Search

Answer: The general answer is "yes," both the park models and regular RVs can (and should) be treated the same with regard to landlord-tenant laws. However, there are certain regulations that you must follow to ensure that the park models fully qualify as "recreational vehicles" as defined by Oregon law.

First and foremost, a "recreational vehicle" is defined by statute (ORS 446.003 (33)) as a vehicle "with or without motive power that is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes" and as further defined by administrative rule. "Recreational vehicle" is then defined in various rules as (1) being identified as an RV by the manufacturer, and (2) not exceeding 400 square feet in the setup mode, including all tip-outs, slide-outs, expandable rooms, and other horizontal projections.

However, this does not mean that park models cannot be equipped with various accessory structures like decks, steps, porches, roof overhangs and other similar construction. The guiding rule is that these external structures cannot be supported by the RV itself and cannot be enclosed with walls, glass or other solid materials if that would exceed the maximum allowed gross floor area of the RV.

While there are other construction exceptions as well (basements, lofts, certain bay windows, freestanding cabanas, etc.), you should consult with a knowledgeable expert to carefully comply with these regulations. The primary Oregon Administrative Rules can be found at OAR 918-525 and 918-530, which are administered by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division.

Assuming you meet the park model regulations, you can use the same rental agreement that you use with regular RV tenants. In many cases, MHCO Form 80 (RV Space Rental Agreement) will work just fine. In other cases, you may want to use a form specifically designed for your park - just make sure that it contains all of the required information, such as how accessory buildings and structures will be dealt with at the end of the tenancy.

In any event, an RV tenancy (unlike a manufactured home tenancy) can be terminated with a no-cause notice if the tenancy is month to month. If the tenant has been in the park less than a year, the no-cause notice period can be 30 days. After the first year of tenancy, the notice period must be at least 60 days. While you would certainly hope not to need to evict a park model tenant, since they technically live in "recreational vehicles," the law gives you that option as a landlord.

While landlords who deliberately abuse their power in this way deserve whatever liability they incur, retaliation can also happen inadvertently. Risk of liability comes into play any time you reject, evict, raise the rent, or make housing decisions that negatively affect a person who’s previously exercised a fair housing right. This is true even if retaliation was the furthest thing from your mind. Moreover, while prohibition against retaliation has always been a fundamental part of fair housing laws, retaliation claims against landlords have increased noticeably in recent years.

How does retaliation happen and what can you do to avoid it? Those are the questions this month’s lesson will answer. First, we’ll explain the laws of retaliation and the conundrum they pose when dealing with protected individuals after they’ve engaged in protected activities. Then, we’ll outline eight rules to follow to ensure that your rental staff is sensitive to retaliation liability risks and the actions they can take to defuse them. At lesson’s end, you can take the Coach’s Quiz testing your knowledge of the lessons and ability to apply them in real-life situations.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Retaliation is a form of discrimination that the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans. The rule stems from Section 818 of the FHA, which makes it illegal to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with” any person “on account of his having exercised” any right the law protects. Regulations and court decisions interpreting the provision have made it amply clear that acts of retaliation violate Section 818.

In a retaliation proceeding, there are four things that the rental applicant, tenant, or other complainant (which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll refer to as “tenant,” except where the context requires otherwise) must prove to make a valid case:  

1. Tenant Exercised a Fair Housing Right

First, tenants must show they exercised a fair housing right. Suing the landlord is an obvious example. However, “exercising” a fair housing right can also take more subtle forms, such as:

• Requesting accommodations for a disability;
• Reporting a discriminatory housing practice to a landlord or an authority; and/or
• Talking to a HUD official, bringing a complaint, testifying, assisting, or participating in any way in an FHA proceeding.

2. Landlord Knew of Tenant’s Exercise of the Right

To be liable for retaliation, tenants must show that the landlord knew that they exercised a fair housing right. A landlord is considered to have knowledge if a leasing agent or other employee knew of the activity.  

