Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST Services Suspended Pending Contract Negotiation

Since the beginning of last month, all services associated with Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST, an initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), have been suspended pending HUD's negotiation of a new contract, according to a note on the initiative's Web site. Since 2003, the initiative has pursued a mission of promoting compliance with the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements.

The initiative's instructional programs and its toll-free information line for technical guidance and support are currently not operational. However, visitors to the Web site, fairhousingfirst.org, will be happy to note that the site's collection of useful links, informative documents, and other helpful information regarding accessibility remains online.

The site also notes that Deloitte Consulting has stopped being a point of contact as of October 1, due to contract expiration. Deloitte had assumed this role from BearingPoint in May 2009.

If you've used any of the Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST initiative's services, did you find them useful? Have you ever visited the initiative's Web site to get answers or clarification on housing accessibility and design issues?

Guest Blogging for MyNewPlace.com

I am pleased to announce that I recently became a guest blogger for MyNewPlace.com, one of the leading apartment and home rentals Web sites in the United States. If you visit mynewplace.com/blog, you can find my entry posted at the beginning of each month.

My first guest blog entry (posted November 1, 2010), entitled, "Why Read About Apartment Living?" takes a look at the five ways apartment hunters and dwellers who add apartment living resources to their daily or weekly reading can benefit.

I look forward to writing more posts in upcoming months exploring a wide range of apartment-related issues, including fair housing.

In the meantime, if you've got an idea for a topic, I'm happy to hear it! Please leave a comment.

Artifice Forces Landlord's Hand on Renting to Families With Children

A man called the managers of an Outagamie County, Wisconsin apartment he saw advertised to inquire about its availability. Apparently, after the man told one of the managers that he and his wife had children, she allegedly refused to show him the apartment.

Acting on suspicion, the man's wife decided also to call the manager about seeing the apartment, but making a point to say (inaccurately) that she and her husband had no children. Not only did the manager immediately schedule a showing, but she pressured her to see the available apartment right away, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Further testing by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council uncovered more evidence of discrimination based on familial status, which is illegal under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). For example, the manager reportedly told one tester that she's "looking for the perfect renter, meaning I don't want a lot of kids" and that she charges families with children a higher security deposit.

All this led HUD to issue a Charge of Discrimination, announced October 21, against the managers and the owner, meaning they'll need to defend themselves against alleged Fair Housing Act violations before an administrative law judge.

Rental Reneging Reveals Racial Rancor

Landlords who don't want to rent to people of a particular race normally turn away the prospects early on. But owners of a single-family three-bedroom house in Gibsonton, Florida agreed to rent their house to a black mother and her three children and let them move in without incident. Two days after the move, however, the landlords apparently had a change of heart and reacted in a way that, the tenants claim, violated the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on race-based discrimination.

According to the Charge of Discrimination issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and announced this month, the landlords refused to accept the family's rent payment, awoke the children and ordered them out of the house in their night clothes while their mother was at work, and changed the locks. Fortunately, a relative later found the children under a highway underpass, in shock, exhausted, and visibly upset, according to the HUD Charge.

When the mother learned about what happened, she contacted the police to report it and regain access to the house. The landlords allegedly hurled racial epithets at the mother, expressing their disbelief that she called the police.

Following the HUD Charge, an administrative law judge will hear the case to determine whether the family should be compensated for claimed damages, including economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional and physical distress, loss of a housing opportunity, embarassment, humiliation, substantial inconvenience, and more.

Survey Indicates More Hispanics Fear Unfair Discrimination

A new national survey of 1,375 Hispanic adults shows that 61% of respondents say that discrimination against Hispanics in housing and other areas is a "major problem," up from 54% from a similar survey in 2007.

The survey, published Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a product of the Pew Research Center, also indicates what may be behind this increased concern. When asked about the most important factor leading to discrimination, a plurality of 36% of respondents cited immigration status, up from a minority of 23% who responded that way in 2007. (In the earlier survey, a plurality of 46% respondents identified language skills as the biggest cause of discrimination against Hispanics.)

