Ga. State Conference of the Naacp v. City of Lagrange

Citation940 F.3d 627
Decision Date10 October 2019
Docket NumberNo. 18-10053,18-10053
Parties GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, Troup County NAACP, Project South, Charles Brewer, Calvin Morland, April Walton, Pamela Williams, John Doe, #1, John Doe, #2, John Doe, #3, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LAGRANGE, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Reed N. Colfax, Alexa Milton, Joseph Wardenski, Relman Dane & Colfax, PLLC, WASHINGTON, DC, Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, Atteeyah Hollie, Southern Center for Human Rights, ATLANTA, GA, Mayra Beatriz Joachin, Melissa S. Keaney, National Immigration Law Center, LOS ANGELES, CA, Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Law Offices of Karen Tumlin, LOS ANGELES, CA, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.

Jeffrey Marshall Todd, Lewis Taylor & Todd, PC, LAGRANGE, GA, Jeffrey R. Daniel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, ATLANTA, GA, Kenneth Drew Jones, Hall Booth Smith, PC, ATLANTA, GA, for Defendant - Appellee.

Lisa J. Krisher, Georgia Legal Services Program, ATLANTA, GA, for Amici Curiae GEORGIA LEGAL SERVICES, ATLANTA VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOUNDATION, and GEORGIA LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM.

Lindsey Meredith Siegel, Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc., DECATUR, GA, for Amicus Curiae ATLANTA LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC.

Benjamin Gross Shatz, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, LOS ANGELES, CA, for Amici Curiae GEORGIA LATINO ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS and ALABAMA COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE.

Kristen Adrina Johnson, Jin Hee Lee, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NEW YORK, NY, Daniel Sparky Abraham, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, WASHINGTON, DC, for Amicus Curiae NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Samuel Jacob Brooke, Emily Early, Southern Poverty Law Center, MONTGOMERY, AL, for Amicus Curiae SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER.

Elizabeth Brancart, Brancart & Brancart, PESCADERO, CA, for Amici Curiae ELIZABETH JULIAN, FORMER HUD ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EVA PLAZA, FORMER HUD ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, JOHN D. TRASVINA, FORMER HUD ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, GUSTAVO VELASQUEZ, and FORMER HUD ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

Daniel Sparky Abraham, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, WASHINGTON, DC, Jin Hee Lee, Samuel Spital, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NEW YORK, NY, for Amici Curiae NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC., CENTER FOR FAIR HOUSING, INC., CENTRAL ALABAMA FAIR HOUSING CENTER, FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, FAIR HOUSING CONTINUUM, INC., FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC., HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE, INC., METRO FAIR HOUSING SERVICES, INC., SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, INC., EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, and THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

Before WILSON and BRANCH, Circuit Judges, and VINSON,* District Judge.

BRANCH, Circuit Judge:

This appeal requires us to decide whether § 3604(b) of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. —which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin" in connection with the "sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith"—applies to any conduct that occurs after an individual has acquired housing. The plaintiffs filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging two policies related to the provision of basic utility services from the City of LaGrange, Georgia—the sole utility provider—on the ground that the policies have a disproportionate, discriminatory impact on black and Hispanic residents, in violation of § 3604(b) of the FHA. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that § 3604(b) does not apply to discriminatory conduct that occurs after a person has acquired housing (i.e., post-acquisition conduct). For the following reasons, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

The municipal government of the City of LaGrange, Georgia ("the City"), is the sole provider of electricity, gas, and water utility services in LaGrange. The City requires that utility customers comply with two policies in order to initiate and maintain those basic utility services. First, both applicants and current utility customers must pay any debts they owe to the City, including court judgments and fines ("the court debt policy"). Thus, an applicant may not obtain utility services without first satisfying outstanding municipal debts, and current utility customers who owe an unpaid debt to the City may have their utility services terminated without advance notice. Second, the City requires an applicant seeking to open a new utility account to present valid state- or federally-issued photo identification, and at the time relevant to this litigation, required the applicant to provide a valid Social Security number1 ("the identification policy").

