Exacto, 166 F.3d at 527 (“it is injury that is at the heart of the standing question”) (emphasis in original). Supreme Court cases make plain that a plaintiff sufficiently establishes standing to bring suit under the FHA by alleging that a defendant’s acts impinge on the plaintiffs right to live in an integrated community. Havens Realty, 455 U.S. at 375-77, 102 S.Ct. 1114 (discussing “neighborhood standing”); Gladstone, 441 U.S. at 112-14, 99 S.Ct. 1601 (stating that “[t]he constitutional limits of respondents’ standing to protest the intentional segregation of their community do not vary simply because that community is defined in terms of city blocks rather than apartment buildings”); Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209-12, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) (<HOLDING>). That is precisely the basis for standing
holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa 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 recognizing individuals who experienced the loss of important benefits from interracial associations have standing under fha even if they are not the direct targets of discrimination recognizing attorney fees and expenses may be recovered if they constitute damages from the breach of a contract but not if they are incurred in proving the breach holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii