On March 13, 2017, the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council ("EHOC") filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiff sued the City of Maplewood, Missouri, under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. and Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.040 et seq. for discriminatory treatment and disparate impact. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought a declaratory judgement that the defendant’s actions violate the FHA and the MHRA; a permanent injunction restraining Maplewood from enforcing the nuisance ordinance; compensatory damages; punitive damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the nuisance ordinance issued by the city of Maplewood, Missouri discriminates against and disproportionately impacts nonwhite residents, women (especially those who are survivors of domestic violence), and people with disabilities. Specifically, they challenged the city of Maplewood "chronic nuisance ordinance" pursuant to which the city revoked the occupancy permits of residents (it’s a crime to live in the city without it) whom it deems to be "chronic nuisances." They claimed that Maplewood designated certain residents to be nuisances simply because they had been the subject of multiple police calls, regardless of whether they did anything wrong.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on May 11, 2017. They alleged that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 and Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.040 for which relief could be granted.

On December 8, 2017, District Judge Ronnie L. White granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. He found that the facts did not create an inference that the defendant enforced its nuisance ordinance for the purpose of adversely affecting African American residents, women, and/or disabled residents and failed to identify specific instances where the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive in providing favorable treatment to white and/or non-disabled residents over other residents based on race, gender, disability, or any other improper criteria when enforcing its nuisance ordinance. He also found that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a causal connection between the alleged discriminatory policy, Maplewood's nuisance ordinance, and the alleged discriminatory disparate impact on African Americans, women, and disabled residents. The Judge also dismiss the state law claim without prejudice, stating that because the federal claim had been dismissed, he did not have jurisdiction to hear the state claim. 2017 WL 6278882.

On January 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging that claims regarding EHOC’s sex and disability discrimination were conceptually distinct from the race discrimination claim, and the Court erred in dismissing them for the same reasons. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff could not relitigate the merits of its case and that the court fully addressed all of plaintiff’s claims as pleaded.

On May 8, 2018, Judge White denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment as an attempt to “re-litigate the issues which the Court thoroughly addressed.” The case is now closed. 2018 WL 10396918.

Joanna Kuzdra - 01/19/2018
Sichun Liu - 01/19/2020


compress summary