Group Homes? Not In My Back Yard.

“One of the wealthiest cities in the United States” passed an ordinance “which prohibits new group homes in most residential areas, requires existing group homes in those areas to submit to a burdensome permit process, and subjects those seeking to establish group homes in the limited areas in which they are permitted to operate to the same onerous permit process.” Group homes are “homes in which recovering alcoholics and drug users live communally and mutually support each other’s recovery.” At the same time, the city did not impose similar regulations on properties rented by homeowners to vacationing tourists, despite the fact that such rental properties may cause similar social problems as group homes. Residents of the group homes and others brought actions against the city alleging discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act [FHA; 42 U.S.C. § 3613], the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA; 42 U.S.C. § 12132], California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act [FEHA; Government Code section 12900, et seq.] and the Equal Protection Clause.  The federal district court granted summary judgments in favor of the city. The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating: “Where, as here, there is direct or circumstantial evidence that the defendant acted with a discriminatory purpose and has caused harm to members of a protected class, such evidence is sufficient to permit the protected individuals to proceed to trial under a disparate treatment theory. (Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach  (Ninth Cir.; September 20, 2013) (No. 11-55460, 11-55461).