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
- Whether Allen produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie Fair Housing Act disparate-treatment claim based on race.
- 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.