Despite the increase in concern about discrimination, the survey notes that there has been no increase in recent years in the share of Hispanics who report that they or someone they know have been targets of discrimination or have been stopped by authorities and questions about their immigration status.

Do you think there's a political backlash against illegal immigration that's hurting Hispanics across the United States, regardless of their immigration status? What other groups of people, if any, do you believe may be experiencing greater discrimination (or, at least, increased concern over discrimination) now, and why?

What do you think?

Comedian Not Laughing Over Alleged Racial Discrimination

Often enough, people who put their homes up for sale decide to stay put after all. If you're in this situation and you haven't yet signed a contract, you should be on good legal footing if you change your mind for a legitimate reason — for example, you can't find another suitable home and you want to keep your children in the current school district.

These are the reasons the sellers of a luxury home in Bridgeport, Illinois gave for suddenly not wanting to sell their house after verbally accepting a $1.7 million counteroffer from comedian George Willborn and his family.

But the Willborns aren't buying it. They believe that the sellers decided not to go through with the deal because they're black, in violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) race-based discrimination ban. In January, the Willborns complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pointing out that the sellers had been trying to sell the house for two years and that their counteroffer was very close to the $1.799 million asking price (reduced from an initial listing of $1.99 million).

HUD issued a charge of discrimination in early August, and the Willborns then elected to have the issue resolved in a federal civil lawsuit. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it filed this suit, which seeks unspecified damages against the sellers and their real estate agents.

According to the lawsuit and the initial HUD charge, the sellers told their real estate agents early on that they would prefer not to sell their home to a black family but would do it for the right price.

In addition to the DOJ lawsuit, the Willborns also filed a private federal suit against the sellers last month, seeking $100 million in damages, according to NBC.

If the allegations are all true, how much should the sellers and their agents be ordered to pay for their violations? Are punitive damages appropriate here?

What do you think?

Large DOJ Settlement Shows How Waiting List Mismanagement Can Prove Costly

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Monday that it reached a $270,000 fair housing settlement with the Housing Authority for the city of Royston, Georgia (RHA), which owns and manages seven low-income apartment complexes there.

According to the DOJ's press release, the RHA maintained a waiting list for its apartments but would often ignore the list in favor of selecting prospects based on race. The DOJ also alleges that the RHA steered black prospects to certain apartments or complexes and offered them inferior rental terms and conditions than prospects of other races.

In addition to the creation of a $270,000 fund, which is intended to compensate tenants and prospects who claim to have been harmed by the RHA's alleged race-based discrimination, the settlement allows tenants who believe they were unfairly assigned to one RHA complex based on race to request a transfer.

When a building has no vacancies, putting prospects on a waiting list is a great way to help ensure people get apartments in a fair manner. But, as this case shows, a waiting list that's not strictly enforced can become a liability trap. Whether the true reason behind a waiting-list exception is racism or mere disorganization, landlords who make such exceptions are likely to find themselves with some explaining to do.

Story of Prospect's Dogged Determination to Rent With Service Animals Highlights Three Key Legal Points

Service dogs are well known for helping people with visual impairments get around — so much so that they've often been referred to as "seeing-eye dogs." But service dogs can also provide much needed assistance to people who have other types of disabilities.

For example, a South Dakota woman with a seizure disorder tried to rent an apartment for her family with two dogs that she claimed were needed to accommodate her disability. But nearly all the landlords she met quickly turned her away on account of her canine companions, according to a recent report from the Rapid City Journal.

It's not clear whether the woman, who has reportedly found temporary housing for her family through friends, will pursue a fair housing complaint against any of the landlords who refused to consider her rental application.

