Landlord Puts No-Pets Policy Above the Law

Many landlords have a no-pets policy at their properties, or they have rules limiting the types of pets allowed. This is perfect legal. However, what many landlords don't know is that they must let tenants keep service animals in their apartments when needed as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. This means their policy is still valid, but they should be prepared to make an exception, if warranted, to comply with the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban against disability-based discrimination.

Landlords who aren't familiar with the FHA's reasonable accommodations requirement or who don't understand how it may affect their pet policy often go head-to-head with prospects and tenants, insisting on what they believe are their rights while getting themselves deeper into fair housing trouble.

A recent example shows how this plays out.

The owner and manager of a trailer park in Lakeland, Washington advertised apartments with a no-pets policy. A local non-profit fair housing organization sent testers posing as prospects who need service dogs for a disability respond to the ad. More than once, the owner told the testers no dogs are allowed. After the testers explained the dogs were service animals and needed a reasonable accommodation, the owner and manager still refused. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination, the manager argued that "if one tenant has an animal everyone will want one" and also expressed concern that animals will destroy the property.

The owner and manager will now have a chance to argue their case in from of a HUD administrative law judge.

Single Mom Told Only a Man Can Shovel Snow

A La Crosse County, Wisconsin landlord is facing discrimination charges after telling a single female prospect she was ineligible to rent a two-bedroom modular single-family house in a cattle farm with her child because her household is missing a man.

The landlord, a woman, expressed her opinions on single women several times to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), saying she never rents to them, "especially not in the country." She insisted that a single woman can't handle the seclusion of the rural community and the snow removal during "brutal" winters, and also didn't want a tenant calling her repeatedly to plow her out or make repairs. Not renting the house to a single woman with a child at the property was "just common sense," she concluded.

In light of these statements and the landlord's subsequent rental of the property to two men, HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination based on sex and familial status. An administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

If you've been following this blog, you may recall reading a few years ago about a similar case in Idaho, in which a property manager settled with the government after denying housing to a single mother on the insistence that a man was needed to mow the lawn. (See "Requiring Men to Mow the Lawn Doesn't Cut It," September 16, 2008.)

The lesson from these cases to housing providers is, as HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity John Trasviña put it:

Fairness dictates, and the Fair Housing Act requires, that housing decisions not be based on outmoded stereotypes of people’s "place" in our society. HUD will enforce the law whenever a housing provider seeks to limit a woman’s housing choices because of her gender or family composition.

Landlord Apparently More Afraid of 'Too Many Blacks' Than Discrimination Charges

When an interracial couple wanted to rent a house in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, the landlord welcomed them and signed a one-year lease. But when the couple informed the landlord they needed to move and presented a black family to sublease the house, he balked.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination, the landlord asked the couple if the prospects were white. After learning he would be renting to a black family, the landlord allegedly stated that he “did not want too many blacks at the property” while expressing concern that “the neighbors would not want to see too many blacks there.”

The landlord rejected the prospects and refused to return the couple's security deposit or provide an explanation after they moved out.

A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case to determine if the landlord should be held liable for violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) discrimination ban based on race, color, and national origin.

Landlords Gave Girl With Cerebral Palsy Two Options: Bad and Worse

For a divorced Iowa mother caring for a daughter with cerebral palsy, there were two options: 1) pay an additional $200 security deposit, plus $25 extra in rent each month, or 2) give up your apartment.

Why the options after the family had already been living in their apartment for months? The mother thought a Labrador retriever would provide needed assistance and stress reduction to the seven-year-old girl. Her pediatrician agreed and wrote a letter to the family's landlords to support their request for a reasonable accommodation to the landlords' no-pets rule.

However, the landlords refused to accommodate the girl's disability in this way, prompting the family to move out of the building to an apartment with a higher rent, located much farther away from the girl's school.

The mother complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which brought a fair housing complaint against the landlords and issued a Charge of Discrimination. A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

HUD Issues Annual Report Detailing Enforcement Activity

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released its Annual Fair Housing Report, which provides details and insight into the types of complaints filed under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for FY 2010 (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010).

For the fifth consecutive year, the number of fair housing complaints topped 10,000. (See "Government Fair Housing Report Shows Disability Continues to Top Complaint List" and "2008 Fair Housing Complaints Break Record.")

According to the report, 10,155 fair housing discrimination complaints were filed with HUD and its Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) partner agencies over this period. As in recent years, disability topped the list as the basis of the complaints, at 48%, while 34% involved claims based on race and 15% on familial status.

The report also reveals that HUD and its FHAP partner agencies processed 4,494 new complaints within 100 days -- 328 more than in 2009 and 583 more than in 2008. In addition, HUD pursued its own Secretary-initiated investigations over the fiscal year, resulting in four charges and eight conciliation agreements, and filed 10 new complaints.

A Bronx Tale of Denial, Then Harrassment

Many apartment residents need to have a change made to a policy or practice as an accommodation for a disability. Owners must consider all such "reasonable accommodation" requests, then grant them if there's evidence that the resident has a qualifying disability under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and needs the accommodation for that disability, and if the request is reasonable.

A new Charge brought by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against a New York City cooperative claims that not only did the cooperative wrongfully deny a resident's request to keep an emotional support animal (despite a no-pets policy), but the cooperative harassed the resident because of it.

