## Facts

- Jackie B. Allen, a Black applicant and veteran, applied in 1997 for Section 8 housing assistance administered by the Oak Park Housing Authority (OPHA).
- OPHA sent Allen’s identifying information (including race and social security number) to police for a criminal-record check.
- The Illinois State Police returned information tied to “Larry W. Hamilton,” a Black man convicted of smuggling; one listed social security number matched Allen’s, though the birth dates differed.
- OPHA assumed Allen was Hamilton and notified Allen it would not continue processing his application based on the “criminal check,” without providing details of the alleged record.
- Allen alleged OPHA staff refused to show him the report, discouraged him from clearing his name, and told him he would “have to get a lawyer.”
- Allen retained counsel and submitted fingerprints to prove he was not Hamilton; OPHA reinstated his application after the mistaken identity was resolved.
- Allen alleged OPHA treated similarly situated white applicants more favorably when criminal-record problems arose:
  - A white applicant with an actual serious record had his application reinstated after an unverified assertion about the timing of his probation.
  - A white applicant whose background check was mistaken was shown the report and given instructions to clear her name, including fingerprinting, after which her application was reinstated.

## Issues

1. Whether Allen produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie Fair Housing Act disparate-treatment claim based on race.
2. Whether evidence of more favorable treatment of white applicants with comparable criminal-record issues created a genuine dispute of material fact, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for OPHA and its officials on the Fair Housing Act claim.
- The court held Allen presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find he was treated less favorably than similarly situated white applicants in resolving criminal-record concerns.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Fair Housing Act intentional-discrimination claims may be evaluated using the Title VII burden-shifting framework: protected status, qualification, adverse action, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated persons outside the protected class.
- “Similarly situated” does not require identical circumstances; comparators must be directly comparable in material respects relevant to the challenged decision.
- At summary judgment, courts view the record in the nonmovant’s favor and ask whether a reasonable jury could find discrimination.
- An asserted nondiscriminatory justification unsupported by evidence (e.g., an alleged policy change) may be treated as pretext at the summary-judgment stage when the record otherwise supports an inference of disparate treatment.

## Conclusion

Because Allen offered evidence that OPHA withheld assistance and information from him while assisting or crediting white applicants with comparable criminal-record problems, and because OPHA’s asserted policy explanation lacked evidentiary support, a jury could reasonably infer intentional racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand.


Allen v. Muriello, 217 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2000)