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: Why Not Everyone Is Celebrating

It's Fair Housing Month, but not everyone is celebrating. There's no question that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) has proven itself over the past 42 years as a landmark piece of legislation that has helped thousands of victims of illegal housing discrimination across the United States. But, even after two significant amendments, the FHA protects people based on only seven protected classes — race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

If you think that covers a lot of situations, you're right. But many individuals, advocacy groups, and politicians argue that the law doesn't go far enough. Several states, cities, and towns have succeeded in extending fair housing protection by including additional protected classes in their own anti-discrimination laws, such as:

• sexual orientation;
• age;
• marital status;
• source of income;
• military status;
• personal appearance; and
• political affiliation.

(For a scrollable list of additional protected classes in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, check out the "Protected Classes Tool" at fairhousingresources.com.)

Do you believe the FHA should be amended to include additional protected classes? If so, which protected classes would you like to see added? How fair is fair housing if many types of housing discrimination are still legal under federal law?

What do you think?

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

Bowling Green Votes Unanimously to Expand Fair Housing Protections

On Monday night, the city council of Bowling Green, Ohio voted unanimously to modify the city's fair housing ordinance to protect people based on additional protected classes. The ordinance will take effect 30 days after it was signed, however some expect the issue to arise again as a referendum, according to the Sentinel-Tribune.

Bowling Green's protected classes will include the following: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex, pregnancy, age, sexual orientation, creed, ancestry, disability, military status, veteran status, marital status, family status, physical characteristics, HIV-status and genetic information.

The ordinance also establishes a new complaint process that focuses on conciliation. Next month, the Ohio legislature is expected to consider expanding the state's list of protected classes.

Which protected classes would you like to see in your state, city, or town? Do you think the federal law will be amended in your lifetime to include any additional protected classes?

What do you think?

Interesting to note:

• In addition to expanding the list of protected classes, the council voted to remove "political ideology" as a protected class, for reasons unclear. Perhaps it was because of the inclusion of "creed," which is arguably more comprehensive.


• The council also approved a similar ordinance for workplace discrimination, though not by a unanimous vote.

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?