WALSH V. WINTHROP case of Walsh v. Winthrop

Walsh v. Winthrop: Alleged housing discrimination

In the case of Walsh v. Winthrop, John Walsh, the CEO of a chain of skin care salons, brought forth a suit when he was denied the ability to buy a ground-floor apartment unit that was part of an exclusive cooperative apartment complex. The board members stated he "would not reasonably coalesce as a member of the cooperative community" (Estes 2008). Walsh claimed that the actions of the co-op were a case of class discrimination. "Walsh claimed he was snubbed by wealthy Brahmin apartment owners who dominate the board at 68 Beacon St. because of his humble roots and Irish descent. The board is led by Jonathan Winthrop, a descendant of Massachusetts governor John Winthrop" (Estes 2008). Of course, the days of 'No Irish' allowed signs are long gone in Massachusetts but Walsh stated the prejudice remains amongst the Boston Brahmin class.

The co-op claimed that this was nothing of the sort and rather the refusal was rooted in their suspicions that Walsh's "intentions . . . were of a speculative nature and that he might use the space for something which is inappropriate to the decorum of the building or which is a nuisance to the other residents. The board later said it thought he might renovate and then sell the apartment, or open a salon" once he purchased the building (Estes 2008). Discrimination by co-op boards has long been a widespread concern across the nation. For example, "real estate agents in New York City have long complained that co-op boards mistreat potential buyers they do...

The co-op may give another reason based upon the submission but aggrieved parties say they can 'read between the lines' and tell that the actual decision-making had a more nefarious purpose.
However, in this case there seems to be no concrete evidence of discrimination based upon factors relating to the ethnicity of Mr. Walsh. The concerns about the co-op decisions were related to a lack of disclosure of how the property would be disposed of, not about his finances. In the past, discrimination against prospective applicants was usually conduced in silence. For example, "in some of Manhattan's leading co-ops…Aside from persistent and widely credited reports of some buildings keeping Jewish owners to a quota, board acceptances and rejections at the upper reaches of both price and social status are often based on personal friendships and club or church memberships" and no reason for rejections were given (Peterson 1990: 1). However, so long as the actions of the co-op are not demonstrated to be discriminatory, a co-op board "has broad powers to determine who buys into a building. Unlike condos, which are individually owned, a cooperative building is jointly owned by its residents and controlled by its board of directors" (Estes 2008). Its rationale can include questions about how the property will be disposed of, as was the case in this particular incident.

There are particular concerns about discrimination regarding co-ops because unlike apartments which are…