Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you rent an apartment and complain about a leaky faucet. If your landlord then unfairly targets you with eviction notices because of your race or your complaints, that could be illegal discrimination. In this case, the court found that the tenants didn't provide enough proof that the housing authority acted with discriminatory intent when they faced eviction after complaining about their living conditions.

For Legal Practitioners

The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant housing authority, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under the FHA and state law. Crucially, the plaintiffs' evidence of disparate treatment and retaliatory motive was deemed insufficient to overcome the defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, highlighting the high evidentiary burden required to survive summary judgment in such claims.

For Law Students

This case tests the elements of a Fair Housing Act discrimination and retaliation claim, specifically the burden of proof once a prima facie case is established. The court's decision emphasizes that subjective beliefs and general allegations of unfair treatment are insufficient to defeat summary judgment; plaintiffs must present concrete evidence of discriminatory intent or retaliatory motive to rebut the defendant's proffered legitimate reasons for their actions.

Newsroom Summary

A Denver court ruled that tenants did not provide enough evidence to prove their housing authority discriminated against them or retaliated for complaints. The decision means the Denver Housing Authority will not face a trial on claims of racial discrimination and retaliatory eviction, impacting tenants who believe they've been unfairly targeted.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled tenants.Whether the defendants violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled tenants.

Rule Statements

"A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA by showing that (1) she is handicapped as defined by the statute; (2) the defendant knew or should have known of the handicap; (3) the defendant refused to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford an opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (4) the defendant had the authority to make such accommodations."

"The FHA requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

Scenario: You are a tenant who has repeatedly complained to your landlord about unsafe living conditions, like mold or lack of heat. Shortly after your last complaint, your landlord begins issuing you warnings for minor lease violations that were previously ignored, and you suspect this is because of your race or your complaints.

Your Rights: You have the right to live in housing free from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. You also have the right to complain about housing conditions or housing discrimination without fear of retaliation.

What To Do: Gather all documentation of your complaints, the landlord's responses (or lack thereof), and any new warnings or eviction notices. If you believe you are being retaliated against or discriminated against, you can file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or consult with an attorney specializing in fair housing law.

Is it legal for my landlord to evict me after I complained about living conditions?

It depends. While landlords can evict tenants for legitimate reasons, such as repeated lease violations or non-payment of rent, it is illegal to evict a tenant in retaliation for complaining about housing conditions or for discriminatory reasons based on protected characteristics like race. The key is whether the landlord's actions are genuinely based on the lease violations or are a pretext for retaliation or discrimination.

This ruling applies to federal law (Fair Housing Act) and Colorado state law, but similar anti-retaliation and anti-discrimination principles are found in fair housing laws across the United States.

For Tenants in federally subsidized housing

Tenants need strong evidence to prove claims of discrimination or retaliation by housing authorities. General feelings of being unfairly targeted are not enough; concrete proof of discriminatory intent or retaliatory motive is required to proceed past the initial stages of a lawsuit.

For Housing authorities and landlords

These entities must ensure their actions against tenants, particularly those who have made complaints, are well-documented and based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Failure to provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons could lead to prolonged litigation, even if ultimately successful.

Q: What is Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. about?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. is a case decided by Colorado Supreme Court on December 22, 2025.

Q: What court decided Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. was decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, which is part of the CO state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. decided?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. was decided on December 22, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

The citation for Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the main parties involved?

The case is Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority, Thomas Bean Towers, LP, Michael Joseph Salanky, Kammi Franklin, and Prudencia Robertson. The main parties are the tenants, Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope, and the defendants, the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) and its associated entities and employees.

Q: What court decided this case and when was the opinion issued?

This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The opinion was issued on October 26, 2023.

Q: What was the primary legal issue in the Johnson v. Denver Housing Authority case?

The primary legal issue was whether the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) discriminated against tenants Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope based on their race and retaliated against them for complaining about living conditions, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and state law.

Q: What specific allegations did the tenants make against the Denver Housing Authority?

