Question 1 The law and MHCO ocupancy agreement both state that a landlord can screen an occupant for conduct or criminal history but not for credit history or income level.  If after screening a temporary occupant, the findings reveal that they have civil case(s) and/or eviction matters relating to previous rental history where the derogatory rental reference is financial (not necessarily bad personal conduct).  Can this be grounds for denial? 

The disparate impact rule also opens the door for groups that the FHA doesn’t list as protected classes to sue for housing discrimination, as illustrated by an important case from Pennsylvania.

Situation: A domestic violence victim tells her landlord that she’s being stalked by her ex-boyfriend and needs to move out. When the landlord refuses to let her out of the lease, she sues for discrimination and failure to accommodate. The landlord asks the court to dismiss the case because domestic violence victims aren’t a protected class under the FHA.

While enforcing legitimate and nondiscriminatory rental and community policies is allowed, an Oregon case serves as a reminder how policies that look neutral on their face may still be illegal if they have the effect of excluding people the FHA protects.  

Situation: A landlord rejects a black prospect with a credit score of 680 because her husband’s credit score is below the community’s 600 minimum. After the prospect sends the landlord an eloquent letter complaining about the “inequitable” credit score policy and its impact on “marginalized communities,” the landlord reaches out and tries to negotiate an arrangement with her. But she never sees the email. Testers later gather evidence suggesting that the landlord applies the policy selectively to exclude minorities. And even though she never actually applies for a rental, the prospect sues for racial discrimination.

Exempting a disabled tenant’s service animal from a no-pets policy is a common kind of reasonable accommodation. But a Florida case deals with what a landlord can do when those accepted service animals create a nuisance for other tenants.

 

 Fees for “Additional Occupants” or “Extra Vehicles” may be problematic. Rental agreements sometimes contain a space for “extra vehicle fees” or “extra occupant fees.” These fees may be problematic considering the limitations found in ORS 90.302.

A somewhat odd case out of California illustrates another important qualifier of the landlord’s duty to provide a requested accommodation.

Situation: A tenant with “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS), which causes him to be physically and neurologically affected by radiofrequency emissions from cell phone equipment, asks the city to remove a cell tower near his unit. The city refuses, noting that the tower’s placement is based on requirements of federal environmental law. So, the tenant sues the city and homeowners association for disability discrimination.

Publication of Submeter or Pro Rata Bills – Tenant Inspections. ORS 90.582 has very specific requirements for landlords who bill tenants for water using a pro rata billing method or for landlords who bill their tenants via submeter for water. 

The basic rule is that landlords must make reasonable accommodations to the point of undue hardship. Most resonable accommodations cases were decided on the basis of reasonableness, including an Arizona case posing the question of whether it’s reasonable to expect a landlord to introduce a whole new service or activity for a tenant with disabilities.

Nearly half of the cases this year address a landlord’s FHA duty to make reasonable accommodations. In most of these cases, the requested accommodation was purportedly necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and public and common use areas. These cases offer insight into how far the duty to accommodate goes, including a key case out of Kentucky that sheds light on a landlord’s right to verify the requestor’s disability and need for the accommodation.