Third Circuit Affirms Title VIII Remedies for Racially Discriminatory Housing Practices in Philadelphia Case

Third Circuit Affirms Title VIII Remedies for Racially Discriminatory Housing Practices in Philadelphia Case

Introduction

The case of Resident Advisory Board by Rose Wylie et al. v. Frank Rizzo et al. adjudicated in 1977 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit represents a pivotal moment in the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws within the realm of public housing. The plaintiffs, representing a class of low-income minority individuals on Philadelphia’s public housing waiting list, challenged the actions of several governmental bodies, including the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (RDA). Central to the dispute was the stagnant development of a condemned plot of land in South Philadelphia designated for low-income public housing since 1959, which remained vacant due to alleged discriminatory practices.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that the City of Philadelphia, PHA, and RDA violated constitutional and statutory duties by impeding the construction of the Whitman Park Townhouse Project, thereby discriminating against minority applicants on the basis of race. Specifically, the court upheld injunctive relief mandating the execution of the housing project and the formulation of racial integration plans by PHA. However, the court vacated portions of the district court's order that erroneously extended injunctions to the Whitman Area Improvement Council (WAIC), a defendant-intervenor, due to insufficient evidence of VAIC's direct discriminatory actions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references seminal cases such as Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. and WASHINGTON v. DAVIS, which have been instrumental in shaping the legal landscape regarding discriminatory practices. These cases established the "impact-plus" test, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate not only a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class but also evidence of discriminatory intent behind governmental actions.

Additionally, the court cited the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Title VIII), particularly 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), which prohibits making housing unavailable or denying it to individuals based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning hinged on the demonstration that the actions of the City, PHA, and RDA had a racially discriminatory effect by preventing the construction of mixed-race public housing, thereby perpetuating segregation. The court meticulously analyzed the historical context, sequence of events, and procedural irregularities to ascertain discriminatory intent as required by the "impact-plus" test.

For PHA and RDA, the court focused on their role in making housing unavailable to minorities, thereby violating Title VIII. The court differentiated between constitutional claims, which required both discriminatory effect and intent, and Title VIII claims, which could be satisfied by demonstrating discriminatory effect alone.

Impact

This judgment reinforced the applicability and enforceability of Title VIII in addressing discriminatory practices in public housing. By affirming that mere discriminatory effects could sustain a prima facie case under Title VIII, the court lowered the burden of proof for plaintiffs seeking redress against discriminatory housing policies. This precedent empowers minority groups to challenge systemic discrimination even in the absence of explicit discriminatory intent by governmental entities.

Furthermore, the decision underscores the judiciary’s role in actively ensuring the implementation of fair housing policies and serves as a deterrent against the use of procedural obstacles to impede the construction of integrated housing projects.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968: Also known as the Fair Housing Act, it prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Prima Facie Case: A legal term meaning that when the facts presented by a party are sufficient to prove their case unless rebutted by the opposing party.
"Impact-Plus" Test: A legal standard requiring plaintiffs to show not only that a policy has a discriminatory effect but also that there was discriminatory intent behind it.
Standing: A legal principle determining whether a party has the right to bring a lawsuit based on their stake in the outcome.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit’s affirmation in this landmark case solidifies the role of Title VIII in combating racial discrimination within public housing sectors. By recognizing that actions resulting in a discriminatory effect can constitute a violation of civil rights, even without overt discriminatory intent, the court broadens the scope for federal intervention in housing matters. This decision not only mandates the construction of the Whitman Park Townhouse Project but also obligates PHA to actively pursue racial integration within its housing portfolio. The ruling serves as a critical reference for future litigation aimed at dismantling systemic barriers to equitable housing, ensuring that public housing policies align with the principles of fairness and nondiscrimination enshrined in federal law.

© 2024 Legal Commentary. All rights reserved.

Case Details

RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD BY ROSE WYLIE, TRUSTEE AD LITEM, HOUSING TASK FORCE OF THE PHILADELPHIA URBAN COALITION BY SHIRLEY DENNIS AND JOSEPH MILLER, TRUSTEES AD LITEM, ESTHER SIERRA MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER CHILDREN, CARMELO, MARIEL AND JUANITA, JEAN THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER CHILDREN, CHERYL, JAMES, KEVIN AND BYRIS THOMAS, MABLE SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER CHILDREN, JEROME, VANESSA AND JANICE SMITH, AND BERNICE DEVINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN ROBERT, LINDA AND ARTHUR DEVINE, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS ON THE WAITING LIST FOR PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA v. FRANK RIZZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, HILLEL LEVINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, APPELLANTS IN 77-1245, JAMES H. J. TATE, INDIVIDUALLY, FRED T. CORLETO, INDIVIDUALLY, MULTICON CONSTRUCTION CORP., MULTICON PROPERTIES, INC., REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DEFENDANTS, AND WHITMAN AREA IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL, ALICE MOORE, FRED DRUDING, AND ALL MEMBERS OF WHITMAN AREA IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL AND ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND EMPLOYEES, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATING IN THEIR AID, DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS, AND PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, RUSSELL BYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, CARLA A. HILLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS. APPEAL OF THE PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, IN 77-1241. APPEAL OF REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, IN 77-1242. APPEAL OF WHITMAN AREA IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL, FRED DRUDING AND ALL OTHERS ACTING IN CONCERT THEREWITH, IN 77-1243.
Year: 1977
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Judge(s)

Leonard I. Garth

Attorney(S)

Harold Cramer, Marc S. Cornblatt, Arthur W. Lefco, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in 77-1241; Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe Cramer, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel. Peter A. Galante, Nicholas J. Scafidi, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in 77-1242. Joseph M. Gindhart, Crumlish Gindhart, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in 77-1243. James M. Penny, Jr., Julian Wessell, Asst. City Sols., Sheldon L. Albert, City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in 77-1245. Jonathan M. Stein, Harold R. Berk, George D. Gould, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, Pa., Charles W. Bowser, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Resident Advisory Board et al. Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian K. Landsberg, Cynthia L. Attwood, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S. as amicus curiae. David Belmont, Gwendolyn N. Bright, Philadelphia, Pa., for amicus curiae, the Housing Ass'n of Delaware Valley. Mercer D. Tate, John Ratliff, Philadelphia, Pa., for amicus curiae Fellowship Com'n. Martin E. Sloane, Arthur D. Wolf, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Nat. Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, Inc. Benjamin G. Lipman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sanford Kahn, Gen. Counsel, Pa. Human Relations Com'n, Philadelphia, Pa., for amicus curiae Pa. Human Relations Com'n.

Comments