By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan erred when it granted summary judgment to a senior living facility that was sued by legal advocates under state and federal fair housing and disability laws, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision.
In a published opinion released Thursday written by Judge Jane Stranch, joined by Judge John Bush and Judge Eric Murphy, the panel in Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit v. Singh Senior Living LLC (USCOA Docket No. 23-3969) reversed the district court and remanded the case for further discovery and argument on the issue of standing.
The complaint stemmed from the center’s assertion that the defendants allegedly refused to accommodate the organization while also steering the provision of false information about its ability to procure and provide American Sign Language services. Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit said that interfered with its core business activities, resulting in “the frustration of its mission, the diversion of its resources, and informational injury.”
The center sued under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
In federal court, the center was found to have standing on the issues to bring a lawsuit but both of its claims were dismissed by U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, who granted summary judgment for the defendants.
The district court further opinioned that the center’s “‘devotion of resources to testing for discriminatory practices and counteracting those alleged practices’ was sufficient, under existing Supreme Court and 6th Circuit precedent, to establish Article III standing,” but still dismissed the claims.
Following that decision in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, involving multiple associations who sued the FDA for loosening regulatory requirements on the mifepristone, a medication used to induce an abortion. The alliance argued it had standing based on incurring costs to oppose FDA action, but the federal high court in that case rejected the argument and clarified that the expenditure of resources in opposition to a defendant’s actions, standing alone, is insufficient to establish standing.
In Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, the center was unable to raise informational injury as a claim before the district court because Alliance had yet to be decided.
In the opinion released by the appellate panel on Thursday, Stranch said that led to the evidentiary record in Fair Housing to be sparse.
“But this is understandable, as the center did not have reason to believe, prior to this appeal, that it might need to collect evidence of informational injury to establish standing,” Stranch wrote. “Indeed, because we are a ‘court of review, not first view,’ it is often the district court – not our court – that is best positioned to determine the application of new law to a particular set of facts. Here, a remand for further discovery and argument on the issue of standing is
appropriate.”
Stranch further said that the remand and order for additional discovery would give the center to develop a more robust record of the alleged informational injury.
“In turn, it will give the district court adequate opportunity in the first instance to assess the issue of standing anew, in light of Alliance, on a fully developed record,” Stranch wrote. “In doing so, the district court must address on a complete record whether the Center has shown interference with its core business activities, as Alliance instructs.”
Stranch also noted that the order for remand takes no particular view on the district court’s ruling on the merits.
Gongwer News Service
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan erred when it granted summary judgment to a senior living facility that was sued by legal advocates under state and federal fair housing and disability laws, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision.
In a published opinion released Thursday written by Judge Jane Stranch, joined by Judge John Bush and Judge Eric Murphy, the panel in Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit v. Singh Senior Living LLC (USCOA Docket No. 23-3969) reversed the district court and remanded the case for further discovery and argument on the issue of standing.
The complaint stemmed from the center’s assertion that the defendants allegedly refused to accommodate the organization while also steering the provision of false information about its ability to procure and provide American Sign Language services. Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit said that interfered with its core business activities, resulting in “the frustration of its mission, the diversion of its resources, and informational injury.”
The center sued under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
In federal court, the center was found to have standing on the issues to bring a lawsuit but both of its claims were dismissed by U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, who granted summary judgment for the defendants.
The district court further opinioned that the center’s “‘devotion of resources to testing for discriminatory practices and counteracting those alleged practices’ was sufficient, under existing Supreme Court and 6th Circuit precedent, to establish Article III standing,” but still dismissed the claims.
Following that decision in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, involving multiple associations who sued the FDA for loosening regulatory requirements on the mifepristone, a medication used to induce an abortion. The alliance argued it had standing based on incurring costs to oppose FDA action, but the federal high court in that case rejected the argument and clarified that the expenditure of resources in opposition to a defendant’s actions, standing alone, is insufficient to establish standing.
In Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, the center was unable to raise informational injury as a claim before the district court because Alliance had yet to be decided.
In the opinion released by the appellate panel on Thursday, Stranch said that led to the evidentiary record in Fair Housing to be sparse.
“But this is understandable, as the center did not have reason to believe, prior to this appeal, that it might need to collect evidence of informational injury to establish standing,” Stranch wrote. “Indeed, because we are a ‘court of review, not first view,’ it is often the district court – not our court – that is best positioned to determine the application of new law to a particular set of facts. Here, a remand for further discovery and argument on the issue of standing is
appropriate.”
Stranch further said that the remand and order for additional discovery would give the center to develop a more robust record of the alleged informational injury.
“In turn, it will give the district court adequate opportunity in the first instance to assess the issue of standing anew, in light of Alliance, on a fully developed record,” Stranch wrote. “In doing so, the district court must address on a complete record whether the Center has shown interference with its core business activities, as Alliance instructs.”
Stranch also noted that the order for remand takes no particular view on the district court’s ruling on the merits.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
