## Facts

- A nonprofit developer and related entities planned a 72-unit low-income apartment complex on land zoned for multifamily residential use in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
- The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan, and the city council enacted an ordinance approving the plan for development consistent with the zoning classification.
- Some residents opposed the project, citing crime, traffic, schools, and low-income tenants; portions of the public opposition included statements tied to race and families with children.
- Opponents invoked the city charter’s referendum procedure by filing petitions seeking to repeal the site-plan approval ordinance or submit it to a popular vote.
- Under the charter procedure, filing the petition automatically stayed the ordinance’s effectiveness while the election process proceeded.
- The local elections authority certified the petitions and placed the ordinance on the ballot; the developers sought state-court injunctive relief to prevent the election but did not obtain it.
- The referendum election resulted in repeal of the ordinance, delaying the development and withholding permits during the dispute.
- The Ohio Supreme Court later invalidated the referendum under state law, after which the city issued permits and the project could proceed.
- While the state proceedings were ongoing, the developers filed a federal civil-rights action seeking damages for the delay, alleging equal protection, Fair Housing Act, and substantive due process violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the city; the developers appealed and the city cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that the city intentionally discriminated in violation of equal protection by allowing the referendum process to stay the approved site plan in the face of racially biased public opposition.
2. Whether the developers produced sufficient evidence to proceed under the Fair Housing Act on theories of disparate impact and/or intentional discrimination based on race and familial status.
3. Whether the city’s enforcement of the referendum stay against a zoning-compliant, approved project could constitute arbitrary and irrational action violating substantive due process.
4. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, or whether genuine disputes of material fact required a trial.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the city and remanded for trial.
- On equal protection, the court held that a factfinder could infer intentional discrimination if the city’s actions were found to have given official effect to discriminatory public opposition.
- On the Fair Housing Act claim, the court held the record could support liability based on discriminatory effects and potentially discriminatory intent tied to race and familial status.
- On substantive due process, the court held a reasonable jury could view the city’s conduct—suspending an approved, conforming project based on referendum petitioning and public hostility—as arbitrary and capricious.
- The court emphasized it was not resolving ultimate liability, only that the evidence created triable issues.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on material elements of the claims.
- Equal protection liability can arise when governmental decisionmaking is alleged to have intentionally given legal effect to discriminatory animus, even if the animus is expressed by private actors, if the challenged conduct is attributable to the government and linked to the adverse action.
- The Fair Housing Act may reach practices that have discriminatory effects (disparate impact) and practices motivated by discriminatory intent; plaintiffs may proceed where evidence supports that challenged actions foreseeably burden protected classes in access to housing.
- Substantive due process may be violated by governmental action that is arbitrary and irrational, including politically driven obstruction of a project that has satisfied applicable regulatory requirements, where the obstruction lacks a legitimate governmental justification.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the developers presented sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact on equal protection, Fair Housing Act, and substantive due process theories stemming from the city’s use of a referendum-triggered stay to halt an approved low-income housing project, requiring reversal of summary judgment and a remand for trial.


Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 263 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2001)