## Facts

- Westchester County received HUD housing and community-development funds through programs including the Community Development Block Grant.
- As a funding condition, the County submitted Consolidated Plans and annual certifications that it would comply with federal civil-rights laws and “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH).
- HUD’s framework required grantees to conduct an “analysis of impediments to fair housing choice” (AI), take actions to address impediments, and keep supporting records.
- A private fair-housing organization filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging the County knowingly made false AFFH and civil-rights certifications to obtain more than $52 million in HUD funds (2000–2006).
- The County’s AIs largely focused on affordable housing and did not meaningfully analyze race discrimination, racial segregation, or their effects on housing choice, despite available demographic data showing segregation patterns.
- The County argued it had no legal duty to consider race in its AI and, alternatively, that it did consider race and found it not significant.
- After discovery, the relator moved for partial summary judgment on claim, falsity, and materiality-related elements; the County moved for summary judgment on all elements.

## Issues

1. Whether Westchester’s AFFH and related civil-rights certifications were legally false or fraudulent under the FCA because its AIs failed to analyze race discrimination and racial segregation.
2. Whether the alleged false certifications were material to HUD’s decision to disburse funds.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the existence of a “claim,” falsity, and materiality, and whether scienter could be resolved on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted the relator partial summary judgment that the County made claims to the United States seeking federal funds and that those claims were false or fraudulent.
- The court held the County’s AFFH certifications were false as a matter of law because the County did not perform the race-conscious analysis required by the AFFH obligation.
- The court held the false certifications were material to HUD’s funding decisions because truthful AFFH certifications were an express condition of funding and capable of influencing payment.
- The court denied summary judgment on the FCA knowledge element, finding factual disputes about the County’s state of mind.
- The court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment in full.

## Legal Principles

- An AFFH certification tied to HUD funding requires more than general support for affordable housing; it requires analysis of race discrimination and racial segregation affecting housing choice within the jurisdiction.
- A certification may be “false or fraudulent” under the FCA when a funding recipient certifies compliance with AFFH while failing to perform the required AI addressing racial impediments.
- FCA materiality is satisfied where the certification is a condition of payment and has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the government’s disbursement decision.
- FCA scienter requires proof the defendant acted knowingly (actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard); disputes about intent may preclude summary judgment even when falsity and materiality are established.

## Conclusion

The court held that Westchester County’s HUD funding submissions contained materially false AFFH certifications because the County’s analyses did not meaningfully address race discrimination or segregation, establishing key FCA elements as a matter of law while reserving the knowledge element for trial.


United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Ctr. of Metro N.Y., Inc. v. Westchester Cnty., 668 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)