DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County et al. (D.S.C.)

On November 20, 2024, the court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims in DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County, South Carolina, et al. (D.S.C.). This case includes claims brought under the FHA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA when Florence County passed an ordinance to prevent the development of Plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartment complex based on discriminatory objections raised by community members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. On April 2, 2204, the United States filed a Statement of Interest, arguing that the Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. The United States explained that Defendants misstated the legal standard for assessing disparate treatment FHA claims and that Plaintiff put forth circumstantial evidence that may be indicative of discriminatory animus. The United States also explained the correct legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims. Finally, the United States explained that under the correct legal standard, Florence County’s ordinance is the kind of “policy” that may cause a disparate impact, and Defendants failed to counter Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence that Florence County’s ordinance was passed for illegitimate reasons and disproportionately affects Black residents. In its order, the court determined that issues of material fact exist with regard to proving both disparate treatment and disparate impact under the correct FHA standards such that summary judgment would not be appropriate on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. In addition, the court granted Plaintiff’s affirmative summary judgment motion on the first element of a disparate impact claim, concluding that it established a prima facie case of disparate impact liability under the FHA.