## Facts

- Residents and a community organization from Waterfront South, Camden, New Jersey challenged state permitting and a proposed cement-grinding facility.
- Waterfront South was alleged to be predominantly minority and low-income, with a high concentration of industrial uses and pollution sources.
- The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an air permit to St. Lawrence Cement Co., L.L.C. (SLC) to construct and operate the facility.
- Plaintiffs alleged the facility would increase particulate and other air emissions and intensify diesel-truck traffic, causing added noise, vibration, dust, and health risks.
- After earlier disparate-impact theories became unavailable, plaintiffs proceeded on intentional discrimination theories, Fair Housing Act claims, and New Jersey nuisance claims.
- NJDEP and its Commissioner moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); SLC moved to dismiss the nuisance claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged intentional discrimination under Title VI § 601 and the Equal Protection Clause based on NJDEP’s permitting decision.
2. Whether the complaint stated claims under the Fair Housing Act, including that the challenged conduct would make housing “unavailable” or impose discriminatory “terms, conditions, or privileges” of housing.
3. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged private and public nuisance under New Jersey law against SLC, and whether permit compliance bars nuisance liability at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and drawing reasonable inferences for plaintiffs.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded intentional discrimination under Title VI § 601 and the Equal Protection Clause and refused to dismiss those claims.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded Fair Housing Act claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3604(b) and refused to dismiss those claims.
- The court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded private and public nuisance under New Jersey law and denied SLC’s motion to dismiss.
- The court rejected the argument that operating under valid environmental permits automatically immunizes a facility from nuisance liability.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) if, taking factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, relief is plausibly available under some set of supporting facts.
- Disparate impact alone is insufficient for Title VI § 601 and Equal Protection; a plaintiff must plausibly allege discriminatory purpose, which may be inferred from circumstantial evidence (including patterns of decisions and decisionmaker awareness of community demographics).
- Conduct may violate FHA § 3604(a) when discriminatory actions or conditions effectively make housing unavailable, including by allegedly rendering homes uninhabitable or driving residents away.
- FHA § 3604(b) can reach discriminatory environmental conditions closely connected to residential occupancy and the enjoyment, comfort, and safety of the home.
- Under New Jersey law, private nuisance involves unreasonable and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land; public nuisance involves unreasonable interference with rights common to the public (such as public health and safety).
- Regulatory compliance and permits are relevant but not dispositive in nuisance analysis; a lawful, permitted operation may still constitute a nuisance if it unreasonably interferes with protected interests.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed because the amended complaint plausibly alleged that state permitting of a cement facility in an already overburdened minority neighborhood involved intentional discrimination, created actionable housing-related harms under the Fair Housing Act, and could constitute private and public nuisance even if the operator complied with environmental permits.


South Camden Citizens in Action v. N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 254 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D.N.J. 2003)