But regardless of what happens now, this story has already brought to light three important legal points that both landlords and renters alike should keep in mind:

1. Service animals are exempt from no-pet policies. Nothing can stop a landlord from banning pets at an apartment building. But the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as well as several similar state laws (including South Dakota's) requires landlords to consider all accommodation requests from people who claim to need the accommodation for a disability, and grant requests when the underlying need is legitimate and the accommodation is reasonable.
   


2. Service dogs aren't just for people with visual impairments. As mentioned at the beginning of this blog post, service dogs often provide help to people with disabilities other than ones affecting vision. In this case, the woman's dogs assist her by howling when she has a seizure, so as to alert people who are nearby and in a position to help.
   


3. Tenants aren't limited to one service animal. Very often, tenants need only one service animal to accommodate their disability. But in some situations, only one service animal might not be enough. In this example, the woman claimed she needed two service dogs to help ensure that at least one of them is awake at any given time, since she could have a seizure at any time of day or night.

Unfamiliar With Familial Status?

Familial status, a relative newcomer to the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) list of protected classes, is perhaps the one that's the least understood — by landlords and tenants alike.

For instance, do you know the answers to these questions?

• When is it okay for a landlord to adopt rules that single out children?
• Can a landlord ever tell a tenant who can share a bedroom?
• Is it legal for a landlord to bar children from acting rowdy in the hallway or other common areas?

I attempt to provide answers in articles I recently wrote for About.com. Follow the links above for more information.

HUD Reveals Strong Commitment to Indirect Approach in Ending LGBT Discrimination

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) doesn't include sexual orientation in its list of seven protected classes. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency charged with enforcing the FHA, is ignoring the issue.

On the contrary, HUD recently added an LGBT Housing Discrimination page to its Web site indicating the agency's strong commitment to "ending housing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and their families" as part of "enriching and strengthening our nation."

HUD acknowledges upfront that LGBT discrimination isn't specifically protected under federal law. However, the agency argues that one's experience with sexual orientation or gender identity may indirectly qualify for FHA coverage.

HUD offers an example of a gay tenant evicted by a landlord out of fear he'll spread HIV/AIDS. Such a tenant may succeed in bringing a fair housing complaint based on having a perceived disability. A second example involves a property manager who refuses to deal with a transgender prospect. Such behavior may amount to sex-based discrimination under the FHA due to "non-conformity with gender stereotypes," according to HUD.

HUD also provides a list of states (plus the District of Columbia) that have laws protecting citizens against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression. Along with each state is the name and phone number of the relevant enforcement agency, as a handy reference.

Do you applaud HUD for directing resources to combat LGBT discrimination in this indirect way? Or do you believe the agency has overstepped its bounds as primary enforcer of the FHA?

What do you think?

Fair Housing Attorney Claims Retaliation Just for Doing His Job

Retaliation complaints under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) typically follow this fact pattern: a tenant alleges she suffered harm (such as an eviction) because her landlord didn't like the fact she brought an earlier discrimination complaint against him.

But a settlement between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA), shows how retaliation cases don't always fit this mold.

In this case, it's the attorney for alleged victims of race-based discrimination who claims he was retaliated against — simply for doing his job of advocating on behalf of his clients.

HUD claims that former CMHA Chair Arnold Barnett violated the law by allegedly threatening to use "public housing resources" to retaliate against the attorney for having filed a fair housing complaint, according to a report from the Business Courier of Cincinnati. Mr. Barnett reportedly made comments to local media outlets, including the Courier, calling for CMHA to purchase low-income housing units in the attorney's neighborhood.

According to a press release from HUD, the settlement agreement provides that Mr. Barnett won't seek reappointment to the CMHA Board and won't be eligible to participate in most federal programs for a period of three years. In addition, Mr. Barnett has agreed to cooperate with HUD and serve as a witness both in connection with the fair housing complaints and HUD's ongoing investigation of CMHA.

CMHA and Mr. Barnett, who stepped down as chair last year and recently announced his resignation from the board, have denied the allegations.