Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises

Summary

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a landlord's facially neutral policy requiring income equal to 2.5 times total rent may support a disparate-impact claim under Maryland's source-of-income discrimination statute, even when the landlord counts voucher subsidies like other income. The court affirmed summary judgment on the disparate-treatment theory but vacated summary judgment because the record did not establish that the policy was justified by a legitimate business need or that it bore a sufficient relationship to the applicant's actual ability to pay her share of rent. The case was remanded for further proceedings applying the disparate-impact framework.