Sexual orientation and gender identity are two protected classes that aren't among the seven federally protected ones outlined in the Fair Housing Act.
They're also not part of North Dakota's fair housing law, which adds protection based on age (40 and older), marital status, and public assistance status.
But yesterday, a ban against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity became law in Grand Forks, after the city council voted 5-2 in favor, according to a report from the Grand Forks Herald. Landlords who violate the ban put their rental license and certificates of occupancy at risk and may face a $500 fine for each offense.
Fair Housing vs. Unfair Housing
Do you know the difference?
Knowing the difference between fair housing and unfair housing isn't as obvious as you might think. This blog aims to present a variety of important and interesting fair housing issues.
If you're an apartment professional, avoid costly mistakes by reading the stories of others who — even with good intentions — learned compliance lessons the hard way. (For the easy way, click here.)
If you live in an apartment, get familiar with your rights when it comes to housing discrimination, as well as your options for seeking justice.
Do you know the difference?
Knowing the difference between fair housing and unfair housing isn't as obvious as you might think. This blog aims to present a variety of important and interesting fair housing issues.
If you're an apartment professional, avoid costly mistakes by reading the stories of others who — even with good intentions — learned compliance lessons the hard way. (For the easy way, click here.)
If you live in an apartment, get familiar with your rights when it comes to housing discrimination, as well as your options for seeking justice.
Showing posts with label North Dakota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Dakota. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Monday, April 19, 2010
Fair Housing Month: DOJ Settles Two Familial Status Cases
April's not yet over, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has so far settled two familial status cases this Fair Housing Month.
One case is in North Dakota and the other in Rhode Island, but both disputes involve parties that allegedly adopted a formal policy against providing housing to families with children, in clear violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
In the North Dakota case, a condominium complex, unit owners, and a realtor refused to sell or rent to families with children under 14, according to the complaint dated September 8, 2009. The DOJ signed a partial consent order with the unit owners, dated April 8, 2010, in which they agree to pay $7,500 in damages to an aggrieved family and a $2,500 civil penalty.
In Rhode Island, the owner of a single-family house refused to rent to at least two families with children. According to the complaint, the owner even explained to an investigator from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that she "has the right not to rent to families with children." In signing a consent order, also dated April 8, 2010, the owner now agrees to pay $9,500 in damages to two single mothers who were turned away because of their children.
Return tomorrow for the twentieth part of this special "Fair Housing Month" feature at Fairhousingblog.com.
One case is in North Dakota and the other in Rhode Island, but both disputes involve parties that allegedly adopted a formal policy against providing housing to families with children, in clear violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
In the North Dakota case, a condominium complex, unit owners, and a realtor refused to sell or rent to families with children under 14, according to the complaint dated September 8, 2009. The DOJ signed a partial consent order with the unit owners, dated April 8, 2010, in which they agree to pay $7,500 in damages to an aggrieved family and a $2,500 civil penalty.
In Rhode Island, the owner of a single-family house refused to rent to at least two families with children. According to the complaint, the owner even explained to an investigator from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that she "has the right not to rent to families with children." In signing a consent order, also dated April 8, 2010, the owner now agrees to pay $9,500 in damages to two single mothers who were turned away because of their children.
Return tomorrow for the twentieth part of this special "Fair Housing Month" feature at Fairhousingblog.com.
Posted by
Ron Leshnower
at
April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Update: Sexual Orientation Still Not Protected in North Dakota
In an earlier January post, I wrote that two states were considering amendments to their anti-discrimination laws to protect people based on sexual orientation.
One of those states, North Dakota, just defeated the bill in its House of Representatives by a vote of 54-34. A representative who voted against the bill defended his actions by stating that being gay or lesbian is a "lifestyle choice," and not something you are born with, the Associated Press reported. By contrast, proponents of the bill point to the defeat as being in stark contrast with the recent display of teamwork that fought the rising river level in Fargo.
Should people be protected against housing discrimination based on their sexual orientation? Is sexual orientation something you are born with or is it a lifestyle choice? Should it matter?
What do you think?
One of those states, North Dakota, just defeated the bill in its House of Representatives by a vote of 54-34. A representative who voted against the bill defended his actions by stating that being gay or lesbian is a "lifestyle choice," and not something you are born with, the Associated Press reported. By contrast, proponents of the bill point to the defeat as being in stark contrast with the recent display of teamwork that fought the rising river level in Fargo.
Should people be protected against housing discrimination based on their sexual orientation? Is sexual orientation something you are born with or is it a lifestyle choice? Should it matter?
What do you think?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Two More States Happy to Consider Gay Housing Rights
Two states are introducing legislation that would extend their housing discrimination laws to cover people based on sexual orientation:
- Florida's proposed law (HB 397) covers employment, housing and public accommodations, and would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
- North Dakota's proposed law (SB 2278) covers housing, employment, credit transactions and the use of public accommodation, and would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Currently, 20 states plus the District of Columbia protected prospects and tenants based on sexual orientation.
Posted by
Ron Leshnower
at
January 19, 2009
Labels:
Florida,
North Dakota,
sexual orientation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)