Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The disparate impact theory has application also in the housing context under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act. The ten federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue have all determined that one may establish a Fair Housing Act violation through the disparate impact theory of liability.
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [1]
The disparate treatment theory has application also in the housing context under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits disparate treatment in the housing market due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, family status, and disability. The U.S. Department of ...
Johnson and King sit together listening as civil rights leaders describe housing discrimination’s impact, especially on the Black residents of America’s cities. ... Johnson signing the Fair ...
The Fair Housing Act was passed at the urging of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Congress passed the federal Fair Housing Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, penalties for violation at 42 U.S.C. 3631) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 only one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
In disparate impact claims, a prima facie case of discrimination is established by showing that the challenged practice of the defendant actually or predictably results in racial discrimination. [18] This analysis focuses on facially neutral policies that may have a discriminatory effect.
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional because there ...
The passage of the Act was contentious. The Fair Housing Act was meant to be a direct follow up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however from 1966 to 1967 Congress failed to garner enough political support for its passage. At that time several states had passed their own fair housing laws and Congress was not convinced that a federal law was ...