# Clifton Terrace Associates, Limited v. United Technologies Corporation

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 5, 1991 · 929 F.2d 714

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481495

## Case

- **Full name:** CLIFTON TERRACE ASSOCIATES, LIMITED, Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 5, 1991
- **Citations:** 929 F.2d 714; 289 U.S. App. D.C. 121; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392; 1991 WL 45390
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henderson
- **Judges:** Buckley, Edwards, Henderson
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481495

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an elevator manufacturer does not have a duty to furnish housing services in a nondiscriminatory manner, and observing that § 3603(a) is “clearly confined to discrimination by providers of housing”
- explaining that the developer is in the best position to vindicate the rights of potential home owners in cases where the direct victims of preemptive discrimination cannot yet be readily identified
- reversing district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim under D.C. Human Rights Act because “[h]aving found that [Plaintiff] had alleged no substantial federal cause of action under the Fair Housing Act or sections 1981 and 1982, the district court lacked a solid basis for subj…
- holding that elevator company’s refusal to service elevators in buildings in predominantly African-American neighborhood did not “otherwise make [housing] unavailable”
- holding corporate developer of low income housing project had no standing to assert §§ 1981 and 1982 claims based on discrimination against current residents where those residents were plainly identifiable

## Opinion text

*724 HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s conclusions and, in large part, in its analysis but I see no need for any discussion of a purported “sole source” theory of liability. Clifton Terrace did not rely on such a theory and our rejection of the Fair Housing Act claim in no way depends on it. That claim cannot be asserted under subsection 3604(a) or (f)(1) because, as the majority states, these provisions “reach only discrimination which adversely affects the availability of housing,” while withholding of elevator service “is a matter of habitability, not availability.” Subsections 3604(b) and (f)(2), on the other hand, are unavailing because Otis is not among the intended objects of these provisions, namely, as the majority describes them, “those who provide housing and then discriminate in the provision of attendant services or facilities, or those who otherwise control the provision of housing servicés or facilities.” Accordingly, I abstain from the majority’s treatment of “sole source.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481495. Public record. Not legal advice.