3. Landlord Took Adverse Action Against Tenant in Response to the Exercise

Next, tenants must show that they were on the receiving end of some “adverse action” from the landlord after they exercised the fair housing right. Examples include:

• Rejection of a rental application or renewal;
• Eviction;
• Rent increases and other unfavorable rental terms;
• Bringing a lawsuit without any reasonable basis;
• Threats to engage in the above or any other adverse actions; and
• Harassment.

4. The Landlord Took the Adverse Action Because of the Exercise

The first three requirements are usually easy to prove. That’s why most retaliation cases come down to the fourth element: Whether the exercise of the fair housing right was the reason the landlord took adverse action against the tenant. Note that retaliation doesn’t have to be a landlord’s only motive for taking adverse action against a tenant; it need only be one of the factors in the decision. In other words, a retaliatory motive taints the entire decision even if there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory motives as well.

Timing Is Everything—Or Is It?

Because landlords rarely admit that the adverse actions they take are in retaliation for the exercise of a fair housing right, there usually must be some other evidence of the landlord’s retaliatory motive. The most common form of evidence is timing. Adverse action that occurs after a tenant exercises a protected right creates the inference that it happened because of the exercise. The smaller the time interval, the stronger the inference. Thus, evicting a tenant 24 hours after she makes a fair housing complaint puts you in a terrible position at trial.  

Even so, the mere fact that adverse action comes after exercise of a right isn’t enough to prove retaliation. Maybe the timing was just coincidental. Besides, exercising a fair housing right doesn’t mean tenants can do whatever they want. After all, a tenant who hasn’t paid rent in months shouldn’t be able to avoid eviction simply because he previously filed a discrimination complaint against his landlord.

Example: A tenant claimed that her Colorado landlord threatened to evict her after she complained that he was discriminating against families with children. The landlord admitted to making the threat but insisted he made it because of the tenant’s refusal to follow a community rule requiring all tenants to put heat tape on their water supply pipe. The HUD administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the evidence supported this explanation and tossed the retaliation case [HUD v. Quintana, HUDALJ 08-92-0239-1 (1994)].

Compliance Strategy

Tenants suing for retaliation have the burden of proving each of the above four elements. That can be a huge advantage in your favor. It means that all you have to do to defeat a case—or better yet, deter tenants from bringing it in the first place—is knock out one of the required elements. While any one of the four elements will do, targeting the fourth element requiring proof of retaliatory motive is almost always the most promising strategy.

8 RULES FOR AVOIDING RETALIATION LIABILITY

You can minimize your liability risks for fair housing retaliation by ensuring your leasing agents and management staff follow these eight rules.

Rule #1: Don’t Retaliate Deliberately

The starting point is to strictly prohibit your staff from targeting tenants for complaining about discrimination or engaging in any other form of protected activity. “Weaponizing rental, renewal, or other leasing decisions to punish fair housing ‘trouble makers’ is a recipe for liability disaster,” cautions a Georgia fair housing consultant. Unfortunately, the six-figure damage awards being handed out against landlords suggests that deliberate retaliation remains an all-too-common occurrence.

Example: A Los Angeles area landlord shelled out $225,000 to settle charges of raising the rent, threatening to evict, and taking away a family’s parking space because of their association with another family that was evicted because they had a disabled child [Downey Property Management, et al., Calif. Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing press release, October 2018].

Example: An Ohio landlord paid $177,500 to settle charges of sex harassment against at least 20 tenants, including refusing to make repairs for women in retaliation for spurning sexual advances [US v. Klosterman, (S.D. Ohio), Oct. 1, 2020].

Taking adverse action might be especially tempting when a tenant’s discrimination accusation or complaint is totally bogus. But while it may seem unfair, retaliation is still illegal even if the accusation that brings it on is false; all that’s required is that it be made in good faith.  

Rule #2: Don’t Try to Keep Tenants from Exercising Their Fair Housing Rights

Don’t do or say anything to pressure or persuade a tenant who expresses fair housing complaints or concerns not to pursue a fair housing complaint. Once a tenant comes to you with a fair housing complaint, your first reaction might be to try to set things right so you don’t end up getting sued. The irony is that in seeking to prevent a fair housing lawsuit, you might actually be inviting one. That’s because your efforts might be seen as an illegal act to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere” with fair housing rights.

