Asbury v. Brougham
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
866 F.2d 1276 (10th Cir. 1989)
Relevant factsFree
Asbury (plaintiff), a qualified Black applicant, was falsely told Brougham Estates (defendant) had no vacancies despite units actually being available; Brougham claimed a policy against renting to families with children explained the refusal, but evidence showed the complex frequently made exceptions to that policy, and it also had a substantial minority-resident population.
IssueFree
Whether it is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the Fair Housing Act for an apartment complex to refuse rental to a Black woman based on an often-excepted complex policy, even though statistics show a high percentage of Black residents in the complex.
Related cases
Doe v. City of Butler892 F.2d 315 (3d Cir. 1989)Hornstein v. Barry560 A.2d 530 (1989)Karches v. City of Cincinnati526 N.E.2d 1350 (1988)Association of Relatives and Friends of AIDS Patients (A.F.A.P.S.) v. Regulations and Permits Administration, or Administracion de Reglamentos y Permisos (A.R.P.E.)740 F. Supp. 95 (D.P.R. 1990)Department of Transportation v. Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Association532 So.2d 1267 (1988)