Home loan discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), & the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Whether the appeal was forfeited; Application of prima facie evidentiary standards to discrimination claims at the pleading stage; Swierkiewicz v Sorema NA; Lindsay v Yates; McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green; Whether plaintiffs stated plausible claims for relief under the well-established pleading standards; Claim not raised in appellants’ opening briefs

The court held that while the district court mistakenly applied prima facie evidentiary standards to plaintiffs-Washingtons’ home loan discrimination claims at the pleading stage, the error was harmless because they failed to state plausible claims for relief under the applicable pleading standards. They sued defendant-First National Bank (FNB) under the FHA, the ECOA, and the ADA after it denied their application for a Veterans Administration home loan. One of the plaintiffs is a disabled veteran, and he and his wife “are of mixed-race background.” They alleged that but for the husband’s disability and their race, the bank would have granted their application. The district court dismissed their case for failure to establish the prima facie elements of their FHA and ECOA claims, and for failure to state an ADA claim. As an initial matter, the court declined to find that plaintiffs forfeited their appeal. Considering the dismissal of the FHA and ECOA claims, it held that the district court erred by relying on an unpublished Sixth Circuit case when imposing a requirement that plaintiffs plead a prima facie case of discrimination to survive the motion to dismiss, explaining that this conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Swierkiewicz and Sixth Circuit published precedent (Lindsay). Under Swierkiewicz, “‘a plaintiff who asserted federal employment-discrimination claims was not required to plead facts establishing a prima facie case to state a claim for relief.’” And the court concluded in Lindsay “that Swierkiewicz made ‘clear that McDonnell Douglas does not set the standard for pleading any complaint,’ including FHA discrimination claims.” But the court held that the claim required dismissal where they failed to allege “any specific factual content regarding FNB’s handling of other loan applications.” Plaintiffs also were “not required to show discrimination to survive FNB’s motion to dismiss their ECOA claim.” They were only required to allege a “plausible” claim. But again, their failure to provide specific assertions resulted in FNB being entitled to dismissal. As to the ADA claim, absent any appellate argument from plaintiffs challenging the district court’s ruling, the court also affirmed the dismissal of this claim.