So refrain from making not just threats but also promises or inducements that may be seen as bribes designed to stop the exercise of a fair housing right. Although you can offer constructive solutions, you should make it clear that your suggestions are just that—suggestions—and don’t preclude tenants from filing a complaint or pursuing their other fair housing remedies.

Rule #3: Don’t Charge Tenants Fees for Exercising Their Fair Housing Rights

Another form of retaliatory activity banned by Section 818 is charging tenants fees, deposits, or extra rent for exercising their fair housing rights. Common examples include charging fees for providing disabled tenants handicap-accessible parking spaces or other reasonable accommodations that the FHA requires.

Example: A Colorado condo association fined a tenant with epilepsy for allowing her to keep a service dog in violation of its “no dogs” policy. The tenant sued for retaliation. The association asked for dismissal without a trial. HUD considered the case so important that it intervened on the tenant’s behalf. Fining a tenant for requesting an accommodation is evidence enough to support a retaliation claim, regardless of whether the underlying accommodations claim was valid, the government argued. The federal court agreed and allowed the case to go forward. Retaliation claims stand on their own and aren’t dependent on the validity of the underlying discrimination claim that prompted them, the court concluded [Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n, et al., 226 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (D. Colo. 2016)].

Rule #4: Differentiate Between Retaliation and Legitimate Enforcement

This is the most important rule of the entire lesson. There’s a big difference between retaliation and enforcement of rental application and lease rules. Stated differently, protection from retaliation doesn’t require you to accept an unqualified rental applicant or tolerate a tenant’s failure to pay rent or other serious violations. Thus, a tenant isn’t allowed to create a serious disturbance on Tuesday just because he complained about a fair housing issue on Monday.

The key question: How do you enforce your rental qualifications and lease rules against applicants and tenants after they’ve exercised a fair housing right? The answer is not by refraining from taking the action but by ensuring that you can justify it by showing that you did it for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons having nothing to do with the previous exercise of a fair housing right.

Example: A Pennsylvania public housing tenant filed a state discrimination complaint contending that she was sexually harassed by maintenance workers and her neighbors over the course of her 10-year tenancy. A few months later, she was evicted. Although the timing was mighty suspicious, the federal court ruled in the landlord’s favor and dismissed the case.

The landlord won because the tenant couldn’t get past the fourth prong of the retaliation test by proving there was a causal link between the eviction and the fair housing complaint. And the reason she couldn’t prove this was because the landlord was able to demonstrate that it had received multiple complaints about the tenant in the months after the sexual harassment complaint. Neighbors accused her of verbal assault, beheading a neighbor’s cat, and inviting a neighbor’s child into her apartment and not letting her go until the police arrived. So, the court concluded that the eviction was for a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons and not an act of retaliation for filing the sexual harassment complaint [Madison v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, Civil Action 09-3400, E.D. Pa., June 2010].

Rule #5: Document Legitimate Reasons for Taking Adverse Actions

Doing what the landlord was able to do in the Madison case is the blueprint for not only defeating but preventing retaliation claims. To achieve that objective, you must keep careful records documenting your rental and leasing decisions. Specifically, you must be able to demonstrate the legitimate and nondiscriminatory bases for the rules and standards you establish and the actions you take to enforce them.

Without these records, it will be easy for the people you reject, evict, fail to renew, etc. after they engage in protected fair housing activity to claim that you retaliated. The documents are essential to counteract these claims and show the policy, action, or decision was justified and not a pretext for retaliation.

You also need documentation any time you amend your community bylaws, policies, rental standards, and rules of conduct. Otherwise, a tenant might claim that you made the change to retaliate against them for exercising a fair housing right.

Example: The owner of a Georgia condo claimed the community association deliberately adopted new rent restrictions to keep her from following through with her plans to rent the unit to an African-American woman. Although the deal did go through, the owner sued the association for trying to stop it. The association denied the charges and insisted that the bylaw changes had nothing to do with the proposed rental.

