Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 22 dence that the defendant (i.e., here the City) has acted with a discrimi- natory purpose and has caused harm to members of a protected class (i.e., here "disabled" recovering addicts), such evidence is sufficient to peiniit the protected individuals to proceed to trial under a disparate treatment theory. In so holding, the court found that its cases "clearly establish that plaintiffs [(i.e., here the Group Homes)] who allege disparate treatment under statutory anti -discrimination laws need not demonstrate the exis- tence of a similarly situated entity who or which was treated better than the plaintiffs in order to prevail." Instead, said the court, the plaintiff may "simply produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated" the defendant (i.e., here the City) and that the defendant's actions adversely affected the plaintiff in some way. The court further explained that having taken the latter "direct or circumstantial evidence" approach, the Group Homes' claim would survive summary judgment and bring the issue to trial if they could show that the City's actions were motivated by a discrimination through evidence of the following factors, among other potential factors: (1) "statistics demonstrating a `clear pattern unexplainable on grounds other than' discriminatory ones"; (2) "[t]he historical back- ground of the decision"; (3) "[t]he specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision"; (4) "the [City's] departures from its normal procedures or substantive conclusions"; and (5) "relevant `legislative or administrative history.' " The court found that the Group Homes did establish evidence of those factors. The court found that the Group Homes showed: (1) the legislative history indicated that the Ordinance was enacted for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the number of group homes throughout the City; (2) statistics, provided by the City, indicated the Ordinance had the effect of reducing group home beds by 40%; and (3) evidence that group homes were specifically targeted for enforcement. The court also held that the Group Homes created a triable issue of fact as to whether the losses that their businesses suffered were caused by the enactment and enforcement of the Ordinance. The court acknowledged that the Group Homes had presented evidence that: they experienced a significant decline in business after the Ordinance's enactment; the publicity surrounding the Ordinance greatly reduced referrals; and current and prospective residents expressed concern about whether the Group Homes would close. Further, the court held that the costs borne by the Group Homes to present their permit ap- plications and the costs spent assuring the public that they were still operating despite the City's efforts to close them were compensable. The court concluded that the Group Homes had created a triable is- © 2013 Thomson Reuters 5