Case: Village Of Arlington Heights V. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation

1589 Words7 Pages

On January 15th, 2018, the defendant, Mary Taylor, was accused of refusing to serve the plaintiff, Brianna Banks, at Mary’s Diner located in downtown Atlanta. Ms Banks, an African American woman, claimed that she walked into the diner, sat herself as customers were directed to do, and, after 20 minutes of waiting in the diner during what she described as a “slow time”, was not helped by Ms Taylor. Banks then proceeded to get up from her table, caused a loud altercation with the hostess at the diner, accusing the business of being racist and claiming that “if her skin was white, she would have been helped within seconds”, and then exited the establishment. After leaving the diner, Brianna Banks went home and did some research on Mary Taylor, …show more content…

Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation in 1977, The Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation contracted with the Village of Arlington Heights to build racially integrated low-and moderate-income housing in Arlington Heights, Illinois, however, Arlington’s planning commission denied the zoning permits (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 1977). The MHDC challenged their decision, claiming it was racially motivated and discriminatory (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 1977). Many African American plaintiffs would be negatively impacted by the denial of the MHDC’s request. The case was brought to the US Supreme Court, where they decided that, although the impact of the decision would hurt minority groups more than caucasian individuals, no evidence of an intended racially motivated choice was present (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, …show more content…

The effects of the circumstances may have appeared to be racially motivated by the plaintiffs because they happened to negatively impact minorities, but this was not done consciously, and does not mean that the defendants themselves are racist or prejudice towards minority groups. Even if what took place in Mary’s diner on January 15th upset Ms Banks, Ms Taylor didn’t mean for that to happen, regardless of Ms Banks’ race, and therefore cannot be charged as such. Although Taylor had a past association with a racist organization, she confidently states that she no longer has the same beliefs or morals that she did during that dark time in her life when she dealt with a controlling husband who she has since divorced, and has not identified as a part of that group in over 10 years. Because there is no proof of any racially discriminatory intent, the case should rule that Ms Taylor is not