Thus, as is often true in retaliation litigation, the case boiled down to the evidence of the housing provider’s intentions. Unlike the landlord in Madison, the association in this case couldn’t come up with evidence justifying its proposed new rental restrictions. In fact, the absence of discussion of the change in the corporate meeting minutes belied the association’s contention that they were already in the works at least a year before the proposed rental arrangement.

By contrast, there was evidence suggesting that the association was concerned that leasing the unit to an African-American tenant would reduce property values and lead to protests by other owners in the community. Result: The Georgia state court ruled that there was enough evidence to allow the case to go to trial. Having lost its bid for dismissal, the condo association then faced an unenviable choice: Pay a hefty settlement or risk a trial [Bailey v. Stonecrest Condo. Assoc., Inc., 2010 WL 2472501 (Ga.App.)].

Rule #6: Enforce Your Rules and Rental Criteria Consistently

Showing that an enforced policy is legitimate and nondiscriminatory isn’t enough to justify an adverse action against a tenant who has engaged in protected activity; you must also be able to show that the action is consistent with your previous practices. Otherwise, it might look like you’re singling out the tenant for selective enforcement. Thus, for example, failure to follow pool rules would look like a pretext for not renewing a tenant if you let other tenants get away with similar violations.

Deciding not to renew the lease of a person who has engaged in protected activity is a frequent source of retaliation claims, attorneys warn. Accordingly, they suggest that you create a policy for nonrenewals and apply it consistently to all tenants. In addition to listing clear and legitimate criteria for nonrenewals, the policy should require staff to create a memo documenting its discussions about and reasons for not renewing a tenant. These records can put you in a strong position to defend against a claim for retaliatory nonrenewal.  

Rule #7: Don’t Retaliate Against Third Parties

FHA protection from retaliation covers not only rental applicants and tenants claiming to be victims of discrimination, but also third parties who help or encourage them to pursue their fair housing rights. That includes fair housing associations and even your own employees. Result: It’s illegal to fire, demote, transfer, cut the pay of, harass, or take other unfavorable employment action against an employee for speaking up against discriminatory practices or advising aggrieved tenants to contact HUD or other fair housing agencies.

Example: Owners and managers of a Kansas City high-rise rental community shelled out $2.13 million to settle allegations of creating a racially hostile environment and retaliating against a former employee for cooperating with HUD investigators and helping others file complaints with HUD. The abuse, complete with hangman’s nooses and racial slurs, was so bad that the federal court also issued an order permanently banning the community manager from working in rental housing and ordering her to pay a $55,000 civil penalty [U.S. v. Sturdevant, Civil Action No. 07-2233-KHV, Fed. Dist. Ct. Kansas, May 2010].

You can also get into trouble if you take retaliatory action against tenants for opposing discrimination against their neighbors. This is true even if the tenant targeted for retaliation is white or otherwise not part of a protected class under the FHA.

Rule #8: Implement a Non-Retaliation Policy

Although it’s never fun when a rental applicant or tenant comes to you with a discrimination complaint, discouraging such reports could expose you to liability for interfering with the exercise of fair housing rights under FHA Section 818. Moreover, these reports should be welcomed because they can help you identify and root out hidden discrimination problems in your community.

The problem is that people may be reluctant to speak up because they fear retaliation. For example, suppose an applicant hears a leasing agent use a racial slur. What you want her to do is come forward and tell you. But the applicant won’t do that if she thinks it might lead you to reject her. As a result, she may tell a local fair housing organization instead.  

Example: In 2013, a Washington public housing community fought off a fair housing complaint filed by a resident who was threatened with eviction for feeding pigeons and allowing them to nest on his deck. The community’s rules prohibited the feeding of stray animals and wildlife, so he received several warnings that he’d be evicted if he didn’t stop. He eventually complied and no further action was taken against him, but the resident sued the community for discriminating against him because of his race. He failed to prove that he was being falsely accused since he admitted that he allowed the pigeons to nest on his deck. And the court rejected his claim that nonminority residents fed the pigeons and were not disciplined, noting that other residents viewed the pigeons as a nuisance and were trying to get rid of them in various ways, including poison [Bahati v. Seattle Housing Authority, September 2013].