According to the Charge, the cooperative refused to accept the resident’s rent payments, threatened to suspend his garage privileges, and attempted to evict him from his apartment. In addition, the cooperative's security director allegedly didn't stop his officers from harassing the resident and his wife for keeping the service animal, even after the tenant specifically asked him to do so.

A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

Interesting to note:

• The cooperative, known as "Co-op City" and located in the Bronx, has 15,372 apartments in 35 high-rise buildings and seven townhouse clusters, housing roughly 50,000 low- and middle-income residents.
  
  
• The cooperative appears to have been familiar with the FHA's requirement, having given the resident its own "Application for Reasonable Accommodation of Dog Application Form" to complete.
  
  
• According to the Charge, the cooperative stopped contesting the dog's presence on account of New York City's three-month waiver rule. Read my About.com article for more information on this rule.
  
  

Landlord's 'Winter Special' Draws Unexpected Response

A Pennsylvania landlord's advertisement for a low rent on an apartment was an attention-grabber, but not for the reason he hoped.

The Craigslist ad, entitled "Winter Special Price for Two Adults," got the owner of four multifamily buildings containing 91 apartments into hot water because it appears to indicate a preference for renters who do not have children, in violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on discrimination based on familial status.

The Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia (FHCSP) filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has issed a Charge of Discrimination following an investigation that uncovered evidence that the landlord charges same-size households more rent if one of the occupants is a child.

For example, the landlord told an FHCSP tester she would have to pay $35-per-month above the advertised price for a two-bedroom apartment because of her preschool-age son. When another tester asked if having a child would pose a problem, the landlord explained, "It's just going to be higher," according to the Charge.

A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

Interesting to note:

• In addition to a claim of direct discrimination, HUD is claiming that the landlord's offering of more favorable rental terms to households that have only one or two people is discriminatory because it has a "disparate impact" on families with children, arguing that they usually make up larger households.

Do you agree with the "disparate impact" argument? In other words, do you think this landlord should be held liable for familial-status-based discrimination even if he didn't limit the special to "two adults"?

What do you think?

Update: HUD Resumes Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST Services

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced yesterday that its Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST initiative, which has pursued a mission of promoting compliance with the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements since 2003, is back in business.

This past November, I wrote that all services associated with the initiative were suspended pending HUD's negotiation of a new contract. While the site's collection of useful resources remained functional, the initiative's programs and toll-free information line for technical guidance and support were indefinitely on hold.

If you visit the site now, you can get information about the new training schedule, which begins on August 22.

Anti-Black Doesn't Always Mean Pro-White

Most of the time, race discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) center around a landlord or property manager who allegedly favors white tenants above all others. But a new Charge of Discrimination announced July 21 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against a Cincinnati, Ohio landlord and property manager shows this doesn't have to be the case.

According to the complaint, testers collected evidence that the landlord and property manager tried to make their 63-unit building become less black and more Hispanic. To do this, they allegedly set up appointments to view available apartments with Hispanic prospective tenants while coming up with various excuses for not letting black prospects view them.

The Charge asks a HUD administrative law judge to assess a $32,000 combined penalty against the landlord and property manager, plus award compensatory and other damages.

Landlord Wouldn't Let Teenager Have Friends Over Without Mother Present

Viable familial status discrimination claims don't have to involve a landlord who refuses to rent to families with children. Often enough, landlords who say they'll rent to families with children but impose certain restrictions on those families also find themselves in fair housing trouble.

A recent example is a Wisconsin landlord who admitted to placing guest restrictions only on tenants with children, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination announced today (issued July 12).

After approving a single mother and her 17-year-old son for tenancy and accepting a deposit, he allegedly told the mother she would need to agree to a lease restriction requiring her to be present whenever her son had visitors. The landlord indicated he has had problems in the past with teenagers and also cited a tip from another tenant claiming that the son was a "bad kid" who had been in "trouble."

The mother insisted the tenant's claim is unfounded and suggested the landlord call the police for proof. But the landlord stood firm, leading the mother to file a complaint with HUD alleging Fair Housing Act (FHA) violations. An administrative law judge will now hear the case.

Do you agree with the Charge? Should a landlord ever be allowed to impose restrictions on families with children aimed at controlling teenagers' behavior while in their apartments?

What do you think?

Disabled Army Veteran Wins Battle Over Parking Space

Imagine buying a condo only to discover it doesn't come with a certain promised amenity. Now imagine that this "amenity" was something you needed each day to accommodate a disability.

A New Rochelle, New York man recently found himself in exactly this situation.

When looking to purchase his first-floor unit at the complex, the disabled Army veteran and cancer survivor claims the contractor assured him he would get the one parking space at the premises that's flat enough to accommodate his van and wheelchair lift, according to reporting from The Journal News.

But things turned ugly when another condo owner claimed the space was hers and demanded $10,000 from the man to give it up.

With the help of a disability advocacy group, the man convinced the condo board to give him the parking space as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, a requirement of both the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and county law.

The man finally moved into his condo the parking space he needed, the battle with his neighbor appearing to be over. However, the neighbor is reportedly taking the condo board to court, claiming she needed the space for her disabled mother's visits, and that she deserves $300,000 for her mental anguish.

If you were on the condo board, would you have voted to give the man the accessible space? If he hadn't been promised the space by the contractor, would that affect your decision? Does the neighbor deserve any compensation from the condo board?

What do you think?