The tenants alleged that the DHA subjected them to unwarranted scrutiny, including excessive inspections and the initiation of eviction proceedings, because of their race and in retaliation for their complaints regarding the living conditions at Thomas Bean Towers.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the district court level?

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Denver Housing Authority (DHA). This means the court found that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the tenants, there was no genuine dispute of material fact and the DHA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Q: Is Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. published?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.. Key holdings: The court held that the tenants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA because they did not present sufficient evidence that DHA's actions were motivated by race.; The court found that the tenants did not demonstrate a causal connection between their protected activity (complaints about living conditions) and DHA's adverse actions (eviction proceedings), thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.; The court determined that DHA offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, such as lease violations and disruptive behavior, which the tenants did not effectively rebut.; The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against individual employees, finding no evidence that they acted outside the scope of their employment or engaged in discriminatory conduct.; The court concluded that the tenants' claims of constructive eviction and breach of contract were also unsupported by sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment..

Q: Why is Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. important?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required for plaintiffs alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. It highlights that unsubstantiated claims and general assertions of differential treatment are insufficient to survive summary judgment, especially when the defendant provides documented, legitimate reasons for its actions.

Q: What precedent does Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. set?

Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the tenants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA because they did not present sufficient evidence that DHA's actions were motivated by race. (2) The court found that the tenants did not demonstrate a causal connection between their protected activity (complaints about living conditions) and DHA's adverse actions (eviction proceedings), thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. (3) The court determined that DHA offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, such as lease violations and disruptive behavior, which the tenants did not effectively rebut. (4) The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against individual employees, finding no evidence that they acted outside the scope of their employment or engaged in discriminatory conduct. (5) The court concluded that the tenants' claims of constructive eviction and breach of contract were also unsupported by sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment.

Q: What are the key holdings in Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

1. The court held that the tenants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA because they did not present sufficient evidence that DHA's actions were motivated by race. 2. The court found that the tenants did not demonstrate a causal connection between their protected activity (complaints about living conditions) and DHA's adverse actions (eviction proceedings), thus failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 3. The court determined that DHA offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, such as lease violations and disruptive behavior, which the tenants did not effectively rebut. 4. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against individual employees, finding no evidence that they acted outside the scope of their employment or engaged in discriminatory conduct. 5. The court concluded that the tenants' claims of constructive eviction and breach of contract were also unsupported by sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment.

Q: What cases are related to Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

Precedent cases cited or related to Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

Q: Did the appellate court agree with the district court's decision regarding the discrimination claims?

Yes, the appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the DHA on the discrimination claims. The court found that the tenants failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

Q: What evidence did the tenants present to support their racial discrimination claim?

The tenants pointed to alleged disparate treatment, such as increased scrutiny and eviction attempts, and suggested that their race was a motivating factor. However, the court found this evidence insufficient to overcome the DHA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.

Q: What is the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and how does it apply here?

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. In this case, the tenants alleged that the DHA violated the FHA by discriminating against them based on their race and by retaliating against them for asserting their rights.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply to the discrimination claims?

The court applied the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green for analyzing discrimination claims. This framework requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions.

Q: What did the court find regarding the tenants' retaliation claim?

The appellate court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The court determined that the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to show that their protected activity (complaining about living conditions) was a but-for cause of the DHA's adverse actions.

Q: What does 'but-for causation' mean in the context of a retaliation claim?

But-for causation means that the adverse action would not have occurred if the protected activity had not taken place. The tenants needed to show that the DHA would not have pursued eviction or subjected them to scrutiny if they had not complained about their living conditions.

Q: What is summary judgment and why is it relevant to this case?

Summary judgment is a procedural device where a party asks the court to rule in their favor without a full trial because there are no genuine disputes of material fact. The district court granted summary judgment to the DHA, and the appellate court reviewed whether this decision was legally correct.

Q: What kind of evidence is typically needed to prove a Fair Housing Act retaliation claim?

