> Appraiser Coach > AMC Resource Guide > OREP E&O ★★★★★ “They are knowledgeable, professional, and understand urgency.” – Joe Thweatt

Appraiser Vindicated: Lanham Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed in Maryland

by Isaac Peck, Publisher

One of the most widely publicized and contested lawsuits alleging appraisal discrimination has finally come to an end.

On July 17, US District of Maryland judge Stephanie Gallagher issued summary judgement in the case of Connolly & Mott v. Shane Lanham, effectively dismissing Connolly and the late Mott’s claims that appraiser Shane Lanham discriminated against them by appraising their home for less than they hoped, while simultaneously dismissing Lanham’s counterclaim against the plaintiffs for defamation.

The result is an ending to a nearly three-year legal battle that started in August 2022. Shortly after filing their lawsuit against Lanham, both Connolly and Mott were quoted at length across mainstream media outlets—CBS News, The New York Times, NBC, CNN, ABC News, and more—describing how Lanham discriminated against them and undervalued their home because they are Black.

Lanham countersued shortly after and argued that they had defamed him, falsely labeled him a racist on national news, and were responsible for severe emotional and financial damage to his life and his business. (See Appraiser Countersues Black Plaintiffs Who Alleged Discrimination.)

Each side has 30 days to file an appeal against Gallagher’s decision, so it remains to be seen if the case is truly over, but all signs are pointing to a final conclusion.

Here are the details on the resolution of this important case.

Significance of the Case
This case is perhaps one of the most significant appraisal discrimination lawsuits to have been decided to date. There have been other widely publicized lawsuits against appraisers—many of which have been quietly settled. This is the second case where an appraiser has gotten a discrimination lawsuit effectively dismissed, with the first being an appraiser (an OREP Member) who recently triumphed in an Ohio lawsuit alleging discrimination (See Case Dismissed: Ohio Appraiser Wins Discrimination Lawsuit).

This case is particularly significant for two key reasons.

First, it is likely a material test case for “appraisal discrimination” litigation-funding. Connolly and the late Mott were represented by Relman Colfax, a leading fair housing law firm that recently billed over $500,000 to The Appraisal Foundation (TAF) to advise on USPAP revisions. According to court records from months ago, Relman Colfax has billed 5,411 hours to the case at an average hourly rate of $583, with total expenditure reaching $3.15 million (The final bill is expected to exceed this amount).

Some industry insiders have questioned whether Connolly and the late Mott, both academics, are the ones paying this multi-million-dollar legal bill. This questioning occurs against a backdrop of litigation where many (nearly all) of the bias lawsuits filed against appraisers have been joined or co-filed by a local fair housing organization. The plaintiffs in a Marin County, California lawsuit, another suit that drew headlines across national media outlets, were backed by the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, for example.

The fact that Relman Colfax billed over $3 million on this case alone means that it is likely representing one of the most expensive cases that has been brought against an appraiser to date, at least for plaintiff-side accounting. This, combined with the fact that many of these cases are backed by non-profit fair housing organizations, suggests that this case may set an example and discourage other non-profits or private litigation-funders as they contemplate financially backing future cases suing an appraiser for racial discrimination.

Second, as one of the most widely publicized discrimination lawsuits and one of the last ongoing lawsuits against an appraiser, this case is a material victory for appraisers nationally. It is also the second example in 2025 of an appraiser prevailing in Court against claims of appraisal discrimination and bias. The lender in this case, loanDepot, chose to settle with Connolly and Mott in early 2024, but Lanham chose to stay the course and refused to settle.

Decision Specifics
In granting summary judgement for Lanham in dismissal of Connolly and the late Mott’s (plaintiffs) discrimination claims, the Court explains that all the plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on a finding that Lanham “discriminated against them on the basis of their race.”

