id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-4022	Reddick, Marci A.; Tucker, Danielle B.	Recent Developments in Indiana Real Property Law	2009	28	.pdf	application/pdf	11495	746	65	[Vol. 42: 1 187 covenant has a ''discriminatory effect on a protected class, even if the policy or practice is non-discriminatory on its face.^^ However, the court noted that although federal circuit courts generally have recognized that the FHA allows claims for disparate impact, there is no consensus concerning the analysis of such claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.^^ The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held recovery is possible for violating the FHA under the disparate impact theory when it is shown that a defendant's conduct creates a discriminatory effect barred by the FHA.^^ The court in Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights^^ established four factors to use as the framework for analyzing such claims: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs showing of discriminatory effect; (2) evidence of discriminatory intent, though not enough to satisfy the constitutional standard of Washington v. Davis^^^\ (3) the defendant's interest in the challenged conduct; and (4) whether the plaintiff seeks affirmative relief or merely to restrain the defendant from interfering with individual property owners who wish to provide housing.^^ In Villas West II, the court held that because Title Vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the FHA use the same language to express public policy prohibiting discrimination, courts should use the same framework to analyze both claims, rejecting the Arlington Heights II standard as unsound and choosing to employ the burden-shifting test previously adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.^* Accordingly, the Indiana Supreme Court held that to establish the right to recover under a disparate impact claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case showing a policy or practice has a significant, actual or predictable impact on a protected class.^^ ^^'^ C. Approval by Developer of Out-Buildings Survives Completion ofSubdivision Another restrictive covenant case of note was Drenter v. Duitz,^^^ where property owners erected a shed in violation of a subdivision's restrictive covenants.	cache/inlawrev-4022.pdf	txt/inlawrev-4022.txt