## Facts

- 12 Lofts Realty, Inc. owned a Manhattan cooperative building in which each shareholder held shares and a proprietary lease to a floor.
- Bennett Robinson, a Black applicant with substantial income and stable employment, contracted to buy a portion of a shareholder’s interest and a proprietary lease, contingent on corporate consent.
- At a shareholder meeting convened after the proposed sale became known, the cooperative adopted new screening requirements (credit report, résumé, prior-landlord recommendation).
- The cooperative applied the new screening requirements to Robinson, but did not apply them to another contemporaneous White applicant seeking to buy a different floor.
- A committee interviewed Robinson and his wife; its written report concluded Robinson’s submitted materials were satisfactory.
- During the consideration of Robinson’s application, the cooperative changed its approval threshold from a simple majority to a two-thirds supermajority.
- Robinson’s application received seven votes out of eleven (a majority), but failed under the new supermajority rule and was rejected.
- Robinson sued under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1982 seeking injunctive relief compelling approval; the district court denied relief on the ground that the cooperative had legitimate, nonracial reasons.

## Issues

1. Whether Robinson made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in a cooperative housing transfer under the Fair Housing Act.
2. Whether the cooperative produced sufficient evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to rebut the inference of discrimination at the preliminary-injunction stage.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the denial of injunctive relief and remanded.
- The court held Robinson established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
- The court held defendants’ rebuttal was insufficient at that stage, particularly because no shareholders who voted against Robinson testified to their reasons.

## Legal Principles

- A prima facie housing-discrimination claim may be shown by proof that: (1) the applicant is a member of a protected class, (2) applied for and was qualified to purchase or rent, (3) was rejected, and (4) the housing opportunity remained available.
- Once a prima facie case is shown, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate and support with evidence legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons sufficient to rebut the inference of discrimination.
- Subjective selection criteria in cooperative admissions (e.g., desirability or compatibility) may be considered, but require careful scrutiny for pretext, especially when procedures are selectively imposed or changed in response to a minority applicant.
- Failure to present evidence from actual decisionmakers may prevent a defendant from rebutting a prima facie showing where the decision turns on shareholder motivations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the selective imposition of new screening requirements and a midstream increase in the approval threshold supported a prima facie inference of racial discrimination in a cooperative transfer, and that defendants could not defeat that showing without concrete evidence—particularly testimony from the shareholders who opposed the application—explaining legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the rejection.


Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1979)