Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Reginald Rembert and Rembert Enterprises, Inc. sought to develop Emerald Place, a proposed 44-home single-family development in Flower Mound, Texas. Because the project did not comply with the town’s existing zoning ordinances or Master Plan, the plaintiffs requested a Master Plan amendment and a zoning change. The town denied their revised requests.
The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the town denied the requests because Rembert is Black. Neither plaintiff intended to live in Emerald Place, and the plaintiffs did not contend that any future resident belonged to a protected class. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the town separately objected to certain evidence and moved to strike it.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that § 3604(a)’s plain text does not require the person subjected to discrimination to intend to occupy the proposed dwelling. The town’s denial allegedly made some dwellings unavailable because the existing zoning permitted fewer homes than the requested amendments would have allowed. Because the FHA defines “person” to include both individuals and corporations, the plaintiffs’ status as developers did not place their claim outside the statute’s zone of interests. The court therefore rejected the town’s argument that the FHA was categorically inapplicable.
The court granted partial summary judgment establishing Rembert’s Article III standing because his out-of-pocket application expenses were a concrete injury traceable to the town’s denial and redressable through damages. It denied both sides summary judgment concerning Rembert Enterprises’ standing because factual disputes remained over whether the corporation itself suffered an injury. It also denied both sides summary judgment on the disparate-treatment claim, finding neither had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The town’s evidentiary objections and motion to strike were denied as moot because the court did not rely on the challenged evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A developer may pursue a claim under § 3604(a) based on alleged racial discrimination against the developer even if the developer does not intend to live in the proposed housing and no future resident is identified as a protected-class member.
- Rembert established Article III standing through his personal out-of-pocket expenses, but unresolved factual questions prevented a ruling that Rembert Enterprises also had standing.
- The ruling did not decide whether the town actually discriminated; competing summary-judgment motions on the disparate-treatment claim were denied because material factual issues remained.
Why It Matters
The decision adopts a text-focused reading of the FHA that permits developers themselves to invoke § 3604(a) when alleged discrimination makes proposed dwellings unavailable to them. In doing so, the court declined to follow several district-court decisions limiting FHA claims involving property held solely for commercial purposes.
The ruling allows the discrimination claim to proceed but does not establish liability. The plaintiffs must still prove that the town denied the zoning and Master Plan amendments because of race, and Rembert Enterprises must establish its own Article III injury.