To ward off fair housing trouble, it’s a good idea to have a written policy detailing your standards of conduct so all prospects, residents, and staff members understand what behaviors constitute lease violations. Putting it down on paper heads off claims that the resident didn’t know about the rules or understand the consequences of breaking them.

Make sure that your rules conform to state and local requirements by asking your attorney for help in drafting a policy that defines what conduct is considered a lease violation. Make the rules as specific as possible—for example, by quantifying how many times an act must be committed before it’s considered a lease violation, how much time you’ll give a resident to correct his behavior, and so on. Your policy should also detail the procedures for investigating, resolving, and documenting complaints against residents for violating the lease and community rules.

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer. Yes and no. ORS 90.510(4) provides that all rental agreements must contain certain provisions, and that unless the law allows otherwise, they may not be unilaterally amended without the consent of both parties. Subsection 90.510(5) sets forth the contents of the rental agreement, and subsection (5)(i) provides that it must describe:

"(a)ny conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser of a manufactured dwelling or floating home as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home. Those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal law and may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to pets, number of occupants and screening or admission criteria... ." (Emphasis added.)

ORS 90.680(10)(a) provides that if a landlord receives an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser "

The landlord shall accept or reject the prospective purchaser's application within seven days following the day the landlord receives a complete and accurate written application. An application is not complete until the prospective purchaser pays any required applicant screening charge and provides the landlord with all information and documentation, including any financial data and references, required by the landlord pursuant to ORS 90.510 (5)(i). (Emphasis added.)

ORS 90.680(10)(c provides that if a landlord receives an application for tenancy from a prospective purchaser:

(c) The landlord may not unreasonably reject a prospective purchaser as a tenant. Reasonable cause for rejection includes, but is not limited to, failure of the prospective purchaser to meet the landlord's conditions for approval as provided in ORS 90.510 (5)(i) or failure of the prospective purchaser's references to respond to the landlord's timely request for verification within the time allowed for acceptance or rejection under paragraph (a) of this subsection. (Emphasis added.)

ORS 90.10(40) defines "Screening or admission criteria" to mean:

'_a written statement of any factors a landlord considers in deciding whether to accept or reject an applicant and any qualifications required for acceptance. "Screening or admission criteria" includes, but is not limited to, the rental history, character references, public records, criminal records, credit reports, credit references and incomes or resources of the applicant."

Based upon the above, I believe that since the rental agreement may not be unilaterally modified, you are safer having all of your screening criteria in that document, than putting them elsewhere.

If there are other issues, e.g. with the condition of the home, when you learn that it is going to be sold on-site, you can issue a repair notice under ORS 90.620. That statute is quite useful in these situations. It provides that you can give the resident a 30-day notice of termination based upon repair or deterioration issues. Depending on the degree of repair work necessary, the resident can request additional time.

While it is probably true that the resident may not want to do the work, if and when a purchaser is found, you may give that notice to the purchaser. Putting the home up for sale will not extend the compliance period. Thus, in giving the notice to the prospective purchaser, the issue becomes one of negotiation between seller and buyer. If they reach agreement (which will likely include some price concessions), if the work cannot be completed before the pending transaction closes, you can include completion deadline in the new rental agreement. The new purchaser cannot take possession without first signing the rental agreement and committing to a completion date.

Does all this mean that you cannot or should not develop a resale compliance form for your community? No. But to be forewarned is to be forearmed. In other words, an existing resident could push back if they did not like the provisions, and they might win that argument. The work-around, is that you should make sure your rental agreement contains a good set of screening criteria. MHCO's is very complete. And if the home is in need of repair, you can always issue a 90.632 notice, and secure compliance either from the existing resident, or their prospective purchaser. Since you can make this a condition of acceptance of the prospective purchaser, and it will be written into the new rental agreement, I submit that you will be holding the better hand.

