## Facts

- Gayle Linkletter previously worked for Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc. and left on good terms.
- In 2014, she interviewed for and accepted an offer to return to Western & Southern in a corporate communications role.
- Western & Southern was engaged in a public dispute and related litigation involving the Anna Louise Inn, a Cincinnati women’s shelter and housing provider, and residents’ asserted rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- During that dispute, Linkletter signed an online petition supporting the Inn and opposing Western & Southern’s efforts to displace it.
- Before Linkletter’s start date, Western & Southern (through HR officer Kim Chiodi) rescinded the job offer.
- Linkletter alleged the offer was rescinded because she signed the petition, and she sued under 42 U.S.C. § 3617, claiming retaliation/interference for “aiding or encouraging” others’ FHA rights.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), and Linkletter appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 3617 permits a claim by a prospective employee who is not a tenant or housing applicant, based on an employer’s rescission of a job offer allegedly motivated by the employee’s public support for third parties’ FHA rights.
2. Whether rescinding an employment offer in these circumstances plausibly constitutes “coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference” (including retaliation) within the meaning of § 3617.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged, under Rule 12(b)(6), that the adverse employment action occurred “on account of” protected aid or encouragement of FHA rights and fell within the statute’s intended scope.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held that Linkletter’s alleged injury (loss of employment) was too remote from the FHA’s housing-related protections to be actionable under § 3617.
- Even assuming the employer acted because of her petition signature, the pleaded facts did not establish a sufficient connection between the employment decision and the exercise or enforcement of FHA housing rights contemplated by § 3617.

## Legal Principles

- FHA § 3617 reaches retaliation or interference tied to the exercise or enjoyment of rights protected by §§ 3603–3606, including aiding or encouraging others in exercising those rights.
- Statutory coverage under § 3617 is limited to injuries and plaintiffs within the provision’s intended scope; a claimed injury must bear a close relation to the FHA’s housing-centered protections.
- An adverse employment action by a non-landlord employer against a non-tenant/non-housing applicant, based solely on generalized public advocacy (such as signing a petition), is generally insufficient to state a § 3617 claim absent a substantial nexus to housing access, enjoyment, or enforcement of FHA rights.
- Under Twombly/Iqbal, a complaint must plausibly connect the challenged conduct to actionable interference or retaliation under the statute; conclusory or attenuated links do not suffice.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that § 3617 does not extend to a prospective employee’s claim that a job offer was rescinded because she signed a public petition supporting others in a housing dispute, because the alleged employment injury lacked a sufficiently close connection to FHA-protected housing rights.


Linkletter v. W. & S. Fin. Grp., Inc., 851 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2017)