Lexplug logoLexplug

Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Columbia
81 F. Supp. 2d 1 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a Fair Housing Act (FHA) claim based on a perceived disability, a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case sufficient to survive summary judgment by presenting circumstantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant suspected the plaintiff's disability, even if the defendant denies such knowledge.


Facts:

  • William Neithamer, who is gay and HIV positive, applied to rent a townhouse through Brenneman Property Services, Inc.
  • In his application process, Neithamer informed the agent, Padraig Wholihan, that his credit report showed past non-payments.
  • Neithamer explained his poor credit history resulted from devoting his financial resources to pay the medical bills of his lover, who had died of AIDS in 1994.
  • After the property owner, Alida Stephens, rejected his initial application, Neithamer made several subsequent offers.
  • Neithamer offered to pay a second month's rent as security, which was rejected.
  • He then secured a co-signer for the lease, but this offer was also rejected without the agent running a credit check on the co-signer.
  • Finally, Neithamer offered to pre-pay one full year's rent, which was also rejected.
  • When Neithamer called to inquire about potential discrimination, the owner of the agency, George Brenneman, allegedly threatened him with countersuits from a "pack of bloodsucking lawyers."

Procedural Posture:

  • William Neithamer filed a lawsuit against Brenneman Property Services, Inc., and its agents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • The complaint alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation and disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA).
  • The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to have the case dismissed before trial.
  • The plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the defendants' motion as untimely.

Locked

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 plaintiff in a Fair Housing Act case establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on a perceived disability, sufficient to survive summary judgment, by presenting circumstantial evidence or 'clues' that could lead a reasonable jury to infer the defendant suspected the plaintiff's disability, even when the defendant denies such knowledge?


Opinions:

Majority - Kessler, District Judge

Yes. A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination based on a perceived disability by presenting sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a material dispute about the defendant's perception. The court adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for FHA claims. The central issue was whether Neithamer established the first element of the prima facie case: that Brenneman Property knew or suspected he was disabled (HIV positive). The court reasoned that requiring definitive proof of a defendant's state of mind at the summary judgment stage would create an 'impossible burden,' particularly for non-obvious disabilities, and would undermine the FHA's purpose. Therefore, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to present 'clues'—such as Neithamer's statement that his lover died of AIDS—that could lead a reasonable jury to infer the defendant suspected the disability. Because Neithamer presented such clues and also provided sufficient evidence of his qualifications (strong bank statements, a co-signer, an offer to prepay rent) to counter his poor credit history, he successfully established a prima facie case, and the defendants' nondiscriminatory reasons were sufficiently challenged to present a triable issue of pretext.



Analysis:

This memorandum opinion is significant for establishing a lower evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in 'perceived disability' housing discrimination cases at the summary judgment stage. By holding that circumstantial 'clues' are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding a defendant's knowledge or suspicion, the court prevents defendants from easily defeating claims by simply denying they knew about the disability. This precedent makes it easier for FHA plaintiffs with non-apparent disabilities to get their cases before a jury, where credibility and motive can be more thoroughly examined. The ruling emphasizes that the purpose of anti-discrimination law is to root out subtle and easily deniable forms of prejudice, and the procedural rules must be applied in a way that facilitates that goal.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc. (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc.