HUD Reaches Settlement in CA and Brings Charges in MA and SD for Discriminatory Housing Practices
HUD has recently entered into a settlement agreement with and brought charges against various housing providers in California, Massachusetts, and South Dakota for alleged discriminatory housing practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
In California, HUD announced that it reached an agreement with a California housing company to settle claims that it discriminated against a physically disabled person who uses a wheelchair. The claims alleged that the company unlawfully denied the complainant the opportunity to rent a wheelchair accessible unit when the complainant made requests for accommodations or modifications to the unit. While the request was pending, the company allegedly decided to rent the unit to a non-disabled tenant who applied at a later date. According to the agreement, the company is required to pay $7,500 to the complainant, modify its policies and procedures to ensure that the processing of an applicant’s reasonable accommodation and modification request should not unreasonably delay a decision on tenancy, and to provide a copy of its updated written policies and procedures to HUD. The Conciliation Agreement/Voluntary Compliance Agreement is available here.
In Massachusetts, HUD has issued a Charge of Discrimination against a Massachusetts realty company alleging that the company discriminated against those with disabilities who require assistance animals. The charge was issued after a nonprofit organization filed a complaint with HUD alleging that it found an advertisement, posted on Craigslist by the company, stating that service animals were not allowed and that the nonprofit organization’s testers, posing as prospective residents who had service animals, were refused the opportunity to see the company’s properties. Following an investigation, HUD determined that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. HUD is seeking to enjoin the company from discriminating on the basis of disability, an award of monetary damages to fully compensate the complainant, and an award of civil penalties for each violation of the FHA. The Charge of Discrimination is available here.
In South Dakota, HUD has also issued a Charge of Discrimination against a South Dakota property management company for allegedly discriminating on the basis of familial status when the company refused to allow a family with an infant child to stay in their one-bedroom apartment. According to HUD, the company enforces an occupancy policy that allows for no more than two people in a one-bedroom unit. However, given the large size of the unit and the fact that the child was a newborn infant, HUD found that the family could have remained in their unit without violating the city code. HUD is seeking to enjoin the company from discriminating on the basis of familial status, an award of monetary damages to fully compensate the family, and an award of the maximum civil penalty for each violation of the FHA. Additionally, HUD is seeking to require that the company’s agents and employees attend training, at the company’s expense, that addresses FHA’s prohibitions against familial status discrimination. The Charge of Discrimination is available here.
