United States District Court, D. Oregon
K. Good, Good Law Clinic, PLLC, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Kenneth S. Mitchell-Phillips, THE LAW OFFICES OF KEN
MITCHELL-PHILLIPS, P.C., Of Attorneys for Defendants House of
Hope Recovery and Patricia Barcroft.
T. Abraham, BARRAN LIEBMAN LLP Of Attorneys for Defendant
Bridges to Change, Inc.
J. McLellan and Sean K. Conner, SMITH FREED EBERHARD P.C., Of
Attorneys for Defendant Washington County Department of
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Constance George has sued House of Hope Recovery
(“HOH”), Bridges to Change, Inc. (“Bridges
to Change”), Washington County Department of Housing
Services (the “County”), and Patricia Barcroft
(“Barcroft”), collectively Defendants, alleging
violations of: (1) the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; (2) 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 (“Section 1981”); (3) and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1982 (“Section 1982”). All Defendants have
filed motions for summary judgment. At oral argument,
Plaintiff conceded Bridges to Change's and the
County's motions, as well as her Section 1982 claim
against HOH. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment
in favor of Bridges to Change and the County. Remaining
before the Court is HOH and Barcroft's motion for summary
judgment against Plaintiff's claims under the FHA and
Section 1981. For the following reasons, HOH and
Barcroft's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
is entitled to summary judgment if the “movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of
establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks
Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257
(9th Cir. 2001). Although “[c]redibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions,
not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, ” the “mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the plaintiff's position [is]
insufficient . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255 (1986). “Where the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
was a participant in Bridges to Change's “Homeless
to Work” program. Through Bridges to Change, Plaintiff
discovered HOH, a non-profit organization that operates a
residential recovery house in Beaverton, OR. ECF 36-1 at
6:19-7:1. HOH offers a “Christ-centered Housing
Opportunity” that aims “to support women while
they become firmly grounded in a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ as well as a strong recovery program, which
includes recovery from drug/alcohol addiction.” ECF
36-2 at 2.
March 5, 2013, Plaintiff and Nancy Ferry, an employee of
Bridges to Change, met with Defendant Barcroft, HOH's
Executive Director, to determine whether Plaintiff qualified
for housing at HOH. According to Plaintiff, who is an
African-American Jehovah's Witness, Barcroft asked her,
without any context, “how [Plaintiff] felt about white
people.” ECF 36-1 at 11:11-12. Plaintiff states that
she responded that she “love[s] all people.” ECF
36-1 at 11:9-14. Although HOH offered religious meetings,
Barcroft did not tell Plaintiff that HOH requires attendance
at religious meetings. ECF 36-1 at 14:4-11. At the conclusion of
the interview, Barcroft decided that Plaintiff could move
into HOH. ECF 36-1 at 13:21-23. HOH and Barcroft dispute
aspects of Plaintiff's account of the initial interview,
but have not filed any admissible evidence to support their
version of the facts.
arrived at HOH on March 10, 2013. ECF 36-1 at 12:10-11. On
March 19, 2013, Plaintiff says she informed Barcroft that she
was a Jehovah's Witness and separately asked to be
excused from the meeting that evening because she was ill.
ECF 36-1 at 14:17-19, 16:6-7. Plaintiff states that she was
told that she had to attend the meeting, ECF 36-1 at
14:19-20, even though HOH's “Cold & Flu
Protocol” advises residents to stay in their rooms when
feeling ill. ECF 36-2 at 13. Plaintiff states that before she
became ill, her intention had been to attend the meeting. ECF
36-1 at 21:15-18. According to Plaintiff, “[t]hat same
evening a white woman asked, that was a resident of the
house, asked to be excused due to illness. She was told to
stay home and get well. But I was told that I had to attend
the meeting.” ECF 36-1 at 15:9-12. Plaintiff states
that Barcroft terminated Plaintiff's residency at HOH
that same day. ECF 36-1 at 22:11-17.
filed a complaint with BOLI on November 25, 2013. ECF 29-1 at
57. BOLI determined that “[t]here is no substantial
evidence that [Plaintiff] was subjected to unlawful
discrimination based on race or that [Plaintiff] was
unlawfully denied housing based ...