To prove retaliation under the FHA, a plaintiff generally needs to show they engaged in a protected activity, the defendant took an adverse action against them, and there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Evidence of timing, verbal or written remarks, or disparate treatment can establish this connection.

Q: Did the court consider any specific incidents of alleged discrimination or retaliation?

Yes, the court considered the tenants' claims regarding increased inspections and eviction notices. However, the court found that the DHA presented legitimate reasons for these actions, such as documented lease violations or safety concerns, and the tenants failed to show these reasons were pretexts for discrimination or retaliation.

Q: How does Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. affect me?

This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required for plaintiffs alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. It highlights that unsubstantiated claims and general assertions of differential treatment are insufficient to survive summary judgment, especially when the defendant provides documented, legitimate reasons for its actions. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of this ruling on tenants of public housing?

This ruling suggests that tenants alleging discrimination or retaliation by housing authorities must provide concrete evidence beyond mere allegations. It highlights the importance of documenting interactions and demonstrating a clear causal link between protected activities and adverse housing actions to succeed in such claims.

Q: How might this decision affect how housing authorities operate?

Housing authorities may feel more confident in enforcing lease terms and addressing tenant concerns if they have well-documented procedures and can articulate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions. However, they must still be vigilant in ensuring their practices do not violate fair housing laws.

Q: What should tenants do if they believe they are facing discrimination or retaliation from their landlord?

Tenants should meticulously document all interactions, including dates, times, and details of conversations or incidents. They should also keep records of any complaints made and any adverse actions taken by the landlord, and consider seeking legal advice to understand their rights and the evidence needed to support a claim.

Q: Are there any specific Denver Housing Authority policies or procedures mentioned in the case?

While the opinion doesn't detail specific DHA policies, it discusses the DHA's actions in conducting inspections and initiating eviction proceedings. The court's analysis implies that these actions must be based on lease violations or other legitimate grounds, not on discriminatory or retaliatory motives.

Q: What are the potential consequences for a housing authority found to have violated the Fair Housing Act?

If a housing authority is found to have violated the FHA, it can face significant penalties, including monetary damages for the affected individuals, injunctive relief to change discriminatory practices, and attorney's fees. This case, however, did not result in such findings against the DHA.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of housing discrimination law?

This case is an example of how courts apply established anti-discrimination frameworks, like the McDonnell Douglas test, to modern housing disputes. It reinforces the high burden of proof plaintiffs face when alleging discrimination and retaliation, particularly when defendants present facially legitimate reasons for their conduct.

Q: Are there any landmark Supreme Court cases that laid the groundwork for the Fair Housing Act?

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was a significant piece of legislation itself, building upon earlier civil rights laws and court decisions that addressed racial discrimination. While this specific case relies on FHA interpretation, foundational cases like Brown v. Board of Education established the principle of equal protection under the law.

Q: How has the interpretation of 'retaliation' under the FHA evolved over time?

The concept of retaliation under the FHA has been consistently interpreted to protect individuals who assert their rights against discriminatory housing practices. Courts generally require proof of a causal link, and the 'but-for' causation standard, as applied here, represents a specific judicial interpretation of that link.

Q: What was the docket number in Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson.?

The docket number for Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. is 25SC679. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope v. Housing Authority of the City and County d/b/a Denver Housing Authority; Thomas Bean Towers, LP; Michael Joseph Salanky; Kammi Franklin; and Prudencia Robertson. be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: How did the case reach the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Tenth Circuit on appeal after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Denver Housing Authority. The tenants, Latrisse Johnson and Shawn Pope, appealed this decision, seeking review of the district court's legal conclusions.

Q: What is the role of the appellate court in reviewing a summary judgment decision?

An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, meaning it examines the case anew without giving deference to the district court's legal conclusions. The appellate court must determine if there is a genuine dispute of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Q: Were there any specific procedural rulings made by the district court that were challenged on appeal?

The primary procedural ruling challenged on appeal was the district court's grant of summary judgment. The tenants argued that the district court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding their claims of discrimination and retaliation, and therefore, the case should not have been decided without a trial.