The plaintiffs clearly have standing insofar as their complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Indeed, their standing in this respect has not been challenged. METDESI’s standing to sue for damages, however, is, under current legal standards, insufficient. The cases upon which the plaintiffs rely to establish their standing to collect damages involve situations where the organizations themselves claim injury. In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 377, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 1123, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), the organization had standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss based on allegations of injury to itself — the impaired ability to provide services. See also Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 111, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1613, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Because the present suit is brought in
holding that allegations of racial discrimination by citibank and its manager in connection with plaintiffs efforts to obtain a loan sufficiently stated a claim under the fha holding where corporation had acquired imputed racial identity and was direct target of discrimination it had standing to pursue  1981 claim recognizing that the distinction between national origin and racial discrimination is an extremely difficult one to trace and holding that plaintiffs allegations of racial discrimination were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding village had standing to claim money damages based on its allegations that it was denied racial balance and stability holding that disproportionate impact standing alone was insufficient to prove unconstitutional racial discrimination