Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC: Does the Maine Human Rights Act Recognize Disparate Impact Liability for Claims of Housing Discrimination Brought by Section 8 Recipients under Maine Law?

Authors

Ari B. Solotoff, University of Maine School of Law

Abstract

In Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC, Nicole Dussault filed a complaint with the Maine Humane Rights commission (Commission) alleging a claim of unlawful housing discrimination. Dussault asserted that when RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC and Resource Real Estate Management, Inc. (collectively, Coach Lantern) refused to include a federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program tenancy addendum in her apartment lease, Coach Lantern discriminated against her because her status as a public assistance recipient. Following an investigation and hearing, the Commission unanimously concluded that there were reasonable grounds for a belief of unlawful housing discrimination. Dussault then brought suit in Cumberland County Superior Court. Dussault alleged that Coach Lantern’s policy of not including a Section 8 tenancy addendum in its standard lease constituted housing discrimination in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). Specifically, Dussault asserted three theories of discrimination under the Act: direct evidence, disparate treatment, and disparate impact. The Superior Court granted Coach Lantern’s motion for summary judgment, denied Dussault’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and ultimately ruled for Coach Lantern on all three theories of discrimination.

First Page

183

Recommended Citation

Ari B. Solotoff, Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC: Does the Maine Human Rights Act Recognize Disparate Impact Liability for Claims of Housing Discrimination Brought by Section 8 Recipients under Maine Law?, 67 Me. L. Rev. 183 (2014).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol67/iss1/8