## Facts

- CoreLogic, a tenant-screening company, marketed CrimSAFE, which provided landlords with screening results based on selected offense categories and “look-back” periods.
- CrimSAFE produced an eligibility-style result (e.g., “disqualifying records”) and could operate without providing the underlying criminal-history details to landlords or applicants at the point of decision.
- Plaintiffs alleged CrimSAFE effectively drove rental outcomes because landlords commonly followed the pass/fail-type result.
- Plaintiffs further alleged CrimSAFE treated arrest records as disqualifying even without a conviction, causing denials based on arrests alone.
- Carmen Arroyo sought to have her disabled adult son, Mikhail, move into her apartment; the landlord screened him through CrimSAFE and denied the application based on a “disqualifying” record tied to a prior minor theft arrest in another state.
- Leasing staff did not provide the underlying record and directed Arroyo to CoreLogic; she repeatedly attempted to obtain the report but did not receive it until litigation commenced.
- Connecticut Fair Housing Center (CFHC) claimed it diverted staff time and resources to address the alleged discriminatory screening and altered programming to counter its effects.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) (including disparate impact based on race and national origin and disability-related theories), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (file disclosure-related duties), and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

## Issues

1. Whether CFHC and Arroyo had standing to sue under the FHA and CUTPA.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence that CrimSAFE’s criminal-history screening caused a disparate impact on Black and Latino applicants under the FHA.
3. Whether CoreLogic could be liable under the FHA for disability discrimination or failure to permit a reasonable accommodation related to Mikhail Arroyo’s tenancy.
4. Whether CoreLogic violated FCRA duties concerning consumer “file” disclosures and related procedures, including whether any noncompliance was willful.
5. Whether CoreLogic’s alleged conduct constituted unfair or deceptive practices under CUTPA.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part CoreLogic’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment.
- The court held CFHC and Arroyo had standing under the FHA and CUTPA.
- The court denied summary judgment to CoreLogic on FHA race/national-origin disparate-impact claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact based on statistical and record evidence.
- The court granted summary judgment to CoreLogic on FHA disability-based and reasonable-accommodation claims due to insufficient supporting evidence.
- The court allowed certain FCRA claims (centered on delayed/ineffective file disclosure procedures for a defined period) to proceed, while granting summary judgment to CoreLogic on other FCRA theories.
- The court permitted CUTPA theories to proceed to the extent they tracked surviving FHA and FCRA claims, and narrowed CUTPA allegations dependent on dismissed theories.

## Legal Principles

- An organization has standing where it shows concrete injury from diversion of resources and frustration of mission attributable to the challenged practices and redressable by judicial relief.
- An individual has standing where alleged housing-related deprivations and resulting financial harms are traceable to the challenged conduct and redressable.
- FHA disparate-impact claims may proceed past summary judgment where plaintiffs present evidence supporting a causal connection between a challenged screening practice and adverse racial or national-origin outcomes; competing factual inferences generally require trial.
- FHA disability and reasonable-accommodation claims require evidence that a reasonable and necessary accommodation was sought and denied within the statute’s framework; unsupported or ill-defined accommodation theories do not survive summary judgment.
- Under the FCRA, disputes about whether a consumer reporting agency’s procedures provided clear, effective, and timely access to a consumer’s file, and whether any violation was willful, can preclude summary judgment.
- CUTPA claims may proceed when the alleged conduct in commerce plausibly constitutes unfair or deceptive practices and plaintiffs show ascertainable loss; claims dependent on dismissed substantive theories are subject to narrowing.

## Conclusion

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found plaintiffs had standing and allowed the FHA race/national-origin disparate-impact claims and certain FCRA file-disclosure claims (and related CUTPA theories) to proceed, while disposing of the FHA disability and reasonable-accommodation theories and narrowing other statutory claims.


Connecticut Fair Hous. Ctr. v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols., LLC, 478 F. Supp. 3d 259 (D. Conn. 2020)