In the January episode of the Seventh Circuit Roundup podcast, Kian Hudson and Mark Crandley examine two decisions— Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC and Martin v. Goldsmith — that address issues familiar to many litigators: how much must be pleaded to survive dismissal, what role intent plays in discrimination claims, and where the boundaries of immunity lie for government actors. Their conversation highlights how early procedural and strategic decisions often determine whether a case ever reaches discovery.

Neutral Apartment Policies & Discrimination Claims

The first case, Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC, involved a Fair Housing Act challenge to a Chicago apartment building’s policy prohibiting displays related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After a tenant refused to remove a Palestinian flag, the landlord enforced the policy and evicted her.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's case, explaining that intent is an essential element of a disparate-treatment claim under the Fair Housing Act — one that cannot be bypassed by characterizing a facially race-neutral policy as inherently discriminatory. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit majority opinion emphasized the consequences of the plaintiff’s litigation strategy: rather than alleging that the policy was enforced selectively or motivated by animus, the plaintiff argued that pleading such intent was unnecessary. That choice framed the court’s analysis and, ultimately, foreclosed alternative theories.

The discussion underscores a recurring lesson for housing- and employment-discrimination litigators: facially neutral policies can be challenged, but to succeed such challenges will require facts suggesting that the policy is applied or was motivated in a racially discriminatory way. Absent such allegations, courts are reluctant to allow cases past the pleadings stage. And more broadly, the decision also underscores the point that arguments not raised in opposition to dismissal can be forfeited, even if they could have been supported by amended pleadings or subsequent factual development.

The Limits of Prosecutorial & Qualified Immunity

The second case, Martin v. Goldsmith, shifts the focus from housing law to constitutional litigation in the public-employment context. The case involved a former sheriff’s lieutenant who resigned in exchange for promises that he would receive a “neutral reference" — but prosecutors later sent damaging Brady-Giglio disclosures about him, not only in pending cases, but also to a county bar association and a prospective employer.

The Seventh Circuit drew a sharp line between prosecutorial acts tied to active criminal cases, which it held are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and communications untethered from any ongoing case: The Court held that sending disclosures to third parties outside the context of an active case was not “functionally prosecutorial” and therefore fell outside absolute immunity. The Court also rejected qualified immunity, framing the constitutional right at issue at a fairly high level of generality — as the right not to be induced into relinquishing a protected property interest through material misrepresentations. For public employers, the implications are significant. Severance agreements are common tools for resolving internal disputes, and Martin serves as a reminder that misrepresentations in those agreements can trigger federal due process claims, bringing with them fee-shifting and personal liability risks under Section 1983.

Listen to the Full Episode

To hear Kian Hudson and Mark Crandley unpack these decisions in greater detail, including their perspectives on litigation strategy and emerging Seventh Circuit trends, listen to the full episode below.