustee assured residents that any development would be "upscale" and not "so-called affordable housing."
- Following this intense public opposition, which included a flyer warning that a pending state bill could require affordable units in new apartment developments, Garden City officials abruptly reversed their position in May 2004.
- In a rushed process, the Village Board of Trustees abandoned the R-M plan and adopted a new zoning classification, Residential-Townhouse (R-T), which effectively prohibited multi-family housing on over 85% of the site.
- MHANY Management, Inc., a developer of affordable housing, determined it was not financially feasible to build under the new R-T zoning restrictions, and the site was later contracted to a developer of single-family homes.
Procedural Posture:
- MHANY Management, Inc. and other plaintiffs filed suit against the Incorporated Village of Garden City and Nassau County in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.
- On a motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed all claims against defendant Nassau County but denied the motion as to defendant Garden City.
- After an eleven-day bench trial, the district court found Garden City liable for violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause based on theories of both disparate treatment and disparate impact.
- The district court entered a final judgment and ordered injunctive relief against Garden City.
- Garden City, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed the trial judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Plaintiffs, as Plaintiff-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, cross-appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nassau County.
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 municipality violate the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause by changing a zoning ordinance from one permitting multi-family housing to one that restricts it, when the change is made in knowing response to racially-motivated community opposition to affordable housing?
Opinions:
Majority - Pooler, Circuit Judge
Yes. A municipality violates the Fair Housing Act when it knowingly capitulates to the racially motivated opposition of its residents. The court applied the factors from Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. to find discriminatory intent. The most significant evidence was the sequence of events: Garden City officials and their consultants spent eighteen months developing and endorsing R-M zoning, but abruptly reversed course and rapidly adopted the restrictive R-T zoning immediately following intense public opposition. The court found that resident objections, while facially neutral (e.g., concerns about traffic, schools, and preserving the village's "character"), were understood by officials as code words for racial animus against the potential influx of minority residents who disproportionately rely on affordable housing. Applying a mixed-motive analysis, the court determined that while the Village offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the change, these reasons were pretextual and the Village would not have abandoned R-M zoning for R-T zoning in the absence of the discriminatory motive.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that municipalities cannot escape liability for housing discrimination by claiming they are merely responding to the will of their constituents, especially when that will is racially motivated. It affirms that courts can look beyond facially neutral justifications, such as traffic or school concerns, to find discriminatory intent based on circumstantial evidence like a sudden departure from established procedures and an awareness of coded, race-based public animus. The case serves as a significant precedent in FHA litigation, demonstrating that acquiescing to community opposition rooted in stereotypes about residents of affordable housing constitutes intentional discrimination. This holding makes it more difficult for affluent communities to use zoning power to exclude minorities under the guise of preserving "neighborhood character."
Unlock the full brief for MHANY Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau