Housing Discrimination by Private Parties Flashcards
Discuss the successes and shortcoming of the Fair Housing Act?
In 1968, Congress saw a need to address racial discrimination. However, these efforts only went so far as developers and construction companies lobbied congress for certain exemptions (e.g., single-family homes). This addresses the theme of property and power. Law may be pretty on paper, but it can only do so much.
Another shortcoming is that the law provides a private cause of action and people who discriminate cannot be criminally prosecuted. This places a heavy burden on victims of racial discrimination. Perhaps some will not come forward because they lack the resources.
FHA protects the following groups:
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and handicap.
Beyond discrimination by group, what are some of the other ways discrimination could occur?
(1) Discriminatory terms and conditions (2) Ads and notices (Jancik) (3) Availability: no longer making property available (4) Blockbusting: inducing panic sales to get certain people to leave the neighborhood. eg, white flight
Quintessential FHA case?
Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Jancik (finding that an advertisement for housing violates the Fair Housing Act when it suggests a discriminatory preference even if not explicitly stated, because evidence of discriminatory intent in the housing provider’s actions supports the conclusion of illegal discrimination by the ordinary reader test).
Ordinary reader test
any ad that would discourage an ordinary reader that is a part of a particular protected group from responding to the ad violates the FHA.
FHA exemptions
Retirement communities exempt from familial status.
Single family homes: does not apply if owner does not own more than three single family homes.
Dwellings with four or fewer units if the owner lives in one of the units (think duplexes).
What type of landlord does the FHA target? What case illustrates backs up this answer?
It appears that the FHA attempts to target large commercial landlords.
Bronson v. Crestwood Lake Section 1 Holding Corp (finding that Crestwood’s application practices prohibting voucher holders from renting violate the FHA when they disproportionately impact and discriminate against protected classes, because the practices fail to justify under the discriminatory effect test, lacking legitimate, evidenced reasons for their exclusionary criteria, especially when they allowed white voucher holders to rent).
What stick in the bundle do the exemptions protect?
The exemptions show respect for a property owner’s individual right to exclude and right to dispose of their property. These exemptions were likely the result of lobbying and the division in Congress at the time the Act was passed.
WhatWhat are the two types of lawsuits that can be brought under the FHA? Describe them.
Discriminatory Purpose (i.e., intentional discrimination)
- Plaintiff has the burden that the landlord intentionally discriminated against them.
- Difficult to prove unless you have some very compelling evidence.
Discriminatory Impact/Effect
- Landlords’ practices or procedures, as applied, are discriminatory, although there is no clear, direct, or obvious discrimination.
- Burden is on the plaintiff must show discriminatory impact. Some evidence could include statistics related to the applicant pool to show that these practices unequally impact minority groups, and a plaintiff can also show evidence of discriminatory treatment.
- If plaintiff has sufficient evidence, the defendant has the burden to show that the policy or practice has a legitimate business purpose.
What evidence did the plaintiffs use to prove discriminatory impact in the Bronson v. Crestwood Lake case?
In Bronson, the plaintiff met their burden of proof by presenting data of the applicant pool and how Crestwood’s practice of denying recipients of social welfare benefits had a disproportionate impact on racial minorities. Adding credence to their claim, plaintiffs demonstrated that Crestwood allowed white social welfare recipients to live there.
Buchanan v. Warley
Buchanan v. Warley (finding that state police power does not authorize preventing property sale and occupancy based on race when such actions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because racial justifications do not meet the standards required for public health or safety, and thus cannot override constitutional protections).
How did the James v. Valtierra case open the door to exclusionary zoning?
The Court upheld a CA constitutional provision that required a majority of voters to approve low rent housing projects because such a provision is not explicitly based on race. This opened the door to exclusionary zoning because a community need not mention race. Rather, they can zone by socioeconomic status, which is constitutional if the government has a legitimate state purpose (i.e., lowest tier of scrutiny given to the government’s action).
