X. Anti-Discrimination Law in the Housing Market

X. Anti-Discrimination Law in the Housing Market

A. DISCRIMINATION BY HOUSING PROVIDERS:

• 
  Facts: Plaintiff (who is black) attempts to rent apartment and is told there are no vacancies and does not offer assistance with application process despite being qualified to rent. Plaintiff’s sister-in-law (who is white) goes the next day and is treated completely differently.
  
• 
  Rule: Three part burden of proof analysis for §1982 and FHA claim: (1) plaintiff must come forward with proof of prima facie case of discrimination, (2) burden shifts to defendants to produce evidence of legitimate reasons, and (3) burden shifts back to plaintiff to show offered reasons were pretextual
  
• 
  Rule: Establishing prima facie case requires plaintiff to prove: (1) racial minority, (2) applied for and qualified to rent, (3) denied opportunity, and (4) housing opportunity remains available
  
• 
  Rule: punitive damages may be awarded when conduct involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others
  
• 
  Holding: Affirmed; substantial evidence and a reasonable basis for jury’s verdict
  

• 
  Facts: Large housing development seeks to maintain specific racial distribution in complex to prevent “tipping” though selective screening of applicants.
  
• 
  Rule: Fair Housing Act may prevent the use of rigid racial quotas of indefinite duration to maintain a fixed level of integration in public housing when such practices restrict minority access to public housing
  
• 
  Holding: Affirmed; Title VIII does not allow use of rigid racial quotas of indefinite duration to maintain fixed level of integration (illustrates disparate impact)
  

• 
  Remedies include injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages
  

• 
  Discriminatory treatment (intent) claims involve intentionally treating members of protected class differently so as to deny particular persons housing opportunities
  
• 
  Disparate impact (results) claims allege that the defendant’s facially neutral policies have a disproportionate, exclusionary impact on members of a protected group and that the impact is not justified by legitimate government or business objectives
  
• 
  Racial steering also violates the FHA by otherwise making unavailable housing because of race. It is considered a form of redlining, which is a practice of marking territory within a municipality in which brokers and lenders will refuse to help individuals obtain housing for discriminatory reasons.
  
• 
  Two categories of people have standing to sue under the FHA, those who are directly injured by discriminatory acts and those who have sufficient incentive to litigate the case
  

• 
  Those denied housing opportunities
  
• 
  Whites denied housing because of association with minorities
  
• 
  White persons against a realtor engaging in “racial steering” as a denial of “right to social, professional, business, economic, political, and aesthetic benefits of interracial associations arising from integrated communities
  
• 
  Testers
  
• 
  Organization devoted to promoting equal access if discriminatory conduct requires it to devote extra resources to identify available housing and counteract discriminatory conduct
  

B. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

• 
  Jones v. Alfred Mayer (1968) held that §1982 applied to private acts of discrimination as well as to discriminatory legislation
  
• 
  Today, almost all cases brought under the FHA also allege a violation of §1982
  

• 
  Facts: Memphis closed one end of West Drive, a street crossing a white neighborhood, preventing traffic from a predominantly black community from obtaining access to the street. Black residents filed suit claiming that the closing violated section 1982 since the city acted with discriminatory intent.
  
• 
  Rule: §1982 not violated unless property interests of plaintiffs are implicated by municipal/official action (1) benefiting white property owners but similarly refused to similarly situated minority owners, (2) depreciating value of property of minority owners, or (3) severely restricting access to homes of minority owners or otherwise restricting use of property
  
• 
  Holding: No violation of §1982
  
• 
  Dissent (Marshall): plain and powerful symbolic message of “inconvenience” is ignored
  

Edouard v. Kouzbal, Mass. (2002)

• 
  Facts: Landlord attempted to secure a “date” from plaintiff by offering her a reduction in her rental deposit. She refused and the landlord’s harassment continued where he slapped her butt, squeezed her breasts and attempted to rape her. Landlord was found criminally guilty of assault with intent to rape and plaintiff filed a complaint of sexual harassment with the MA Commission Against Discrimination
  
• 
  Rule: Lessee may establish a claim of sexual discrimination against a landlord for (1) quid pro quo or (2) hostile environment harassment
  
• 
  Rule: Prima facie case of quid pro quo harassment requires demonstration plaintiff: (1) member of protected class, (2) subject to unwelcome sexual contact, (3) terms and conditions of situation adversely changed, and (4) change causally connected to rejection of sexual advances
  
