<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Activists applaud new anti-bias rule</title>
		<description>Discuss Activists applaud new anti-bias rule</description>
		<link>http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/opinion/10749-activists-applaud-new-anti-bias-rule</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:26:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/10749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bad regulations</title>
			<link>http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/opinion/10749-activists-applaud-new-anti-bias-rule#comment-1194</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration; s regulations formally adopting a “disparate impact” approach to enforcing the Fair Housing Act mean that you can be found liable for illegally discriminating in a housing-related matter by following some policy that has a disproportionat e effect, even though the policy is nondiscriminato ry by its terms, in its application, and in its intent. The disparate-impac t approach is bad law and bad policy, especially in the housing area, as discussed in this brief: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/brief-amicus-curiae-of-pacific-legal-fou-74521/ Here’s hoping the Supreme Court grants review in a pending case out of Mt. Holly, N.J. — which raises this issue and in which a petition for review has been filed – and puts an end to this nonsense.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roger Clegg, Ctr for</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:11:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/opinion/10749-activists-applaud-new-anti-bias-rule#comment-1194</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
