Fair Housing vs. Unfair Housing

Do you know the difference?

Knowing the difference between fair housing and unfair housing isn't as obvious as you might think. This blog aims to present a variety of important and interesting fair housing issues.

If you're an apartment professional, avoid costly mistakes by reading the stories of others who — even with good intentions — learned compliance lessons the hard way. (For the easy way, click here.)

If you live in an apartment, get familiar with your rights when it comes to housing discrimination, as well as your options for seeking justice.


Thursday, August 20, 2009

What Would the Neighbors Think?

Here's a case that shows you needn't prove a person is a racist in order to successfully claim that he violated the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on racial discrimination.

A New York City landlord allegedly refused to rent to people who weren't white because, he claimed, the neighborhood was white and that's the way everyone wanted it.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently charged this landlord (and his brother, the co-owner) with discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, on behalf of two fair housing agencies, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and Long Island Housing Services Inc. (LIHS). According to the Charge, when each of these agencies sent minority testers to inquire about vacancies, the landlord repeatedly asked about their racial and ethnic background and made discriminatory statements. For example, the landlord offered what he thought was good justification for his anti-white bias, explaining that renting to a black person would lead to neighbors' complaints.

A HUD administrative law judge will hear the case.

Is the landlord's justification — that he's bound by the neighborhood's supposed desires and prejudices — valid? Or, do you think the landlord's is clearly illegal, given that his statements restrict housing choices, and that his reasoning runs counter to the policy behind the FHA itself?

What do you think?

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.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

How to Police Online Advertising

When President Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act (FHA) into law in 1968, the government couldn't imagine that just one generation later, it would be so easy and inexpensive for people to place housing advertisements that would reach a national audience. Thanks to the Internet, thousands of new ads appear on Web sites each day. Not surprisingly, this leads to several thousand new instances of housing discrimination each year.

Given that the FHA bars discrimination in advertising, how should discriminatory online advertising best be policed? The traditional route, in which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and fair housing agencies pursue individual offenders, seems like an unrealistic expenditure of time and resources, one which would require a much larger budget and staff than what's currently in place.

An alternative is to make the owners and operators of the Web sites that collect and publish advertisements responsible for identifying and rejecting ads that appear to violate the FHA, and liable for posting any that do.

The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) yesterday called on Congress to update the law for the 21st century. Newspapers have been held liable under the FHA for publishing discriminatory housing advertisements, but a loophole in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has held Internet advertising providers to a different standard, helping them avoid liability. The NFHA recommends closing this loophole by treating all ad providers the same.

The NFHA issued its call on the heels of a lawsuit filed last month against American Classifieds, LLC, the nation's largest classified advertisement publisher, for publishing ads in 17 states saying that children aren't allowed, an apparent violation of the FHA's ban on familial status discrimination.

To read the NFHA's complete report ("FOR RENT: NO KIDS! How Internet Advertising Requirements Perpetuate Discrimination") on this interesting and timely issue, click here.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

A Monument to Fair Housing

District of Columbia Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton announced the introduction of a bill this week to create a lasting tribute to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by erecting a physical monument in Washington, D.C. According to the Congresswoman, the idea for a monument to fair housing came about by "unusual efforts" of the real estate industry, which comprises the very people who are bound by the FHA.

Congresswoman Norton's bill authorizes the Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation to raise funds for a monument that would be built in adherence to the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act of 1986.

Is a monument in our nation's capital a fitting way to memorialize the FHA? Also, do you think a monument that pays tribute to a law and its accomplishments might also promote increased compliance with that law, by shining a greater spotlight on it?

What do you think?

Friday, July 24, 2009

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.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Did a Home Invasion Lead to a Civil Rights Invasion?

Burglars invaded five apartments at a Kentucky complex within a span of just over two months. Unlike the first four invasions, the victims in the fifth invasion were a black family, and the landlord responded by evicting them because of their race, color, and sex, according to a Charge of Discrimination filed recently by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The Charge outlines several attempts by the landlord and property management company to show that there was no discrimination behind the family's eviction, but the justifications don't appear to hold up. For example, the landlord claimed they were evicted because of "numerous police calls" to the family's apartment before the invasion for what the landlord thought was domestic violence. However, records show that the only calls regarding the family's apartment had been made by the family itself, for reasons such as to report a suspicious vehicle. In addition, the police responded to complaints about alleged domestic violence at some of the white tenants' apartments, which didn't result in those tenants' evictions.

