United States District Court, D. Utah
RECOVERY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff,
CITY OF SOUTH OGDEN, and DOE DEFENDANTS I through X, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -DISPARATE IMPACT
Stewart United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's disparate impact claims.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the
Recovery Land Holdings, LLC (“Brighton”) operates
a residential facility for people recovering from alcoholism
and substance abuse located in South Ogden, Utah. Plaintiff
requested an application for a reasonable accommodation from
Defendant City of South Ogden (the “City”) to
allow it to provide treatment for up to 32 people. That
request was denied by the City's Accommodation Review
Committee, and that denial was later upheld by a Hearing
brought this action on September 29, 2017. Brighton asserted
claims under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Brighton advanced
three theories of liability under these provisions: (1)
disparate treatment discrimination; (2) disparate impact
discrimination; and (3) failure to grant a reasonable
Court previously granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's
reasonable accommodation claim. Defendant now seeks summary
judgment on Plaintiff's disparate impact claim.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” In considering whether a genuine dispute
of material fact exists, the Court determines whether a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party in the face of all the evidence
presented. The Court is required to construe all
facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party.
disparate-impact claim “challenges a facially neutral
policy that actually or predictably results in . . .
discrimination.” “This ‘is generally shown by
statistical evidence . . . involv[ing] the appropriate
comparables' necessary to create a reasonable inference
that any disparate effect identified was caused by the
challenged policy and not other causal
factors.” Without evidence of a disparity, Brighton
cannot make out a disparate impact claim.
Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence sufficient to make
out a disparate impact claim. Plaintiff has failed to provide
any of the necessary statistical evidence and has failed to
identify an expert to provide such evidence. The time for
doing so has expired and, as explained in the Court's
Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiffs Renewed Rule
56(d) Motion and Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, the Court
declines to extend that deadline. Without such evidence,
Plaintiffs claim necessarily fails.
that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ...