Marya v. Slakey
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
190 F. Supp. 2d 95 (2001)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Linda Slakey (defendant) owned a six-bedroom residential property and leased the property to six tenants. Slakey entered into one lease with the group of tenants. The lease provided that, when a tenant left the property, Slakey had the authority to accept and reject new applicants if chosen by the existing tenants to fill the vacancy. Slakey was also responsible for checking references. Over the years, Slakey routinely relied on one of the existing tenants, Paul Norris, to advertise the rental opportunities, show the property to prospective tenants, and interview applicants. Slakey consistently followed Norris’s recommendations in choosing which applicants to accept or reject. Kriti Arora (plaintiff) applied to fill a vacancy when one of the tenants left. Arora satisfied all of the criteria to become a tenant, but Norris rejected Arora’s application because Arora was Indian. Arora sued Slakey for housing discrimination. Slakey motioned for summary judgment, arguing that Slakey was not responsible for Norris’s discriminatory actions because Norris was not Slakey’s agent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freedman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