A HUD administrative law judge will decide whether the landlord and property management company should be held liable for violating the family's rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by having evicted them. If liable, the landlord and management company may be ordered to pay damages to the family as well as a civil penalty.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Does a Ban on Sober Houses Violate the Fair Housing Act?

That's a question that may soon be litigated in Florida courts. Yesterday, the commissioners of Delray Beach, Florida unanimously voted to pass four ordinances that effectively ban sober houses and other transient rental homes from having a place within single-family communities.

The city's mayor insisted that the move was aimed solely at preventing "unscrupulous and profit-mongering landlords" from operating in their city, according to the Palm Beach Post. But others say the real motive is to help Delray Beach shed its image as the "recovery capital of the world," and the Post noted that residents have complained about added noise and crime from the presence of so many sober houses.

Should the new ordinances banning sober houses in Delray Beach stand? Or, given that the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination includes protections for people who have an addiction to drugs and alcohol, should these ordinances be overturned?

What do you think?

Monday, June 29, 2009

HUD Goes Polyglot With Expanded LEP Site

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced this month that it expanded its Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Web site to offer several key housing-related documents in 12 languages. This initiative follows Executive Order 13166, which requires government agencies with federal funding to ensure that people with limited language skills have access to government programs and services.

In addition to English, visitors to the site can access versions of many documents in the following languages: Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Farsi, French, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.

Is translating documents into more languages a good idea so that a greater number of Americans can read them and learn about important government programs from which they may benefit? Or should people be expected to understand the documents as they originally appear in English? In other words, is this a worthwhile initiative of inclusion, or an unnecessary expenditure of time and taxpayer money?

What do you think?

Monday, June 15, 2009

2008 Fair Housing Complaints Break Record

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a record 10,552 housing discrimination complaints were filed in 2008, as compared to 10,154 complaints in 2007.

HUD's annual report for Congress, dated June 8, 2009, provides details and insight into the types of complaints filed under the Fair Housing Act. The plurality of the complaints — a whopping 44% — were filed by people alleging housing discrimination based on a disability. The second-largest type of complaint was based on race and involved 35% of the complaints filed.

Do you think the increase in fair housing complaints is owed to more discrimination, greater awareness of housing rights, or both?

What do you think?

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Should Criminals Be Protected Against Housing Discrimination?

Dane County, Wisconsin is tackling the controversial issue of whether a landlord should be allowed to discriminate against someone simply because he or she has a criminal record.

The county is currently considering adding language to allow discrimination against such people, according to a May 19 report from the Wisconsin State Journal. Specifically, the ordinance would say that landlords can turn away prospective tenants based on criminal history if the crime was related to housing and “a reasonable person would have a justifiable fear for the safety” of the property or other tenants.

Is this language fair, or should landlords be free to adopt their own criminal history policies without fear of housing discrimination claims? Madison, which is the seat of Dane County, bars landlords from discriminating against people with a criminal record if their record is more than two years old. Is this sensible?

What do you think?

Interesting to note:

"Criminal arrest/conviction" is not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act or under any state's fair housing law.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

HIV and the FHA

A lawsuit filed May 12 by Lamba Legal on behalf of an alleged victim of housing discrimination against the owner of an assisted living facility in North Little Rock, Arkansas brings to light an aspect of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) that many landlords aren't aware of. Tenants who have HIV (or AIDS, for that matter) qualify for protection under the FHA's ban on disability discrimination because they have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

In this case, the tenant, a retired university provost and minister, was allegedly evicted from the faciliy just after move-in because he has HIV. (He was first diagnosed with the virus in 1987 and disclosed it to the facility at the time he applied, according to the complaint, yet the facility approved his application.) According to the tenant, he did not require any special medical attention, and so the facility was not put in a position of having to provide medical services for which it wasn't licensed.

The tenant seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the facility and attorneys' fees, but also a permanent injunction so that the facility won't deny housing to people because of the fact they are living with HIV/AIDS.

Do you think a housing provider should have the right to reject prospects or evict tenants because they have HIV/AIDS? Do you think the staff of the assisted living facility in this case acted based on outdated and inaccurate beliefs about how the virus is spread? Would you feel comfortable living in a building in which one or more of your neighbors had HIV?

What do you think?