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. (1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if: - The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and - There exists a written rental agreement that specifies: _ The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge; _ The type and amount of the late charge; and _ The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due. (2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed: - A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market; - A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable flat amount", described above; or - Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. (3) In periodic tenancies [e.g. month-to-month], a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant. (4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment. (5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed. (6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. The vast majority of undocumented alien discrimination cases involve exclusion of people who aren’t legal citizens of the U.S. The question: Is this legal?

Damned If You Do: How the FHA Applies to Undocumented Aliens

Notice that citizenship and immigration status aren’t on the list of FHA “protected classes.” In January 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.” Nor does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status, the HUD memo adds. In other words, people who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination.  

However, there’s more to the story. 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.

Example: A Virginia townhouse community rejected a resident alien couple because they weren’t U.S. citizens. The couple sued, and the federal court ruled that they had a valid FHA claim for national origin discrimination. A citizenship requirement may be part of a wider scheme to exclude persons based on their national origin, the court reasoned [Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Ass'n, 522 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981)].

Of course, the same principles could apply to other protected classes. Thus, for example, a citizenship requirement may also constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

Refusing to rent to non-U.S. citizens may also violate other federal civil rights laws. For example, people who aren’t U.S. citizens may be permanent legal residents with “Green Cards” who enjoy nearly all the same rights as citizens to live and work in the country.

In addition to federal laws, landlords must comply with any stricter requirements under state and local fair housing laws. And immigration status is a protected class in some states and municipalities. For example, California makes it illegal to inquire into an applicant’s immigration status; New York City bans discrimination on the basis of “alienage or citizenship status.”

DEEP DIVE

Anti-Harboring Laws

Federal and some states’ immigration laws make it a crime to “harbor” undocumented aliens. However, most courts have ruled that the laws don’t penalize landlords for simply renting housing to people without regard to their immigration status.

Example: In February 2017, a Texas federal appeals court ruled against two landlords who were willing to rent to persons regardless of immigration status but feared they might be prosecuted for “harboring” illegal aliens under state law. The lower court agreed and issued a temporary ban on Texas’s enforcement of the law. But the appeals court lifted the ban and dismissed the case, saying there’s a distinction between “harboring” and simply renting to an undocumented alien [Cruz v. Abbott, February 2017].

Damned If You Don’t: The Liability Risks of Not Screening Applicants’ Immigration/Citizenship Status

Here’s where things get tricky. While screening on the basis of immigration or citizenship status is problematic for conventional housing, it’s actually required for some forms of federally assisted housing. Thus, for example, landlords participating in the Section 8 program are obligated to ask and confirm that applicants and tenants are permanent U.S. citizens or hold some other lawful immigration status.

There are also states and municipalities where landlords are required to verify applicants’ immigration status or face severe penalties, including stiff fines and loss of their business license to operate.

Bottom Line: It’s crucial to consult an attorney and be aware of the fair housing requirements of your particular jurisdiction in determining your policies and protocols for screening and leasing to immigrants.

7 RULES FOR AVOIDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

Once you sort out the basic legal landscape, you need to establish clear policies on leasing to undocumented aliens and train your leasing and management staff to implement them consistently. Here are the seven rules to cover in your training.

Rule #1: Ensure Nondiscriminatory Justification for Citizenship Screening

Technically, unless you live in a state or municipality that prohibits it, screening applicants’ citizenship and/or immigration status isn’t illegal; it might even be required. However, there are risks you must avoid if you adopt such a policy.

First, you need a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and documented business justification for making citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion. Doing it because the law requires it is one example. But also keep in mind that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the U.S. belong to a minority racial, religious, and/or nationality group. Accordingly, stereotypes about undocumented aliens being troublemakers or not paying rent open the door to discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and national origin. Thus, for example, refusing to rent to immigrants because they “can’t keep a steady job” may be deemed a pretext for excluding certain nationalities, particularly in properties located near the Mexican border or on the West Coast where there are large numbers of Asian immigrants.

