Civil Rights: No Housing Discrimination Claim Where Plaintiff Failed to Apply for Housing

Plaintiff, a Chaldean-American, alleged that he had visited an apartment complex and was advised by the manager that there were no rental units available and that the complex was not accepting applications. Plaintiff further alleged that on the same day a co-worker, who was not Chaldean-American, was told by the manager that apartments were available. Plaintiff filed a discrimination claim under 4§U.S.C. § 1982 and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's§ 1982 claim on the grounds that the statute does not protect against discrimination based on national origin; they also moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's§ 3604 claim. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's§ 1982 claim, because "[t]he Supreme Court has held that persons of Arabic ancestry were considered to be distinct races at the time Congress passed federal civil rights statutes prohibiting official or private racially discriminatory interference with property rights and, thus, were within protection of§ 1982." At the same time, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment under§§ 1982 and 3604 because Plaintiff had failed to establish an essential element for a prima facie case under those statutes. Specifically, Plaintiff had to establish that he was a member of a protected class; that he applied for and was qualified to purchase or rent the housing; that he was rejected; and that the housing opportunity remained available. Plaintiff did not establish that he applied for and was rejected for housing at the apartment complex, because Plaintiff did not fill out an application or pay the $20 application processing fee.

Daniel Saroki v. Pine Run Place and Ann Jones, Civ. No. 97-71038, E.D. Mich., 02/12/98, O'Meara, J.

This article was prepared by Mark A. Goldsmith, a partner in our Litigation Department, was appeared in the July, 1998 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal.