Seven Years After Its Enactment, a Local Fair Housing Law Has Its Day in Court

A New York court judge ruled that owners and managers of a Buffalo apartment complex are liable for violating the city's fair housing law banning discrimination based on source of income. At issue was whether a prospective tenant can legally be turned away because she holds housing choice (Section 8) vouchers.

The judge ruled that such action violates the ban because landlords in that city can't base tenancy decisions on where a prospect would get the rent money owed under their lease.

The 2013 ruling is the first for this civil rights ordinance, which was enacted in 2006, according to a report from WNYmedia.net. The court will rule on damages in a separate proceeding.

Should federal law include "source of income" as a protected class? Is it fair for landlords to not have a choice when it comes to housing choice vouchers?

What do you think?

Important to note:

• In addition to cities, many states include protected classes not found in the Fair Housing Act. Check out the "Protected Classes Tool" at fairhousingresources.com to find out the situation in your state.

• As an owner or manager, it's important to get familiar with state and local differences in fair housing law when running a building in a different part of the country. In this case, the apartment complex was owned by absentee owners and managers based in California, according to the report. Learn more compliance tips by reading the new Fair Housing Helper for Apartment Professionals.

A Bronx Tale of Denial, Then Harrassment

Many apartment residents need to have a change made to a policy or practice as an accommodation for a disability. Owners must consider all such "reasonable accommodation" requests, then grant them if there's evidence that the resident has a qualifying disability under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and needs the accommodation for that disability, and if the request is reasonable.

A new Charge brought by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against a New York City cooperative claims that not only did the cooperative wrongfully deny a resident's request to keep an emotional support animal (despite a no-pets policy), but the cooperative harassed the resident because of it.

According to the Charge, the cooperative refused to accept the resident’s rent payments, threatened to suspend his garage privileges, and attempted to evict him from his apartment. In addition, the cooperative's security director allegedly didn't stop his officers from harassing the resident and his wife for keeping the service animal, even after the tenant specifically asked him to do so.

A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

Interesting to note:

• The cooperative, known as "Co-op City" and located in the Bronx, has 15,372 apartments in 35 high-rise buildings and seven townhouse clusters, housing roughly 50,000 low- and middle-income residents.
  
  
• The cooperative appears to have been familiar with the FHA's requirement, having given the resident its own "Application for Reasonable Accommodation of Dog Application Form" to complete.
  
  
• According to the Charge, the cooperative stopped contesting the dog's presence on account of New York City's three-month waiver rule. Read my About.com article for more information on this rule.
  
  

Disabled Army Veteran Wins Battle Over Parking Space

Imagine buying a condo only to discover it doesn't come with a certain promised amenity. Now imagine that this "amenity" was something you needed each day to accommodate a disability.

A New Rochelle, New York man recently found himself in exactly this situation.

When looking to purchase his first-floor unit at the complex, the disabled Army veteran and cancer survivor claims the contractor assured him he would get the one parking space at the premises that's flat enough to accommodate his van and wheelchair lift, according to reporting from The Journal News.

But things turned ugly when another condo owner claimed the space was hers and demanded $10,000 from the man to give it up.

With the help of a disability advocacy group, the man convinced the condo board to give him the parking space as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, a requirement of both the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and county law.

The man finally moved into his condo the parking space he needed, the battle with his neighbor appearing to be over. However, the neighbor is reportedly taking the condo board to court, claiming she needed the space for her disabled mother's visits, and that she deserves $300,000 for her mental anguish.

If you were on the condo board, would you have voted to give the man the accessible space? If he hadn't been promised the space by the contractor, would that affect your decision? Does the neighbor deserve any compensation from the condo board?

What do you think?

Invalid Reasons for Denying Modification/Accommodation Requests - Part 2

Here's another recent example of an owner or property manager denying a modification/accommodation request for an invalid reason. Unlike the first example, however, this owner appears to have tried to comply with relevant laws, but his research efforts came up short.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination of February 9, 2011, the owner and manager of an Oyster Bay, New York coop repeatedly denied a resident's request for an assigned accessible parking space. The resident, who suffers from neuropathy and can't walk long distances, claimed he needed the space as a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

After the resident was not allowed to reserve one of the two designated accessible parking spaces closest to the entrance, he had to compete for an accessible space with other residents or park further away from his apartment.

The owner and manager denied the resident's request, claiming that they were "in full compliance with local codes regarding handicap parking." That may be, but they apparently were unaware of the Fair Housing Act's requirement to consider accommodation requests from residents — and grant them if they're reasonable.

Fair Housing Report Describes 2009 Efforts As 'Step in the Right Direction'

In an annual report issued Wednesday, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced that housing discrimination in the United States remained at a near-historic level in 2009, with the number of complaints surpassing 30,000 for the second year in a row. The number of actual violations per year, however, are estimated at four million.

Although the report concludes that greater efforts need to be undertaken to combat unfair housing, it also acknowledges government programs and initiatives that are "a step in the right direction." For example, the report notes a landmark settlement requiring that Westchester County, N.Y. build new affordable housing in segregated neighborhoods, and it points out that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its highest number of FHA lawsuits since 2002.

The NFHA also reported that 93 private non-profit fair housing organizations had nearly twice the caseload in 2009 as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the DOJ, and over a hundred state and local government agencies combined.

Read more about these trends and others in the NFHA's 2010 Fair Housing Trends Report, "A Step in the Right Direction."

Preferences Are Troublesome, Even if Implied

Apartment advertisements can run afoul of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) if they show a preference for a certain type of tenant — even if that preference is implied.

A Buffalo, New York landlord just learned this lesson after placing a Craigslist ad for an apartment in a "nice Irish neighborhood." He didn't write "Irish only" (clear discrimination) or "Irish preferred" (direct preferential discrimination), but his decision to use the language he did implies he would give tenants of a certain national origin, people of Irish descent, favorable treatment. Stated differently, people reading the ad who aren't of Irish descent may feel discouraged from applying, expecting that they wouldn't be welcome.

According to a report today from The Buffalo News, the landlord, without admitting liability, signed a settlement agreement with the New York State Division of Human Rights agreeing to pay $1,000 for the alleged bias in his ad.

Interesting to note:

• While under investigation for the offending ad, the landlord reportedly made discriminatory statements to testers in violation of the FHA's ban on race and familial-status discrimination. One white tester claims the landlord told her "there are no coloreds here... I hope your husband isn't black," and two testers reported that the landlord asked about their children.

Fair Housing Month: April Is Also National Sexual Assault Awareness Month

On April 1, President Obama signed a proclamation making April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, a time to "recommit ourselves not only to lifting the veil of secrecy and shame surrounding sexual violence, but also to raising awareness, expanding support for victims, and strengthening our response."

It's fitting that National Sexual Assault Awareness Month coincides with Fair Housing Month because sexual assault or harrassment is a form of sex discrimination, which the Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans.

For a recent example, just look at today's announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) about a complaint it filed yesterday against a New York City apartment building super and landlord.

The super allegedly sexually harrassed many female tenants at three apartment buildings over a period of years. According to the complaint, the super engaged in sex-based discrimination through his:

• unwanted verbal sexual advances, such as repeatedly soliciting sexual favors in exchange for reduced rent;
  
• unwanted sexual touching, such as grabbing;
  
• unwanted sexual language, including yelling obscenities to female tenants who didn't comply with sexual demands;
  
• conditioning the terms of tenancy on the granting of sexual favors;
  
• attempting to enter tenants' apartments while inebriated, demanding sex;
  
• granting and denying tangible housing benefits (such as mail delivery and making repairs) based on sex; and
  
• taking adverse action (such as threatening eviction) against female tenants who refused or objected to his sexual advances.

The landlord was also named in the lawsuit for having allegedly been aware of the super's sexual harrassment and not having taken "any meaningful steps" to investigate his tenants' multiple complaints of sexual harrassment. The DOJ also identifies the super as a registered Level 3 (high-risk) sex offender in the complaint.

The super and the landlord must now defend themselves in court against the DOJ, which seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Return tomorrow for the twenty-third part of this special "Fair Housing Month" feature at Fairhousingblog.com.

Veteran Soldiers On in Fair Housing Disability Battle Against Landlord

A Vietnam War veteran wanted to keep a dog in his Highland, New York apartment to control the anxiety and fears he still encounters as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and seizure disorder. After obtaining a doctor's note recommending the dog, the tenant requested that his landlord make an exception to the building's no-pets policy.

Although the landlord acknowledged that he had heard of dogs helping people with seizures, he refused to grant the tenant's request. The landlord explained that if the tenant needs a dog, he should live in a building that allows dogs. No animals means no animals, he insisted.

But federal law says otherwise, as the landlord is no doubt learning. While the landlord's no-pets policy may be perfectly legal as written, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) requires him to grant tenants' requests to keep an animal as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

Not giving up, the tenant complained about the landlord to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the New York State Division of Human Rights. He tried again to explain to the landlord that he needed a specially trained dog as a reasonable accommodation for a legitimate disability.

But the landlord once more denied the tenant's request, unconvinced by the allegations in the housing discrimination complaints lodged against him. Plus, in an apparent act of retaliation, the landlord allegedly ordered the tenant, who was living in the apartment on a month-to-month basis, to look for new housing.

HUD this month issued a Charge of Discrimination against the landlord, declaring that the landlord violated the FHA's ban on disability-based discrimination. An administrative law judge (ALJ) will hear the case and may award damages, attorneys' fees, civil penalties (of up to $16,000 per violation), and other relief.

LANDMARK: $7.4 Million Retrofitting Is Part of Largest Fair Housing Disability Settlement

Fair housing cases involving retrofitting come with great frustration. It's not just that the needed changes are often costly, but it's the notion that the expenses — not to mention the underlying inaccessibility problem — could have been avoided had the building's owner and architect been aware of (and taken seriously) all applicable accessibility laws.

Here's how retrofitting cases usually play out:

1. A building constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 that was supposed to have been built in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) design and construction requirements wasn't.


2. Tenants with mobility impairments who live in the building struggle to enjoy their apartment living, having difficulty with basic activities such as navigating through their apartments and accessing outlets and switches.


3. The tenants bring a fair housing complaint against the owners for violating the FHA's ban on disability-based discrimination.


4. The court finds in favor of the tenants and, in addition to assessing damages and other penalties, orders the owners to retrofit the building to get it in compliance.

On Wednesday, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and its member fair housing organizations announced a record settlement with California-based A.G. Spanos Companies ("Spanos"), the nation's fifth-largest housing developer.

Within three years, Spanos has agreed to retrofit 12,300 units in 82 buildings in 14 states — at an estimated cost of $7.4 million. The number of buildings would have been 123, but 41 Spanos-owned buildings have too many complications to undergo retrofitting. Instead, Spanos has agreed to commit $4.2 million over five years to a national accessibility fund, aimed at offering retrofitting grants for apartments across the United States.

On top of the retrofitting, Spanos has agreed to pay $1.325 million in attorneys' fees, $950,000 in compensatory damages, $750,000 for the establishment of local retrofit funds, $100,000 toward a national media campaign, and $40,000 for the creation of an accessibility coalition.

The settlement is considered a record for fair housing accessibility. Click here for a full summary of the settlement, courtesy of the NFHA.

Interesting to note:

• Spanos was reportedly "shocked" to learn that the buildings weren't built in compliance with the FHA's design and construction requirements. According to a report from the San Diego Union Tribune, the company claims to have hired and relied on competent architects and other professionals to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, but they apparently dropped the ball.


• Alex Spanos, who founded A.G. Spanos Construction in 1960, has owned the San Diego Chargers since 1984 and formed the Chargers Community Foundation in 1995.

When You Can Afford the Rent But Can't Pay It

Several tenants at a 46-building apartment complex in Rockland County, New York could afford their apartments, but mental disabilities affected their ability to pay their rent on time, according to the Department of Justice in a May 6, 2009 press release. A local housing services organization has been helping by renting eight apartments from the landlord for its clients while guaranteeing the rent for 12 other apartments.

This arrangement appeared to work until May 2008, when the complex's owners claimed they weren't required to accept the organization's guarantees or treat its clients any differently than other tenants. In November, the owners brought a lawsuit against the organization, the county and its fair housing agency, as well as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to protect their rights.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is now suing the owners, claiming these tenants are legally entitled to be treated differently -- by getting reasonable accommodations for their disabilities under the Fair Housing Act. Because the tenants' disabilities impair their ability to pay rent, the DOJ argues, the complex owners must let the organization assist the tenants in this effort.

Are the complex owners within their rights to require mentally disabled tenants to pay rent on their own? Is a housing service organization's assistance a reasonable accommodation for a disability?

What do you think?

State's Fair Housing Awareness Campaign Omits Own Fair Housing Law

The New York State Division of Human Rights has been running a statewide ad campaign to promote public awareness of housing discrimination laws. (I spotted them for the first time back in November.) Each ad focuses on a different protected class under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and then lists them all, stating: "Housing discrimination based upon race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability is unlawful."

However, as Gay City News pointed out last week, the ads don't tell the whole story. Missing from the ads is a list of the additional protected classes included under New York's housing discrimination law, which include sexual orientation, age, and military status, among others. Apparently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in giving New York $500,000 in funding for the ad campaign, required that the ads list the FHA's protected classes but didn't limit it to just that. However, a HUD official reportedly pointed out that New York's omission of the state information is consistent with how other states have spent federal dollars.