Rule #2: Apply Screening Policy Consistently

Whatever screening approach you adopt, you must apply it consistently. Just having a principled and justified policy requiring rental applicants to verify their U.S. citizenship won’t protect you if you follow it in some cases but not others. The 2003 HUD memo uses the following example to illustrate the fair housing liability risks of an inconsistent citizenship or immigration status screening policy.  

Example: A person from the Middle East applies for an apartment. Because he’s from the Middle East, the landlord requires him to provide additional information and forms of identification and refuses to rent him the apartment. Later, somebody from Europe applies for an apartment at the same complex. Because the person is from Europe, the landlord rents him the apartment without making him complete additional paperwork or verify the information on the application and rents the apartment. This would be disparate treatment on the basis of national origin.  

Implementation Strategy: The only way to ensure the consistency necessary for compliance is to have clearly written policies that explain why you screen for citizenship and/or immigration status along with procedures and protocols for implementing them. What you must guard against, above all, is allowing leasing staff to ask questions or make decisions about whether to screen particular applicants based on their appearance, accent, apparel, etc.

Rule #3: Ask for the Right Kind of Proof

If you do decide to screen for citizenship and/or immigration status, you need specific procedures and protocols to do it properly. You don’t have to take applicants at their word and have the right to request information enabling you to verify their status. Again, consistency is the key. If you ask one applicant for documentation, you must ask all applicants for it. You must also be careful to request the right information. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status—that is, noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons who are allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94 (a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record, or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay). They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

Rule #4: Apply Your Normal Screening Standards to Immigrants

There’s no rule requiring landlords to make special concessions for applicants based on their citizenship or immigration status. In other words, you may require verification of identity (such as a driver’s license, passport, or other form of government ID), financial and rental history, and other legitimate qualifications that you use to screen any other applicant.

It’s standard practice to ask applicants for Social Security numbers (SSNs). This is okay, especially since many screening companies require an SSN to perform tenant screening, such as credit and criminal background checks. But don’t automatically reject applicants because they don’t have SSNs. Explanation: Not having an SSN doesn’t necessarily mean the applicant is in the country illegally. Noncitizens need to get SSNs only if they want to work in the U.S. And tenant screening companies may still be able to vet their qualifications even without an SSN using alternative information, such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, and last known address.

Also, note that unauthorized immigrants may obtain drivers’ licenses in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).

Coach’s Tip: Contact an immigration attorney, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), or State Department if you’re unclear about documentation requirements or have questions about the documentation of legal immigration that an applicant presents to you.

Rule #5: Don’t Make Ability to Speak English a Rental Criterion

In September 2016, HUD issued guidance confirming what several courts had previously ruled—namely, that excluding applicants or tenants based on their limited English proficiency (LEP) violates the FHA. Explanation: Statistically, most LEP people come from a country other than the U.S. Thus, disqualifying people because they’re LEP has the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin (and, in some cases, race and/or religion). Discriminatory practices to avoid include:

• Imposing an English-speaking language-related requirement on people of certain races or nationalities;
• Posting ads that contain blanket statements, such as “all tenants must speak English”; or
• Immediately turning away applicants because they’re not fluent in English.

Example: In 2013, HUD ordered a Virginia property management company to pay $82,500 to settle allegations of not letting a Hispanic woman apply for an apartment. According to the complaint, the company refused to give her a rental application because she didn’t speak fluent English even though she brought along a bilingual person to act as translator. HUD investigators also found that the company actually had a written policy requiring all prospects to be able to communicate with management in English without help from others [Travsiňa v. Virginia Realty Company of Tidewater, Inc., FHEO Case Numbers 03-11-0424-8].

Strategic Pointer: It’s imperative to ensure that leasing, management, and other staff remain calm, patient, poised, and professional at all times when dealing with LEP people. Giving in to frustration, even if it’s just a momentary and isolated lapse, may result in comments and actions that serve as Exhibit A in an intentional discrimination case against you.

Example: In 2017, the owner and manager of a California community had to shell out $20,000 to settle claims of national origin discrimination against Latino tenants. The turning point came when a local fair housing group joined the case bringing along evidence showing that the manager repeatedly made statements about not liking having Latino tenants at the community because they didn’t speak English.

