A fair housing myth: You have to treat everyone the same to comply with fair housing law. It’s a common belief, but it’s not as simple as that. The law requires that you give everyone an equal opportunity to live at your community—not that you treat everyone the same.

It’s often true that treating everyone the same helps to counter any perception of discriminatory motives, but there are many important exceptions that you must understand and apply properly to comply with fair housing law. Because of these exceptions, having a one-size-fits-all policy can sometimes hurt you rather than help you to avoid fair housing trouble.

Chief among the exceptions are disability-related requests for reasonable accommodations, which by definition involve exceptions to your general policies, procedures, or rules when necessary to enable an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to live in and enjoy housing at your community. Disputes over reasonable accommodation requests, often involving assistance animals or parking accommodations, are the number one reason why communities find themselves on the hot seat to defend themselves from accusations of housing discrimination.

This article is informational only and is not intended as legal advice.  Always consult with a competent attorney before undertaking any legal action.

On January 1, 2024, Oregon House Bill 2634 went into effect.  HB 2634 contained some important changes to the laws governing RV parks and RV tenants.

First, HB 2634 cleared up an ambiguity regarding which landlord-tenant laws apply to RV tenants.  Even if an RV is located in a manufactured home park, the laws covering RV tenants are the same laws that cover tenants living in apartments, duplexes, single-family home

rentals, etc.  The specialized set of laws covering tenants who own their homes and rent spaces in manufactured home parks do NOT apply to RV tenants.

The Basics. Except where the physical condition of the home is at issue, a landlord may terminate the space rental agreement by giving the tenant not less than 30 days’ notice in writing if the tenant:

1. Materially violates a law related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant;
2. Materially violates a rental agreement[1] provision related to the tenant’s conduct as a tenant and imposed as a condition of occupancy; or
3. Is classified as a level three sex offender under ORS 163A.100.

Legal Risk: People who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination. Explanation: In January 2003, HUD issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status”; nor, the memo adds, does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status. However, undocumented aliens and non-U.S. citizens who get excluded may have valid grounds to sue for other forms of discrimination, including religion, race, and especially national origin. Rule: FHA protections extend to every person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Stated differently, a person doesn’t have to be a U.S. citizen to sue for discrimination.

Over the next couple months, MHCO will focus on the most significant new FHA “protected classes.”  Analysis will explain the legal basis for extending FHA protection to the group and list the practical measures landlords can take to manage liability risks when dealing with members of each group. We’ll conclude the analysis of each new emerging protected class with a quiz question enabling you to apply the principles to a real-life situation involving an applicant or tenant from that particular group.

Emerging Protected Class: Housing Voucher Holders & Others with Nontraditional Sources of Income

Question:   Oregon passed a law last year that prohibits housing providers from implementing community rules prohibiting residents from having daycare facilities in their homes.  Among other things, the law states that housing providers can require residents with these facilities in their homes to provide proof of insurance.  However, I’m unclear as to what type of insurance and how much we should be requiring.  At our park there are two residents offering daycare services in their homes and we’d like to follow-up and require liability insurance.  What type of insurance should we require of them and in what amounts?  Is there anything more we ought to be doing in response to this change in Oregon law?  Thanks. 

Question: I’m trying to clarify if an existing and lawful utility charge (e.g., sewer or trash), is increased by the provider, do we have to give advance notice of the increase to the residents before we can pass it through?

For example, if the garbage provider increases its rates from $32/mo to $34/mo for the same service, is management required to notify the residents in advance? And if no advance notice is required, but we get the increase from the provider after already passing through the lower charge, may we recoup the shortfall by sending out a “catch-up” notice to the residents?

Landlords may be liable for discrimination if they harass or allow their leasing staff, managers, and other agents to harass tenants on the basis of race, etc. Recent cases pose the controversial question of whether landlords can also be liable for the harassment committed by their tenants. The two federal courts that had specifically addressed this issue until now have reached conflicting results. In 2023, another federal court weighed in on the question of tenant-on-tenant liability.

HUD recently charged a Montana landlord and property manager for retaliating against a tenant for exercising her fair housing rights. The retaliatory behavior included coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act prohibits retaliating against anyone for exercising their fair housing rights, as well as coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with someone’s exercise of those rights.