Custom Search

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Judicial Watch/ HUD Sued for Records of Obama Administration Involvement in Controversial St. Paul, MN, Housing Discrimination Case

posted by Bob at Tuesday, December 11, 2012

4 Comments:

Anonymous JudicialWatchWidgetSt.Paul said...

Thanks4Posting Affiant transposed to www.taxthemax.blogspot.com Its Horror to Go Blind in Jail, Corrupt Judiciary re: Sharons Aitkin Property.

City St.Paul must be held Accountable.

6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time to ask for a refund

1:32 PM  
Anonymous FHA Gallagher vs. Magner USSC 10-1032 said...

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR Never Give Up and Never give in the LandLords Briefs out there.
Why is Federal Judge Michael Davis not setting up for Jury Trial?AIR HOUSING ACT (FHA)

The city of St. Paul, Minnesota withdraws its Supreme Court appeal to determine if the FHA covers disparate impact claims. Gallagher v. Magner , 2012 WL 469885 (No. 10-1032, Feb. 14, 2012). In November 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition by the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, to review a decision from the Eighth Circuit, Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823, rehearing en banc denied, 636 F.3d 380 (8th Cir. 2010), to determine if the statutory language of the FHA encompasses disparate impact claims. However, on February 14, 2012, the court granted the city's request to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. This case has been closely followed by the banking industry, regulators, and community groups not only because it had the potential to eliminate disparate claims under the FHA but also because such a ruling might affect disparate impact claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B.

Disparate impact claims originated under federal employment discrimination law. Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) contain language prohibiting employer actions that have a discriminatory effect on protected-class employees. Based on this language, the Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) that disparate impact claims are permissible under the ADEA. The FHA lacks similar language prohibiting discriminatory effects, which prompted the city to seek review in the Supreme Court on this issue. The text of the ECOA also lacks discriminatory effects language. On a related note, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released a rulemaking proposal to clarify the legal standards for disparate impact claims under the FHA. The proposal is available at http://1.usa.gov/fha-disparate.

11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is important. The truth will prevail.

Bob G.

7:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home