Judge Karoline Mehalchick, nominated by President Biden to the district court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, rejected a motion to dismiss by a housing developer and allowed a couple to go forward with a case charging the developer with housing discrimination on the basis of race.. The July 2024 decision was in Heffner v Gemcraft Homes Group, Inc.
What is the background of this case?
Miriam Millan-Heffner and her husband Gary wanted to buy a home in Winslett, a community near Harrisburg, Pa., developed by Gemcraft. Ms. Millan-Heffner is Puerto Rican and her husband is white. During the entire process of purchasing and building their home, as alleged in a complaint they filed, the Heffners suffered significant racial discrimination.
The discrimination began during an early meeting when a Gemcraft official specifically asked only Ms. Millan-Heffner her ethnicity. Numerous other instances of discrimination then took place over the next few months according to the complaint, such as:
- The Heffners were told that they could not purchase a particular corner lot and build a walk-out basement, but a white couple then bought the very same lot and did exactly that, The complaint contends that Gemcraft wanted to steer the Heffmers away from a predominantly white section of the development toward a lot in the “primarily nonwhite section.”
- Once the Heffners purchased a home, Gemcraft treated Ms Millan-Heffner “differently than white property owners,” including mandating that she complete specified tasks “not required of white property owners” and “creating obstacles” to completing work.
- As a result of the course of conduct by Gemcraft and its employees, significant work was left “incomplete” on the Heffners’ property. This included, for example, an uninstalled garage door, roof damages, a “disconnected sump pump,” and ‘defective showers and bathtubs.”
Nevertheless, Gemcraft filed a motion to dismiss the discrimination charges. They claimed that the Heffners had failed to identify “which section” of the Fair Housing Act was violated by which of their employees or to identify the “elements of a cause of action” under 42 USC 1981, which also bans housing and other discrimination.
How did Judge Mehalchick Rule and Why is it Important?
After carefully reviewing the complaint, the applicable statutes, and the relevant case law, Judge Mehalchick denied the corporation’s motion to dismiss the discrimination charges against it. She explained that at this stage of the case, the complaint’s allegations are “sufficient to draw the reasonable inference” that Gemcraft and its employees “acted in a discriminatory manner in violation” of the Fair Housing Act and to “demonstrate an interference with their right to enjoy their housing/building contract” in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The case will go forward with discovery and trial.
Judge Mehalchick’s decision is obviously important to the Heffners and their efforts to get justice for the discrimination they suffered. The ruling Is also a good example that may be useful in other courts of making clear that a housing development corporation can and should be held responsible for housing discrimination. The decision also provides an important example of the significance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.