The Court explains the current legal standard that exists for discrimination claims in the United States. First, if the plaintiffs do not have direct evidence of discrimination, they must be satisfied with what is called the McDonnell-Douglas test (from McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green), which involves the following sequence:

1. Plaintiffs must begin by making out a “prima facie case of discrimination.”
2. The burden then shifts to the defendant (Lanham in this case) who must “establish that there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the…action.”
3. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff, who must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the [defendant] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.”

In this case, plaintiffs argued that the appraisal value of $472,000 that Lanham delivered discriminated against them as Black homeowners because it “undervalued” their home compared to other white homeowners in the neighborhood (Item 1). Lanham responded that his opinion of value was fair and reasonable, and based on appropriate appraisal standards and analysis, not discrimination. (Item 2: the legitimate non-discriminatory reason).

The crux of the Court’s decision rests on the plaintiffs’ inability to offer evidence or prove Item 3, that Lanham’s true intent was to discriminate against them with his appraised value.

Plaintiffs relied heavily on the expert witness testimony of Junia Howell, a Sociology professor at the University of Illinois Chicago. Howell’s work has been cited by the Brookings Institute, and she has been central to the creation of the theoretical framework that has been used to paint appraisers as reinforcers of a biased and discriminatory real estate market. Howell has written that appraisers “do not merely reflect the market—they actively create it” and her academic work openly calls on policymakers to consider how we can “collectively offer reparations” for the explicitly racist housing policies of the past—although she stops short of arguing appraisers themselves should offer reparations.

One problem that the plaintiffs ran into is that in her deposition, Howell testified that she is not an appraiser, and she was “not trying to suggest that there are specific alternatives” to Lanham’s appraisal methodologies. This proved to be a fatal blow for the plaintiffs as the Court found that Howell was “unqualified to assess whether [Lanham] complied with those requirements, norms, and standards” and threw out all arguments Howell made that Lanham had deviated from USPAP or other professional appraisal standards.

Howell had attempted to conduct a systematic analysis of hundreds of Lanham’s appraisals and demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, but the Court concluded that the distinctions Howell identified among Lanham’s appraisals are “no more than nitpicking. Without the foundation in appraisals necessary to explain the significance of these distinctions, this Court has no way to place them in context. None of the ‘departures’ Dr. Howell highlighted is sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination on its own, nor do they collectively raise such an inference.”

Ultimately, the Court grants that Howell successfully demonstrated that Lanham “had a pattern of valuing homes in 100 percent white neighborhoods at higher values than comparable homes in 100 percent non-white neighborhoods,” but adds that this fact alone is not “enough to create a genuine issue of material fact” that Lanham was not merely reporting on the market. “Nor do they holistically raise a genuine issue as to whether the real reason for the appraisal result was discrimination,” the Court writes.

Accordingly, the Court granted Lanham’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims.

(story continues below)

(story continues)

Defamation Dismissed
The Court also considered Lanham’s defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims. The Court concluded that Connolly and the late Mott were shielded under fair reporting privilege, where parties to a lawsuit are entitled to speak publicly about the claims in their lawsuit.

“Although Plaintiffs’ initial impressions have not been proven true, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs intentionally made false or misleading statements or pursued this lawsuit with the purpose of defaming [Lanham],” the Court writes.

In other words, because Lanham could not show that they filed their lawsuit in bad faith, they were entitled to fair reporting privilege and Lanham’s counterclaims were dismissed.

Lanham Speaks Out
Working RE reached out to appraiser Shane Lanham to hear about his experience and his perspective on the resolution of the trial.

“I have mixed emotions about it. I’m happy and relieved that this whole ordeal is over. I felt confident in the arguments we presented in the case, and we were prepared to go to trial, so having this resolved at the summary judgement stage means my family and I were able to avoid spending additional money. That’s a win. It’s a little disappointing that our defamation claims were also dismissed as I would’ve liked to see those through, but it is what it is,” says Lanham.

