On April 15, 2008, disabled participants in New Haven's Housing Choice Voucher ("Section 8") program filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven Division against the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven ("HANH") and a group of HANH ...
read more >
On April 15, 2008, disabled participants in New Haven's Housing Choice Voucher ("Section 8") program filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven Division against the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven ("HANH") and a group of HANH officials, alleging that Defendants discriminated against them in administering the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (the "FHAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f); § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and regulations promulgated thereunder, 24 C.F.R. §§ 8.28, 100.204. Plaintiffs asked the court for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
On August 07, 2008, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class defined as "[a]ll current and future participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program who, because of the disabilities and/or handicaps of themselves or someone in their household, need assistance in searching for suitable dwellings to lease under the program." On March 09, 2009, the Court ( Judge Janet Bond Arterton) granted the class certification.
After a nine-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment on March 29, 2010, finding in favor of Defendants on all claims and vacating its earlier class certification order. The District Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to prove Defendants' liability on any of the counts. The Court also held that Plaintffs have no private right of action to enforce enforce certain regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). Finally, the Court found insufficient evidence that Defendants discriminated against the three named Plaintiffs, or that Defendants' conduct toward them deprived them of meaningful access to the benefits of the Section 8 Program. The detailed facts and reasoning are fully set forth in the District Court's Memorandum of Decision on March 29, 2010.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. On May 04, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision in a reported opinion.
Xin Chen - 05/23/2011
compress summary