In 2017, three association plaintiffs (Georgia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Troup County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Project South), along with seven individual plaintiffs (Charles Brewer, Calvin Moreland, April Walton, Pamela Williams, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3), filed the underlying complaint against the City. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the court debt policy disproportionately harms black residents because they are more likely to have outstanding municipal court debt. They asserted that the identification policy disproportionately harms hispanic residents, as they are more likely to lack the required identification documents for opening a utility account.2

The City moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, as relevant to this appeal, that § 3604(b) of the FHA does not reach conduct that occurs after an individual has acquired housing. The district court agreed, concluding that the statute’s applicability is limited to discrimination in the provision of services in connection with the acquisition of a dwelling, and, therefore, does not apply to discrimination in the provision of services after a person acquires housing. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.

II. Standards of Review

" We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ " Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 822 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008) ). "We also review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a statute." Robbins v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 809 F.3d 583, 585-86 (11th Cir. 2015).

III. Discussion
A. Whether § 3604(b) reaches post-acquisition conduct

The sole issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation, and so we begin with the text itself. United States v. DBB, Inc. , 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999) ("The starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself."). "We do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead look to the entire statutory context." Id. Further, where the language of the statute is unambiguous, we need look no further and our inquiry ends. Id.

On its face, the statute is unambiguous. It prohibits discrimination "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The City argues that the phrase "in connection therewith" refers to "the sale or rental of a dwelling," such that § 3604(b) ’s reach is limited only to discriminatory conduct that takes place prior to or at the moment of the sale or rental. Such a narrow reading, however, is not supported by the plain language of the statute.

Rather, as we recently explained, "the language of the FHA is broad and inclusive," "prohibits a wide range of conduct," "has a broad remedial purpose," and "is written in decidedly far-reaching terms." City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co. , 923 F.3d 1260, 1278 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotations and punctuation omitted); see also Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 409 U.S. 205, 209, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) ("The language of the [FHA] is broad and inclusive."). The statute does not contain any language limiting its application to discriminatory conduct that occurs prior to or at the moment of the sale or rental. To ascribe to the statute the limited applicability the City urges, we would have to read an otherwise absent temporal limitation into the language of the statute, which we cannot do. See, e.g. , Badaracco v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue , 464 U.S. 386, 398, 104 S.Ct. 756, 78 L.Ed.2d 549 (1984) ("Courts are not authorized to rewrite a statute because they might deem its effects susceptible to improvement."); Harris v. Garner , 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc ) ("We will not do to the statutory language what Congress did not do with it, because the role of the judicial branch is to apply statutory language, not to rewrite it."); see also United States v. Evans , 478 F.3d 1332, 1339 (11th Cir. 2007) (declining to read a temporal limitation into a criminal statute where the plain language did not suggest such a limitation). Thus, because there is no temporally limiting language, the plain language of § 3604(b) may, under certain circumstances, encompass the claim of a current owner or renter for discriminatory conduct related to the provision of services, as long as those services have a connection to the sale or rental of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 6, 2019
    ...including the discriminatory provision of services connected to the sale or rental of a dwelling. See Ga. State Conference of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange, 940 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2019).6 Some scholarship on the subject confirms that § 3604(b) and § 3617 encompass post-acquisition claims. ......
  • Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 25, 2021
    ...Dallas, 430 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 2005) ; see Bloch, 587 F.3d at 772 ; Modesto, 583 F.3d at 714 ; Ga. State Conf. of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange, 940 F.3d 627, 631–33 (11th Cir. 2019) ; Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085, 1088–90 (10th Cir. 1993) ; Betsey v. Turtle Creek Assocs., 736 F.2d 983,......
  • Madej v. Maiden
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 24, 2020
    ...applicability rather than one dealing with the specific problems of fair housing opportunities." Ga. State Conference of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange , 940 F.3d 627, 633 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The Fourth Circuit, for example, rejected a claim that public agencies violated ano......
  • Reeves-Stanford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 3, 2023
    ...interpretation adheres to the unambiguous text and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to remand on this basis. See Ga. State Conf. of the NAACP, 940 F.3d at 631 (“where the language of the statute is unambiguous, need look no further and our inquiry ends”); Lewis, 285 F.3d at 1332 (“No rea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Who Does America Want?
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 35-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...live with 110. Id. at 24. 111. Id. at 25. 112. Id. at 20–21. 113. Complaint at 3, Ga. State Conference of the NAACP v. City of LaGrange, 940 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2019) (No. 18-10053). 114. Id. at 22. 115. Id. 116. Id. at 47. 117. Id. 118. Complaint, City of LaGrange, supra note 113, at 47. 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT