## Facts

- Jewish owners of condominium units in a Chicago building placed mezuzot on the exterior doorposts of their units for decades without objection.
- The condominium association adopted a hallway rule barring “any objects of any sort” on common elements near unit doors, initially without enforcing it against mezuzot.
- The association later began enforcing the rule by removing all items from doorposts, including mezuzot, and repeatedly removed the plaintiffs’ mezuzot.
- During a family funeral and mourning period, the association removed the plaintiffs’ mezuzah while leaving other hallway items (including a coat rack and card table) in place.
- The plaintiffs asserted that the association sometimes permitted other items in the hallways and that the mezuzah removals and related interactions reflected intentional religious discrimination.
- Plaintiffs sued the association and its president under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1982; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, treating prior circuit precedent as barring post-acquisition FHA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether FHA § 3604(b) and § 3617 can apply to discriminatory conduct occurring after a homeowner has acquired and occupied a dwelling, including discriminatory enforcement of condominium rules.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find intentional religious discrimination under § 3604(b) and § 3617.

## Decision

- The en banc Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on the FHA claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, in some circumstances, homeowners may sue under the FHA for discrimination occurring after they move in.
- The court concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether defendants intentionally discriminated on the basis of religion in enforcing the hallway rule.

## Legal Principles

- FHA § 3604(b) may reach post-acquisition discrimination affecting the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of dwelling occupancy and the “services or facilities” connected with the dwelling, including condominium-association administration.
- FHA § 3617 may apply to post-acquisition coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with a resident’s exercise or enjoyment of FHA-protected rights.
- Post-acquisition FHA liability is not categorically barred; prior circuit precedent must be read in light of statutory text and context and may not foreclose all claims arising after purchase or move-in.
- A facially neutral rule may violate the FHA if enforced with discriminatory intent; selective enforcement and surrounding circumstances may support an inference of pretext and animus at the summary-judgment stage.
- The FHA does not impose a general duty to provide religious accommodations; the actionable theory is intentional discrimination or interference, not a freestanding failure-to-accommodate claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that the FHA can cover certain discriminatory acts by a condominium association occurring after residents acquire their homes, and that the plaintiffs’ evidence of potentially selective, religion-based enforcement of a hallway rule was sufficient to proceed to trial under §§ 3604(b) and 3617.


Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc)