## Facts

- New York City enforced Housing Maintenance Code (HMC) § 27-2076(b), which barred families with children under age 16 from residing in single-room-occupancy (SRO) units.
- Under the HMC, an SRO (a “rooming unit”) was a unit that did not have both lawful sanitary facilities and lawful cooking facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants, meaning tenants used shared bathrooms and/or shared kitchens.
- Juana Sierra, a mother of two minor children, had lived in SRO-type units and alleged that the City’s rule excluded her family from that housing category.
- Sierra sued the City of New York and related agencies/officials, alleging the age-based exclusion was discrimination based on “familial status” prohibited by the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which protects families with minor children.
- The City defended the ordinance as a child-welfare measure tied to conditions typical of SRO living: shared facilities and single-room living arrangements.
- The court previously denied cross-motions for summary judgment after finding factual disputes about whether the ordinance actually advanced the City’s stated goal and whether a less discriminatory approach could achieve the same end.
- The court then held an evidentiary hearing (September 3–5, 2008). Evidence included testimony and studies indicating that shared bathrooms and kitchens could raise health risks for children and that single-room living could affect children’s development due to lack of privacy.
- After the hearing, the district court took the matter under advisement and issued a merits decision reported at 579 F. Supp. 2d 543 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2008).

## Issues

1. What standard applies under the FHA when a housing regulation is facially discriminatory on the basis of familial status?
2. Under that standard, did HMC § 27-2076(b)’s ban on children under 16 in SRO units violate the FHA, or was it justified by a legitimate, bona fide governmental interest that could not be served as effectively by a less discriminatory alternative?

## Decision

- The court applied heightened scrutiny to the facially discriminatory ordinance.
- The court held that HMC § 27-2076(b) did not violate the FHA and entered judgment for the City defendants on the request to invalidate and enjoin enforcement of the provision.
- The court found the City established a legitimate, bona fide interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of children.
- Based on the evidentiary hearing record, the court found the ordinance advanced that interest in practice, crediting evidence about (a) health risks associated with shared kitchens and bathrooms and (b) developmental concerns tied to single-room living and limited privacy for children.
- The court concluded that proposed alternatives—such as relying on ordinary code enforcement or other targeted measures—were not shown to address the core concerns as effectively with less discriminatory effect.
- As a result, Sierra did not obtain declaratory or injunctive relief invalidating the ordinance on FHA grounds.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA prohibits housing discrimination because of “familial status,” which protects families with minor children.
- A housing restriction that expressly excludes families with children is facially discriminatory under the FHA, but it may still be upheld under a heightened scrutiny framework.
- Under the heightened scrutiny test (drawn from Second Circuit precedent), the government must show the challenged rule furthers, in theory and in practice, a legitimate, bona fide governmental interest.
- The government must also show that no alternative would serve that interest with less discriminatory effect.
- Whether the rule works “in practice” is a factual question that may depend on the conditions of the housing at issue and the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed alternatives, as shown by the trial or hearing record.

## Conclusion

Sierra v. City of New York upheld New York City’s exclusion of children under 16 from SRO units under the FHA’s heightened scrutiny standard because the City proved, with record evidence, that the restriction served a bona fide child-welfare goal in actual operation and that the plaintiff did not show a workable, comparably effective less discriminatory alternative.


Sierra v. City of New York, 579 F. Supp. 2d 543 (2008)