Hack v. President & Fellows of Yale College
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1ConcurrencePooler, Circuit Judge
B. Failure to State a Claim
Because we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that the students lack standing, we must consider Yale’s contention that the students failed to state an FHA claim. We begin with the observation that plaintiffs allege no discriminatory intent on Yale’s part, no facially discriminatory policy, and no facts sufficient to constitute disparate impact discrimination.
“[T]he reach of the [FHA] was to replace the ghettos ‘by truly integrated and balanced living patterns.’ ” Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited65 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.