## Facts

- The Fort Walton Beach Housing Authority owned and operated public housing and planned to construct a new public-housing project.
- Angelique Jackson, an African-American woman eligible for public housing, lived in a racially concentrated area, was on the Authority’s waiting list, and expected to move into the new project; she sought placement in an area without concentrated minority population.
- Ethel Musgrove, an African-American woman, resided in an existing Authority project located in the census tract with the highest proportion of African-American residents within the Authority’s territory.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Authority and Okaloosa County selected a site for the new project in an already racially impacted area, expecting most tenants to be African-American, thereby perpetuating or increasing racial segregation.
- Plaintiffs sued the County, the Authority (and officials in their official capacities), and federal housing officials under the Fair Housing Act (FHA); they also asserted claims against the County under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983.

## Issues

1. Whether residents and prospective residents of public housing sufficiently alleged an FHA injury and causal connection by claiming that public-housing siting decisions would perpetuate or worsen racial segregation.
2. Whether the complaint adequately alleged that the County and the Housing Authority could be liable under the FHA for their roles in selecting a segregative site and failing to further fair housing.
3. Whether disparate-impact and intentional-discrimination theories were sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences as true, the court held plaintiffs stated FHA claims sufficient to proceed beyond the pleading stage.
- The court also held the allegations were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to allow the related §§ 1982 and 1983 claims against the County to go forward.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts must accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations and reasonable inferences; dismissal is proper only when no set of facts consistent with the allegations would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- The FHA permits challenges to governmental or quasi-governmental housing practices, including public-housing siting decisions, that allegedly perpetuate or intensify racial segregation.
- Allegations that a siting decision will concentrate minority residents in already racially impacted neighborhoods may constitute a cognizable injury under the FHA for affected residents and prospective residents.
- At the pleading stage, claims based on segregative effects (disparate impact) and claims alleging knowing selection of a segregative site (intentional discrimination or failure to further fair housing obligations) can proceed when the complaint plausibly links defendants’ actions to the alleged harm.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that a class complaint alleging that county and housing-authority siting of new public housing would worsen racial concentration stated actionable claims under the FHA (and related claims against the County) and therefore could not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) at the outset.


Jackson v. Okaloosa Cnty., Fla., 21 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994)