HUD Kicks Off Fair Housing Month With National Media Campaign Launch

Fair Housing Month is about commemorating the passage of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and promoting awareness of housing discrimination laws. So, what better way for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to kick off the month than to announce the launch of a new national media campaign?

HUD's new campaign is called "Live Free" and will run throughout the year, according to a press release. Acknowledging that "our society is more technologically advanced today," the campaign will utilize "the latest media tools to better reach all people about housing discrimination and what to do if they experience it," according to John Trasviña, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Look for Facebook ads (such as these), digital videos, podcasts and more in the upcoming months that cover a wide range of pressing and prevalent fair housing issues.

Has HUD been doing enough to promote awareness of housing discrimination laws? Do you believe the new "Live Free" campaign will help educate the public about fair housing?

What do you think?

Paying Dearly for Fair Housing Violations, Despite Good Intentions

You might think that a housing provider that markets itself to people with severe disabilities wouldn't likely be the defendant in a lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination.

But not only has such a provider — New Horizons Village of Unionville, Connecticut — been the subject of a disability-discrimination complaint, it has now reached a settlement with the Connecticut Fair Housing Center (CFHC) and the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, agreeing to pay a whopping $600,000 in damages and attorneys' fees to a former tenant who claimed the provider's policies were discriminatory.

The tenant's issue was with New Horizons' policy of reviewing applicants' medical records to determine whether they can live independently, according to CFHC. The tenant argued that this policy amounts to illegal discrimination based on the type and severity of a disability. Earlier this year, a federal court agreed, holding that using applicants' medical records to decide which ones are "too disabled" to live independently is discriminatory. The court also noted that New Horizons further discriminated by sharing applicants' private medical information with other tenants.

In addition to the monetary part of the settlement, New Horizons has agreed to revise its tenancy requirements and no longer request applicants' private medical records. Going forward, New Horizons will reportedly determine the need for personal care assistance on a case-by-case basis, and requests for additional personal care assistance by applicants and tenants will be treated as requests for reasonable accommodations under the FHA.

Regarding New Horizons' seemingly good intentions, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, who issued the federal court's opinion, pointed out that "[a] discriminatory housing practice is still unlawful even if made with good intentions if it denies housing to individuals with disabilities based on their disabilities." Laflamme et al. v. New Horizons, Inc. et al., 605 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Conn. 2009) (emphasis added).

How much do you think good intentions should count in a fair housing defense? When it comes to alleged violations of the FHA's ban on disability-based discrimination, should a housing provider be treated more favorably if its mission is to help people with severe disabilities?

What do you think?

Racism Again Proves Costly As a Marketing Strategy

If having no black tenants at your apartment complex is your selling point, fire your marketer. That's the message the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is sending to landlords by going after the owners and operators of a Davie, Florida apartment complex for refusing to rent to black people — and boasting about their policy to prospective white tenants.

Sound familiar? That's because the same type of racial marketing strategy was allegedly recently employed at an apartment complex in Alabama, leading the DOJ to file a fair housing complaint against the complex's owner, manager, and maintenance employee (see "Using Racism to Rent Apartments," July 24, 2009).

The owners and operators of the Florida complex have agreed to settle, in light of evidence gathered by DOJ testers that indicate the complex violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by:

• Directing the property managers not to rent to applicants who even "appear" to be black;
• Telling white applicants that an advantage of living at the complex is its lack of black tenants;
• Encouraging white prospects to apply for an apartment while discouraging black prospects from doing the same;
• Offering to waive costs such as the application fee only for white prospects.

Under the August 27, 2009 Consent Decree, the complex must pay $115,000 to identified "aggrieved persons," plus up to $25,000 in compensation to additional discrimination victims who still may come forward — as well as a $74,000 civil penalty. The complex has also agreed to have its employees undergo fair housing training and take other steps to prevent violations in the future.

Using Racism to Rent Apartments

The folks at a Clanton, Alabama apartment complex thought they had an effective marketing campaign going. It appears they made efforts to add something they considered desirable to their complex, then used it to promote the complex to prospective tenants. What they probably didn't consider is that if that "something" is related to racism, there's a good chance the federal government will notice and take action.

Sure enough, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced it's suing the owner, manager, and maintenance employee of the nine-building, 72-apartment complex for a pattern or practice of violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on discrimination based on race and color.

Through the use of testing (sending people to apartment complexes to check for fair housing compliance while posing as prospective tenants), the DOJ allegedly uncovered evidence that the complex:

• adopted rental policies to discourage black people from becoming tenants; and


• used the fact that no tenants at the complex were black as a selling point to market the apartments to white tenants.

The DOJ in its complaint seeks damages, a civil penalty, and an order to prevent continued discrimination at the complex.