• 
  Rule: no proof of physical injury or psychiatric consultation is necessary to sustain an award for emotional distress
  
• 
  Holding: Award of monetary damages appropriate compensation for emotional distress
  

D. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON FAMILY STATUS

Human Rights Commission v. LaBrie. Inc., Vt. (1995)

• 
  Facts: The McCarthys claimed the LaBries unlawfully discriminated against them by prohibiting them to reside in their mobile home park with minor children
  
• 
  Rule: Evidence of discriminatory practice prior to civil rights legislation, coupled with post-legislation pattern of maintaining status quo, may be sufficient to establish intent to continue discrimination
  
• 
  Rule: Privately imposed occupancy limits that limit or exclude persons with minor children are unreasonable and in violation of state and federal law
  
• 
  Holding: Affirmed; defendants failed to show actions against McCarthys were reasonable or that limit was reasonable
  

A. DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MARITAL STATUS (UNMARRIED COUPLES)

McCready v. Hoffius, Mich. (1999)

• 
  Facts: Defendants refused to rent property to plaintiffs when they learned they intended to live together but were unmarried. When sued, the defendants said the Civil Rights Act did not protect unmarried cohabitation and if it did it was unconstitutional since it violated their religious beliefs.
  
• 
  Rule: Landlord cannot reasonably claim that refusal to rent to cohabiting couples based on conduct and not marital status when marital status is what makes conduct immoral in landlord’s opinion
  
• 
  Rule: Civil Rights Act does not violate Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment
  
• 
  Rule: Compelling state interest possibly violating defendant’s religious freedom is evaluated by whether (1) belief is sincerely held, (2) belief is religious in nature, (3) state regulation imposes burden, (4) compelling state interest justifies burden, and (5) less obtrusive form of regulation available
  
• 
  Holding: Defendant’s exercise of religion under First Amendment is not violated by requiring compliance with Civil Rights Act
  

1. 
   Is refusal to rent to unmarried couple prohibited discrimination because of marital status or allowable exclusion on basis of conduct?
   
2. 
   Do such statutes violate constitutional rights of landlords to exercise of free religion
   

State Ex Rel. Sprague v. City of Madison, Wis. (1996)

• 
  Facts: D’s refused to rent as a housemate to someone due to her sexual orientation despite making the offer aware of her sexual orientation.
  
• 
  Rule: Renters may disclaim unqualified right to constitutional protection in privacy of home under First Amendment when renting housing for profit
  
• 
  Holding: Affirmed; statute unambiguously applied to housemates
  

C. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Poff v Caro, N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. (1987)

• 
  Facts: Property owner refuses to rent to homosexuals fearing they may later acquire AIDS
  
• 
  Rule: Discrimination based on perception of a handicap is within protection of applicable statutes prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities
  
• 
  Holding: Conduct here if proven is within provisions of law prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities
  

Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington, US (1988)

• 
  Facts: Huntington zoning regulations did not allow housing projects in white neighborhoods. 95% of the town was white and the small percentage of black residents were concentrated in two neighborhoods. Housing Help Inc determined it could only foster integration by locating a project in a white neighborhood but Huntington zoning regulations allowed this type of housing only in a single area already occupied by black residents.
  
• 
  Rule: Prima facie case of disparate impact is established by showing challenged practice of defendant has a discriminatory effect, need not show discriminatory intent
  
• 
  Rule: Balance should be more readily struck in favor of plaintiff when seeking only to enjoin municipal defendant from interfering with own plans rather than attempting to compel defendant itself to build housing
  
• 
  Holding: Ordered specific performance based on strong showing of discriminatory effect
  

• 
  Plaintiffs should rely on local statistics focusing on relative percentages rather than absolute numbers
  

E. SEX DISCRIMINATION: SHELTERS FOR BATTERED WOMEN

Doe v. City of Butler, 3rd Cir. (1989)

• 
  Facts: Three battered women claimed that a City of Butler ordinance restricting transitional dwellings to six persons was sex and familial status discrimination
  
• 
  Rule: Established that the FHA prohibits discrimination based on familial status, which may include single-parent families living communally
  
• 
  Holding: Remanded for consideration of familial status discrimination; sex discrimination claim rejected