Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Alyaa Chace (1)
- And restrictive zoning (1)
- Chace (1)
- Customary international law (1)
- Discriminatory effect (1)
-
- Disparate impact (1)
- Extraterritorial limitation (1)
- Government-subsidized housing (1)
- Inclusive Communities (1)
- Is extraterritoriality the golden ticket out of corporate liability? How the modern-day Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory evaded liability under the Alien Tort Statute in Nestlé v. Doe (1)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (1)
- Lewyn (1)
- Limiting traffic (1)
- MHANY (1)
- Michael Lewyn (1)
- Multifamily zoning (1)
- Multinational (1)
- Okpabi (1)
- Post-Inclusive Communities case law (1)
- Recent case law (1)
- Vedanta (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Recent Case Law, Disparate Impact, And Restrictive Zoning, Michael Lewyn
Recent Case Law, Disparate Impact, And Restrictive Zoning, Michael Lewyn
Touro Law Review
The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) prohibits housing discrimination, including the refusal to sell or rent housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin,and any policy or conduct that “otherwise make[s] unavailable or den[ies], a dwelling [based on these impermissible factors].”In 2015, the Supreme Court interpreted the “otherwise make unavailable” language of the Act to mean that the FHA includes not only claims for intentional discrimination, but also claims for disparate impact. Under the disparate impact doctrine, a defendant may be liable for facially neutral rules or policies that disproportionately favor one racial group over another.
Zoning …
Is Extraterritoriality The Golden Ticket Out Of Corporate Liability? How The Modern-Day Willy Wonka’S Chocolate Factory Evaded Liability Under The Alien Tort Statute In Nestlé V. Doe, Alyaa Chace
Touro Law Review
The Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) was drafted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was intended to provide federal courts with the jurisdiction to hear civil actions brought by foreign plaintiffs for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or other United States treaty. After a two-hundred-year dormancy period, the Statute has since been revived and become a vehicle by which foreign plaintiffs seek redress for environmental and human rights offenses carried out on foreign soil, often at the hands of United States corporations. However, the Supreme Court continues to limit the reach of the Statute, …