United States v. Starrett City Associates
840 F.2d 1096 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII) prohibits a private landlord from using rigid, indefinite racial quotas that limit minority access to housing, even when the stated purpose is to maintain racial integration and prevent 'white flight.'
Facts:
- Starrett City Associates ('Starrett') owns and operates a large, government-subsidized housing complex in Brooklyn, New York.
- Upon its construction, Starrett assured the New York City Board of Estimate that it intended to create and maintain a racially integrated community to allay fears it would become a predominantly minority development.
- To maintain racial integration and prevent 'white flight,' Starrett adopted a tenanting procedure designed to maintain a racial distribution of approximately 64% white, 22% black, and 8% hispanic residents.
- This procedure involved maintaining separate application files and waiting lists based on an applicant's race and national origin.
- When an apartment became vacant, Starrett would select a new applicant of the same race or national origin as the departing tenant to maintain its desired racial quotas.
- As a result of this policy, minority applicants faced significantly longer waiting times for apartments than white applicants.
- While the active application file was over 70% minority, the complex's occupancy remained approximately 64% white due to the quota system.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1979, a group of black applicants filed a class-action lawsuit against Starrett in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Arthur v. Starrett City Assocs.).
- The Arthur lawsuit was settled via a consent decree in 1984, which required Starrett to make more units available to minority applicants but did not resolve the legality of the underlying quota policy.
- The United States government commenced this action against Starrett in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in June 1984.
- Both the government and Starrett filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding Starrett's policies violated the Fair Housing Act and permanently enjoined Starrett from using its race-based rental practices.
- Starrett (appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the government is the appellee.
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 private housing complex's tenant selection policy, which uses fixed racial quotas to maintain a specific level of racial integration by limiting minority access to available apartments, violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Miner, J.
Yes. A private landlord's use of rigid, indefinite racial quotas to maintain integration violates the Fair Housing Act. The Act's anti-discrimination provisions are paramount and cannot be superseded by a landlord's independent, non-remedial efforts to maintain a specific racial balance. The court reasoned that Starrett's policies fall squarely within the conduct prohibited by section 3604 of the Act because they make housing unavailable to individuals solely because of their race. While acknowledging the Act's dual goals of eliminating discrimination and promoting integration, the court found that the two goals conflict here, and the anti-discrimination principle must prevail. The court analyzed Starrett's quotas under the framework for race-conscious affirmative action plans, finding them impermissible because they were not temporary, not remedial of past discrimination, and acted as a 'ceiling' on minority access rather than a tool to expand it. The court distinguished the precedent of Otero v. New York City Housing Auth. by noting that the policy in Otero was a one-time, temporary measure during an initial rent-up, not a permanent, ongoing policy to maintain a fixed racial composition.
Dissenting - Newman, J.
No. The Fair Housing Act should not be interpreted to prohibit the maintenance of racial integration in private housing. The dissent argued that a literal reading of the statute should not be used to achieve a 'perverse end' that is contrary to the spirit and intent of the law. The primary purpose of the Fair Housing Act was to replace ghettos with 'truly integrated and balanced living patterns.' Applying the Act to dismantle a successful, integrated community like Starrett City directly contradicts this congressional policy. The dissent contended that the majority improperly distinguished Otero, which established that race-conscious rental policies designed to promote integration do not violate Title VIII. At a minimum, Starrett should have been given the opportunity for a trial to prove that its policies were necessary to prevent the complex from 'tipping' into a segregated community.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the Fair Housing Act's anti-discrimination mandate prohibits the use of racial 'ceiling' quotas, even when implemented with the 'benign' motive of maintaining integration. The court prioritizes the individual right to non-discriminatory housing access over a landlord's collective goal of maintaining a specific racial balance. The ruling significantly limits the tools available to private landlords seeking to prevent 'white flight,' suggesting that integration efforts must not come at the cost of limiting minority housing opportunities. It solidifies the principle that affirmative action-style plans in housing must be remedial and temporary, not perpetual and maintenance-oriented.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Starrett City Associates