Are We a 'Nation of Cowards'?

Attorney General Eric Holder, the first African American to be appointed to the office, delivered a somewhat sobering speech to Department of Justice employees yesterday, marking Black History Month.

While praising significant achievements in our country's racial history, Mr. Holder claimed that "in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." He further noted that there is "no significant interaction" between people of different races outside the workplace, and that much in this regard hasn't changed in 50 years ago.

Here's the relevant excerpt from his remarks:

As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.

Do you agree with the new Attorney General? Are we a "nation of cowards" in matters of race? Are we much more integrated in the workplace than in the housing and social arena? If so, why do you think this is the case? What can or should be done to foster understanding and end segregation?

What do you think?

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?

Unwelcome Advances Lead to an Unwelcome Complaint

On January 29, 2009, the DOJ filed a fair housing complaint in a federal district court against both the landlord and manager of 11 single-family dwellings in Ypsilanti, Michigan, alleging "severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment."

For at least the last few years, the manager allegedly made unwanted verbal sexual advances, entered female tenants' apartments without permission or notice, granted and denied tangible housing benefits based on sex, and took adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. Although the landlord apparently didn't engage in such conduct, the DOJ believes he should also be held liable because the manager acted as his agent and because the landlord "knew or should have known" about the manager's conduct yet did nothing to stop it.

Assuming the landlord himself didn't commit sexual harassment, should he be held liable in this type of situation? If so, should it be to the same extent as the manager? Should the landlord's liability depend on whether or not he actually knew what the manager was doing?

What do you think?

Cooperative Pays Price for Running Unqualified Senior Housing

The owners and board of directors of a 104-unit Wilmette, Illinois cooperative apparently knew that the Fair Housing Act exempts senior housing properties from the ban against familial status discrimination. But what they didn't seem to know is that your property has to qualify as senior housing before you can safely start discriminating against families with children.

The problem arose in 2006 when individual unit owners tried to sell their unit to a family that had two young children. The cooperative blocked the sale, pointing to a rule that the "community is not considered suitable for children under 18 years of age." A local HUD-funded fair housing enforcement agency promptly filed a fair housing complaint with HUD, arguing that the cooperative can't discriminate against families with children if it's not truly senior housing.

The legal dispute recently led to a settlement, announced January 14, 2009. Under the terms of the settlement, the cooperative will begin to operate the property as a "55 and older" senior community. But it must pay — $20,000 to the fair housing agency and $8,000 as a civil penalty — plus agree to fair housing training, monitoring, and extensive advertising showing continued compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

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.

Couple's Alleged Occupancy Violation Gives Birth to Familial Status Discrimination Charge

A couple lived at a 16-unit apartment complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico without a problem... until the woman got pregnant.

The tenants rented a one-bedroom apartment under a month-to-month lease, which stated that the occupancy limit is two persons per bedroom. When the landlords learned that one of the tenants became pregnant, he issued a 30-day termination notice, claiming that the couple is in violation of the occupancy limit.

The tenants complained to HUD, which on January 9, 2009 charged the landlords with discrimination based on familial status. HUD noted that the landlords didn't ask about the tenant's due date for having the child or give the tenants the opportunity to move to a two-bedroom apartment. As a result, HUD found that the tenants "suffered damages, including emotional distress, economic loss, inconvenience, and loss of a housing opportunity" and were made to "feel uncomfortable, unwanted, and frustrated."

The landlords now face possible compensatory damages and a civil penalty.

"No HUD" No Good, Says Coalition

The Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition has had enough of landlords advertising their properties with notes that read "No HUD." It's not that these landlords are claiming the Department of Housing and Urban Development doesn't exist. They're indicating that they won't consider rental applicants who participate in any HUD housing program, most notably the housing choice voucher program (formerly known as Section 8), The Garden Island reports.

Currently, these landlords' actions are legal. The Fair Housing Act doesn't ban discrimination based on source of income, which means it's up to state and local governments to pass legislation outlawing this type of discrimination, if they wish.

This is exactly what the Coalition is reportedly aiming to do with its "HUD OK NOW!!" campaign. Arguing that that so many of Hawaii's (and particularly Kauai's) homeless are people who lost their chance to use housing vouchers, which are subject to a 120-day expiration, the coalition hopes to convince legislators to make Hawaii the next state to protects prospective tenants against discrimination based on source of income.

HUD Wraps Up 2008 With Reasonable Accommodations Charges

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ended 2008 issuing two Charges of Discrimination in cases involving a landlord denying a disabled tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation.

Here's a rundown on the charges, both of which were issued on December 29, 2008:

1) Transfer trouble. A tenant who had difficulty walking and climbing stairs settled for an apartment on the second floor of a Mississippi apartment building. The landlord, however, assured the tenant that she could transfer to a ground-floor apartment as a reasonable accommodiation once such an apartment became available. While living on the second floor, the tenant fell at least three times, according to the Charge, despite the help of a back brace and cane.

