TDHCATexas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
References in periodicals archive ?
Although concluding that the Fair Housing Act permits disparate-impact causes of action in some situations, the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned whether ICP had even alleged a cognizable [within the court's power to adjudicate] disparate-impact claim here, and the court strongly suggested that the TDHCA had a valid defense even if ICP had alleged a cognizable claim.
ICP's prima facie case rests solely on statistical disparities and different policy preferences, and has not demonstrated a causal connection to any law or practice implemented by TDHCA.
Because ICP has not identified a specific practice that has been shown to cause the statistical disparities, TDHCA [is] left in the dark about what [it] must justify at the second step of the analysis.
The first will determine whether ICP can establish a prima facie case under the standards set by the Supreme Court--that is, whether ICP can identify a facially neutral practice of TDHCA and show that it causes a statistical disparity.
The lack of contract details also placed TDHCA at risk of paying unidentified, unallowable, or possible duplicate construction management and oversight costs.