The emotional rollercoaster of the case definitely took its toll. “It has been stressful for me and my family. There has been some respite and some times when it felt like things had settled down between all the legal filings, but there were also very stressful periods. At times, it created a ripple effect for my friends and my family, because then they had to worry about it too. It wasn’t pleasant,” Lanham reports.

Financial Costs
In terms of the financial costs of the case and how it has affected his business, Lanham says it is hard to quantify. “It’s definitely put a financial strain on me and my family. I lost clients and lost business. Some clients openly told me that they weren’t going to work with me because of these accusations, and others just told me that the market had slowed down—only for me to find out later that I had been placed on a blacklist. As part of our defamation case, we had an economist project out what the total cost would be for me, and it was in the hundreds of thousands. The loss of business forced me to liquidate about $50,000 in assets to keep bills paid and live life, and I had to borrow over $50,000 from my parents for legal bills. That’s a lot of money to us. I don’t know what the future holds or how this will affect me moving forward, but I hope and plan to rebuild my business and finances,” Lanham says.

Ultimately, Lanham says he feels exonerated of the claims against him. “I do feel vindicated. In my mind, I won that my appraisal was not discriminatory. The judge ruled that there was no evidence of discrimination, and their claims were dismissed,” Lanham says.

In terms of the costs of defending his case, Lanham had an errors and omissions (E&O) policy that provided $100,000 of coverage for discrimination claims. Throughout the course of his case, the full $100,000 was spent and Lanham was left without further support from his insurance carrier. This is what led Lanham to create a GoFundMe campaign and solicit support from the appraiser profession and his friends and family to help raise funds for his defense.

Today, Lanham says he is very cognizant of the need for insurance to include ample discrimination claim coverage. “I actually went back to one of my old insurance agents and I told them that $100,000 isn’t going to cut it. I really think appraisers are willing to pay a higher insurance premium to have more coverage for these claims. It’s worth it. I think having $250,000 in coverage would allow appraisers to actually get through a trial and defend themselves,” Lanham says. (OREP’s primary E&O policy includes $200,000 of Discrimination Coverage at no additional cost, with up to $500,000 available for a small additional premium.)

Message of Thanks
Lanham shared that he felt a great deal of support from his fellow appraisers throughout the ordeal. “I have a lot of appreciation and gratitude for the many appraisers who supported me and donated to my GoFundMe campaign. A lot of folks reached out too—even if the support wasn’t financial, their words of encouragement were helpful as well. Hopefully no other appraiser will have to go through what I’ve been through, but if another appraiser needs help, I’m committed to doing my best to support them,” Lanham says.

Ultimately, Lanham raised $65,000 via his GoFundMe campaign. In an update posted to it last Friday, Lanham reiterated his gratitude for his supporters and indicated that there may be a small surplus of funds after he pays his lawyer’s final bill. “When I am through settling the balance with [my attorneys], I will be donating the rest to the NAA [National Association of Appraisers]. I hope that none of us need to take to GoFundMe again for something like this, but if it does happen, I will certainly be around doing my best to pony up some dollars to help support you in your defense,” Lanham wrote.

Stay safe out there!

>> IMPORTANT: In an environment where somebody is always blaming the appraiser, you want a team with deep expertise in your corner. Specializing in appraiser insurance for over 20 years, OREP has built a network of attorneys and USPAP experts who have been defending appraisers for decades.

OREP provides up to $250K of Discrimination Claim Coverage for individual appraisers and up to $500K of coverage for Appraisal Firms.

Click Here for a Quote (in 5 Minutes or less!)

About the Author
Isaac Peck is the Publisher of Working RE magazine and the President of OREP Insurance, a leading provider of E&O insurance for real estate professionals. OREP serves over 10,000 appraisers with comprehensive E&O coverage, competitive rates, and 14 hours of CE at no charge for OREP Members (CE not approved in IL, MN, GA). Visit OREP.org to learn more. Reach Isaac at isaac@orep.org or (888) 347-5273. CA License #4116465.

OREP Insurance Services, LLC. Calif. License #0K99465