Finally, a ground-floor apartment became available, but the landlord rented the apartment to a displaced Katrina victim who wasn't disabled. The tenant, who has since moved out of the building, seeks compensation for her emotional distress and the financial costs associated with her landlord's refusal to grant her requested accommodation. The landlord also faces a possible civil penalty for each violation.

2) A dogged policy on dogs. A Minnesota landlord made it clear that "no dogs" were allowed in the apartment he advertised in the local newspaper. A woman who responded to the ad asked if her daughter can keep a dog, pointing out that it's a service animal that she needs as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The landlord insisted that "no dogs" means just that, and noted that he recently won a lawsuit over this issue. HUD's Charge notes that the lawsuit in question was dismissed against the landlord because the former tenant couldn't prove that the animal was medically necessary. By contrast, the woman offered the landlord a a note from her daughter's physician to support her reasonable accommodation request.

The landlord, however, refused to accept the note or entertain the woman's request. He now faces a possible $16,000 civil penalty plus damages to compensate the woman and her daughter for their emotional distress, economic loss, and loss of a unique housing opportunity.

DOJ Issues Year-End Report on Fair Housing Enforcement

The Department of Justice (DOJ) this month released a "written statement" to report on its efforts in combating housing discrimination across the United States. The report noted several achievements:

• In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the DOJ obtained settlements and judgments in fair housing and fair lending cases requiring the payment of a total of up to $12 million in monetary damages to victims of discrimination and civil penalties to the government.
  
  
• In fiscal year 2008, 39% of the DOJ's total cases and 45% of its pattern or practice cases alleged race discrimination.
  
  
• In fiscal year 2008, the DOJ conducted more than 600 paired tests, exceeding by almost 25% the number of tests conducted in fiscal year 2007, which in turn significantly exceeded the next highest number of tests conducted in any previous year since the inception of the DOJ's new testing program.

The statement, however, concluded on a more cautiously optimistic note:

In sum, the Division has contributed a great deal to the fight against housing and lending discrimination in this nation. Yet there remains much work to be done, and we will continue to dedicate our energy and resources to exposing and eliminating discriminatory housing and lending practices.

Let's see what 2009 will bring...

Obama Taps Donovan to Lead HUD

Shaun Donovan, New York City's housing commissioner, will be the next secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), president-elect Barack Obama announced during his weekly radio address this morning. Mr. Obama noted that:

With experience that stretches from the public sector to the private sector to academia, Shaun will bring to this important post fresh thinking, unencumbered by old ideology and outdated ideas. He understands that we need to move past the stale arguments that say low-income Americans shouldn't even try to own a home or that our mortgage crisis is due solely to a few greedy lenders.

HUD is the federal agency charged with primary responsibility for enforcing the Fair Housing Act.

Glimpsing the Future of Fair Housing

This has been a pivotal year for the Fair Housing Act, as we have marked the 40th anniversary of the law that famously earned President Johnson's signature on April 11, 1968, exactly one week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As with any anniversary, it has been a time not only to reflect on where we once were and how far we've come, but — even more importantly — where we should be headed and what roadmap will take us there.

Yesterday, coinciding with the anniversary and in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity released a much-anticipated report on the state of fair housing.

You may be surprised to learn that, according to the report:

More than four million instances of housing discrimination occur annually in the United States and yet fewer than 30,000 complaints are filed every year. In 2007, the 10 HUD offices processed 2,440 complaints, the 105 FHAP agencies processed 7,700 inquiries, and the 81 private fair housing agencies processed 18,000 complaints. Literally millions of acts of rental, sales, lending, and insurance discrimination, racial and sexual harassment discrimination, and zoning and land use discrimination go virtually unchecked. [Citation: Oral Testimony of Shanna Smith (Atlanta).]

So, where do we go from here?

The Commission offers a number of recommendations, aimed at increasing both the level and the efficiency of fair housing enforcement. Most notably, the Commission pushes for the creation of an independent fair housing enforcement agency to replace the existing enforcement structure at HUD. This new agency would have the staff, support, and resources "to make fair housing a reality."

The Commission's other recommendations include the revival of the President's Fair Housing Council; greater compliance with the Fair Housing Act's requirement that the government and its grantees "affirmatively further fair housing"; the strengthening of the Fair Housing Inititiatives Program (FHIP), which funds fair housing enforcement and education across the country; the adoption of a regional approach to fair housing; the emphasizing of fair housing principles in programs addressing the mortgage and financial crisis; the creation of a stronger fair housing awareness campaign; and the pursuit of a collaborative approach to fair housing issues.

When we look back another 40 years from now, perhaps it will be these recommendations that will have proven their merit in shaping the future of fair housing.