Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development

Background

Chaim Y. Katz and Chana Katz applied through New York City Housing Connect for three-bedroom affordable-housing apartments in the Essex Building and the Orchard Building. They were initially selected in both lotteries but were later rejected because the available units allegedly could not accommodate their household size. At the relevant times, they had five or six children, all under 18.

The plaintiffs alleged discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Their amended complaint relied on a disparate-treatment theory under the Fair Housing Act. That theory requires allegations supporting an inference that the defendants intended to discriminate against the plaintiffs because they belonged to a protected group—in this case, families with children.

Motions and Parties’ Positions

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim, assuming the complaint’s factual allegations are true.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ occupancy rules and refusal to use a “plus one” option showed discrimination against families with multiple children. They also relied on a state administrative agency’s earlier finding that there was probable cause to believe the Essex Building’s occupancy restriction could have a disproportionate effect on families with children.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had alleged, at most, decisions based on household size, not discrimination based on familial status. The court noted that the plaintiffs had abandoned their earlier disparate-impact theory and were proceeding on disparate treatment instead.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not provide direct evidence that the defendants acted because the plaintiffs were a family with children. The rejection notices and related communications repeatedly referred to household size or the number of people the apartments could accommodate.

The court then applied the burden-shifting framework used when a discrimination claim lacks direct evidence. At the pleading stage, the plaintiffs needed at least minimal factual support for an inference that the defendants’ decisions were motivated by discriminatory intent. The court found that the plaintiffs did not identify similarly situated households without children that were treated more favorably. Their allegations that the defendants had an irrational bias against families with multiple children were treated as conclusions rather than supporting facts.

The court also held that its ruling in the earlier round of this case—that the Fair Housing Act protects familial status, not family size—was part of the law of the case. The law-of-the-case doctrine generally requires a court to follow issues already decided in the same case. Because the plaintiffs’ allegations focused on household size, rather than showing discrimination because they had children, the court concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a Fair Housing Act claim.

The court did not decide other issues raised by the parties, including whether the plaintiffs were otherwise qualified for the apartments, whether occupancy standards are categorically exempt from Fair Housing Act liability, or whether some claims were untimely.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon dismissed the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claim was dismissed—over the New York State and New York City human-rights claims. It dismissed those state-law claims without prejudice.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.