In light of these developments, New York is planning to spend the remaining $12,000 it has in federal funds for ads aimed at the lesbian and gay community that promote the fact that New York also bars housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to Gay City News.

Should New York have promoted awareness of its own housing discrimination law along with the federal law?

What do you think?

Remembering Why Accessible Apartments Are Accessible

It sounds like a reasonable rule for an apartment complex that offers some accessible apartments: Let tenants without disabilities rent an accessible apartment, but have them agree to move if a tenant with a disability should need the apartment as an accommodation.

One lawsuit and an undisclosed financial settlement later, that's the rule that a federally assisted complex in Henrietta, New York has agreed to adopt, according to the Democrat and Chronicle. The lawsuit was brought by a former tenant who, as a paraplegic, was promised one of the complex's six accessible apartments but then told there's a three-year waiting list. The accessible apartments featured wider doors and other amenities aimed at helping people who use wheelchairs navigate the apartment and use kitchen counters. However, all six such apartments were reportedly occupied by tenants who didn't need them, while the one who did struggled in a nonaccessible apartment.

Making sure that accessible apartments get used by the very people for whom they were intended makes sense, don't you think?

Coop in the Doghouse for 'Unreasonable' Support Animal Rules

HUD issued a discrimination charge, dated September 29, 2008, against a New York City coop for not allowing a family to keep a dog to help their autistic child. After the 11-year-old boy's doctor told his parents she's prescribing an emotional support animal, the parents requested an exception to the coop's no-pet policy as a reasonable accommodation for their son's disability.

The coop agreed to let the parents get a support dog for their son, but with conditions that the parents alleged were unreasonable, including:

• Requiring the parents to purchase a $1 million liability insurance policy
• Imposing a weight limit of under ten pounds
• Banning the use of the passenger elevator when transporting the dog
• Imposing a two-hour limit on how long the dog may be left alone in the coop
• Requiring that the dog be muzzled while in the common areas

HUD agreed with the parents, charging the coop with violating the Fair Housing Act's ban on disability discrimination. A HUD administrative law judge will hear the matter, unless the coop or the parents choose to bring the case to a federal district court.

The Fair Housing Act? Fugheddaboutit!

Since January 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has notified several of the New York City's top landlords and their architects that some of their buildings aren't accessible to people with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) design and construction requirements, according to reporting on August 18, 2008 by The New York Times. The FHA's requirements generally apply to multifamily buildings that were designed and constructed "for first occupancy" after March 13, 1991. (See Section 3604(f)(3)(C) of the FHA and its relevant regulations, 24 CFR 100.205.) They require, for example, usable doors (by a person in a wheelchair), bathroom walls that are reinforced for the possible later installation of grab bars, and an accessible route into and through each apartment.

The landlords argue that they have been complying with the FHA through their successful compliance with Local Law 58, a city accessibilty law that took effect in 1988. They fear that lawsuits could require them to undergo a costly retrofitting of their buildings, which could involve some 100,000 apartments and a pricetag in the tens of millions of dollars.

The DOJ, however, claims that compliance with the FHA isn't the same as compliance with Local Law 58, which isn't listed as a safe harbor for FHA compliance.

What do you think?

Discrimination by Gentrification?

In July 2008, a federal judge gave the green light to a fair housing discrimination lawsuit against a Long Island municipality and owners of an apartment building brought by plaintiffs claiming the defendants tried to push a core Hispanic population out of town. The plaintiffs include Hofstra Law School and Hispanic tenants of the Farmingdale, N.Y. building, who had been evicted so that their aging building could be fixed up. While that part might have been agreeable to the tenants, what they didn't find appealing was the fact that the building would be redeveloped for luxury living — along with higher rents, effectively pricing these tenants out of the "Little Latin America" neighborhood. They allege the redevelopment is a maneuver by the Village of Farmingdale to drive Hispanics (including several day laborers) away through gentrification or "upscaling." The Village denies discrimination as a motive, and the owners point to their record of having rented to Hispanic tenants for years, according to a report from Newsday.

Should the plaintiffs have to prove that the Village actually harbored a discriminatory intent in recasting the building as luxury apartments? Would it matter if the plaintiffs can show that the Village treated other aging buildings in its jurisdiction differently? Should municipalities be required or expected to take into consideration the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood before taking actions that could alter it?

What do you think?