Familial Status Gains Familiar Status in May

Familial status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) has dominated fair housing news in May, a month that is known for Mother's Day.

A relative latecomer to the FHA, "familial status" is one of the FHA's seven protected classes and refers to the presence of one or more children under 18 in a household. People who are expecting a child, whether through pregnancy or via the process of adoption, are also protected against familial status discrimination.

Here are important familial status developments that made the news in May:

• The Massachusetts Attorney General's office announced on May 12 that the owner and operator of 26 rental properties has agreed to settle a lawsuit claiming the company illegally discriminated when it attempted to evict a tenant and her small children from their apartment. According to the complaint, a neighbor repeatedly made "unreasonable and unsubstantiated complaints" about noise made by the tenant's children. After an investigation, the Attorney General determined that the tenant had taken steps to address the neighbor's concerns, including enrolling her children in additional daycare and keeping her children out of the apartment for long periods of time on the weekends. But the neighbor allegedly complained about noise even when the children were not in the apartment, and the company simply responded with a notice of eviction. The company has agreed to pay $6,500 to the tenant and the Commonwealth, as well as implement improved training and adjust its best practices to ensure future compliance with the FHA and Massachusetts' fair housing law.
  
  
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced on May 20 that it has charged a Las Vegas, Nevada, homeowners association and its management company with discriminating against families with children by limited housing to persons who are 55 and older — without taking the steps the law requires to meet the "55 and older" senior housing exemption.
  
  
• HUD announced on May 26 that it has charged the owner of a five-unit apartment building in Lebanon, New Hampshire, with FHA violations for allegedly refusing to rent one of the building's three apartments to a mother with two children. The owner, who used one of the building's commercial units for his chiropractic office, reportedly dared the mother to "turn him in" after she accused him of familial status discrimination. HUD also claims the owner's receptionist violated the FHA by carrying out the owner's instructions to turn away prospective tenants with children.


• HUD announced today that Ocala, Florida-based USA4SALE Network, Inc., has agreed to pay $15,000 to settle claims that it violated the FHA when it posted ads on its Web sites that discriminated against families with children by stating "No children, No kids." The company has also reportedly agreed to change the way its Web sites filter potentially discriminatory language, plus donate $7,500 to a HUD-funded state fair housing organization and $7,500 to a HUD-approved local fair housing group to cover the cost of the group's future fair housing advertisements.
  

Invalid Reasons for Denying Modification/Accommodation Requests - Part 1

There are valid reasons why an owner or property manager may deny a tenant's modification request. For example, if a tenant doesn't have a disability, if the requested modification isn't related to the disability, or if it's just not reasonable, the law should support a denial.

But sometimes modification requests get denied for reasons that amount to a violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination. Very often, the owners or property managers who make such denials believe they're acting within their rights and later are surprised to learn that their policy justifying the denials isn't legal.

Two recent examples show how this plays out.

A tenant at a Boston apartment building requested modifications to her apartment's bathroom and doors, claiming she needed them because of a disability. The property management company denied the modification request, citing a (clearly discriminatory) policy of not accepting tenants with disabilities at the building, according to a report from The Milford Daily News. Following a 2009 complaint from the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, the management company agreed Wednesday to settle the matter.

Read another example in the next blog entry.

Making Them Pay for Making Them Pay

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) last week announced that a Methuen, Massachusetts condominium has agreed to settle charges of housing discrimination based on familial status. According to the DOJ press release, the condominium will pay $130,000 to the victims and $20,000 in civil penalties, and its board members will undergo mandatory training on aspects of the Fair Housing Act.

The DOJ claims that the condominium fined families with children (both condo owners and renters) more than $500 after kids played wiffle ball, tag, and other games in the outdoor common areas — but not from other residents (without children) for recreational use of the same common areas. In addition, the complaint states that the condominium retaliated against one mother for filing a discrimination complaint by charging her $1,000 to cover the costs of hiring an attorney to defend against that complaint.

The proposed consent decree will take effect pending approval by the federal district court.