Landlord Puts No-Pets Policy Above the Law

Many landlords have a no-pets policy at their properties, or they have rules limiting the types of pets allowed. This is perfect legal. However, what many landlords don't know is that they must let tenants keep service animals in their apartments when needed as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. This means their policy is still valid, but they should be prepared to make an exception, if warranted, to comply with the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban against disability-based discrimination.

Landlords who aren't familiar with the FHA's reasonable accommodations requirement or who don't understand how it may affect their pet policy often go head-to-head with prospects and tenants, insisting on what they believe are their rights while getting themselves deeper into fair housing trouble.

A recent example shows how this plays out.

The owner and manager of a trailer park in Lakeland, Washington advertised apartments with a no-pets policy. A local non-profit fair housing organization sent testers posing as prospects who need service dogs for a disability respond to the ad. More than once, the owner told the testers no dogs are allowed. After the testers explained the dogs were service animals and needed a reasonable accommodation, the owner and manager still refused. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination, the manager argued that "if one tenant has an animal everyone will want one" and also expressed concern that animals will destroy the property.

The owner and manager will now have a chance to argue their case in from of a HUD administrative law judge.

Update: Washington Complex Owners and Managers Settle Multiple Claims With DOJ

Last April, as part of a special series to commemorate Fair Housing Month, I blogged about the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) first announced charge of Fair Housing Month. The case concerned a Renton, Washington landlord, property management company, and on-site manger who had to defend themselves against alleged violations of four of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) seven protected classes: race, color, national origin, and familial status.

Since then, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) got involved, and the defendants have now agreed to settle the claims against them, while not admitting any liability or wrongdoing.

On March 8, 2011, a federal court entered a consent order that requires the defendants to pay $85,000 to tenants and prospective tenants who were harmed by the alleged discriminatory practices, pay $25,000 to the government as a civil penalty, create a common recreational area for tenants, including children, provide fair housing training to the defendants' employees, and develop and maintain non-discrimination policies throughout the complex.

On Memorial Day, Considering Military Status Protection

Today is Memorial Day, a federal holiday when we remember the sacrifice of servicemembers who died protecting the United States. As some are surprised to learn, federal law doesn't protect servicemembers when it comes to housing discrimination.

A number of states and cities have enacted human rights laws to cover this gap in recent years. For example, Washington protects tenants and prospective tenants against discrimination based on "honorably discharged veteran or military status." Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago all go a step further and include military discharge status as a protected class.

Is it time for the Fair Housing Act to be amended to protect against discrimination based on military status? If so, would you be in favor of limiting the coverage only to current servicemembers and those who have been honorably discharged? Or is it best to leave these decisions up to individual states and municipalities?

What do you think?

Fair Housing Month: First Announced HUD Charge Covers Most FHA Protected Classes

Yesterday, I blogged about how the Fair Housing Act (FHA) protects people against housing discrimination based on seven so-called "protected classes." In the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) first announced charge of Fair Housing Month, a King County, Washington landlord, property management company, and on-site manger will face an administrative law judge to defend themselves against alleged violations of four of the FHA's seven protected classes: race, color, national origin, and familial status.

According to HUD's Charge of Discrimination, issued on April 1 and announced on April 6, the owners and managers allegedly engaged in a pattern of unfair treatment of blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and families with children at their five-building apartment complex in Renton.

Testers at the property allegedly revealed that the manager:

• offered the same apartment at a higher rent to black and Hispanic testers than to a white tester;
• offered earlier availability dates and apartments with newer amenities to white testers as compared to black testers;
• asked Hispanic applicants if they illegally purchased Social Security cards or green cards;
• made several discriminatory statements to minority testers, including telling a black tester that she wouldn't tolerate loud parties or "weed smoking on the balcony" and that he was "one of the good ones" because he wears his pants "up on his buttocks";
• said that children couldn't play ball, skateboard, or ride bicycles on the complex's grounds and would need to go to a park.

HUD's investigation also allegedly found evidence that the manager:

• directed her staff to show minority applicants apartments with less desirable amenities, such as older carpet, countertops, and appliances;
• steered minority applicants away from the building in which she lived;
• banned her assistant from speaking Spanish to Hispanic applicants, saying, "No, no, no. None of that sh*t. We speak English here";
• told one Asian-American tenant to "go back to India" if he can't use the appliances properly and said to another, "For God's sake, you come from a country with no running water and cook over an open flame."

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