SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

          The district court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. Its Order Granting Summary Judgment (“Order”) made findings of fact concerning contested issues, findings properly left to a jury. The district court compounded that error by disregarding all evidence that strongly suggested that the City’s stated reasons were pretextual and applied exclusively to plaintiffs but not to similarly-situated housing providers.

The district court erred in concluding that the City’s actions and later inactions were motivated by objective, legitimate concerns about RPN’s proposed use of Dell Park, devoid of any arbitrariness, political pressure, or bias against people in recovery. Such was not the evidence in this case, and at the very least there were numerous disputed issues of fact concerning the City’s motivations. 

          Plaintiffs’ entitlement to jury trial, damages, and injunctive relief for reasonable accommodation must be understood in the context of the political pressure and bias toward people in recovery moving into a gentrifying neighborhood.  As was argued before the district court, plaintiffs need not establish by direct evidence that City officials acted with discriminatory intent; circumstantial evidence is sufficient.  Also, plaintiffs need not establish that discrimination was the sole factor behind the City’s actions or inactions; rather all plaintiffs need show is that discrimination was one factor.  Among the factors the Court and jury may consider is the historical background of the situation, the sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision, whether the challenged action had a discriminatory impact, and any departure from the City’s usual substantive or procedural requirements.  Especially pertinent here, decisions made in the context of discriminatory opposition become tainted with discriminatory intent, even if the decision maker personally had no strong views on the matter.  Moreover, even if the City’s initial decision, standing alone, was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the City’s conduct  thereafter, in a series of actions and inactions, created triable issues of fact.  Of particular note were the many palpably pre-textual justifications asserted by the City for its behavior.