For more guidance on this topic, see the Coach’s July 2021 issue, How to Avoid Discriminating Against People with Limited English Proficiency.

Rule #6: Don’t Use Tenant’s Immigration Status as a Bargaining Chip

Citizenship and immigration status liability issues can arise not only during the leasing process but also in the context of dealing with current tenants. One common example is seeking to use that status to extort a rental or other concession from the tenant. In 2012, HUD issued guidance (in the form of FAQs) clarifying that it’s “illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of” FHA rights. “This includes threats to report a person to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” to get them to move out or accept unfavorable treatment, or in retaliation for reporting housing discrimination to HUD.

Example: A married couple sued their landlord for threatening to report them to federal immigration authorities if they didn’t move out within a matter of days. They also claimed the landlord threatened to report their attorney to the California Bar for illegally advocating on behalf of tenants it perceived to be undocumented. In April 2020, the landlord agreed to pay $250,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the allegations of national origin discrimination [DFEH settlement announcement, April 22, 2020].

Rule #7: Protect Immigrant Tenants from Harassment

Immigrant tenants may become a target for harassment, intimidation, and abuse by property staff and neighboring tenants. Regrettably, the emergence of immigration as a divisive political issue in recent years has made such behavior a more widespread problem in the context of not only rental housing but many other aspects of social activity. And to the extent it’s typically based on a tenant’s national origin, race, or religion, landlords that engage in or allow others to engage in such harassment are at risk of liability for interfering with tenants’ use and enjoyment of the property they lease.

Strategic Pointer: Preventing harassment is the bare minimum. Achieving true compliance requires a shift in culture, one in which nationality, racial, and religious differences are not only tolerated but appreciated and respected, if not actively embraced. Staff training should strongly emphasize professionalism and the need to respect the diverse ethnic and cultural differences among prospects, applicants, and tenants.

To accomplish this requires cultural sensitivity and awareness of how well intentioned and seemingly innocent acts and statements may be considered offensive to persons of different national, ethnic, or religious backgrounds.

Example: Training of maintenance and other staffers who may enter into a tenant’s apartment should emphasize that removing one’s shoes before entering another person’s home is an essential protocol of respect in some cultures.

Also train staff to avoid asking people about their accents or where they come from. While such questions might be the product of genuine curiosity or desire to engage on a personal level, they may also be construed as a form of illegal inquiry, especially if they’re accompanied by clumsy or insensitive remarks.

Example: In an attempt to make casual conversation, a real estate broker married to a Brazilian woman asked the wife of a married couple where she was from. What the broker didn’t know was that the wife, who was from Venezuela, felt as if she had just been denied a rental at another property because of her national origin. “Here we go again,” she thought when the broker asked the question. She was convinced that they had just lost a rental opportunity because of her national origin and that it was happening again. The couple filed a discrimination complaint. Result: The broker was found liable for discrimination and ordered to pay $76,500. The Massachusetts appeals court upheld the ruling—although it did reduce the damages [Linder v. Boston Fair Housing Commission, February 2014].

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]

Answer: Here is a summary of ORS 90.260, the late fee statute. It answers the questions posed above.

(1) A landlord may impose a late charge or fee, however designated, only if:

• The rent payment is not received by the fourth day of the period for which rent is payable; and
• There exists a written rental agreement that specifies:
  • The tenant's obligation to pay a late charge;
  • The type and amount of the late charge; and
  • The date on which rent payments are due, and the date on which late charges become due.

(2) The amount of any late charge may not exceed:

• A reasonable flat amount, charged once per rental period. "Reasonable amount" means the customary amount charged by landlords for that rental market;
• A reasonable amount, charged on a per-day basis, beginning on the fifth day of the rental period for which rent is delinquent. This daily charge may accrue every day thereafter until the rent (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only. The per-day charge may not exceed six percent of the amount of the "reasonable lat amount", described above; or
• Five percent of the periodic rent payment amount, charged once for each succeeding five-day period, or portion thereof, for which the rent payment is delinquent, beginning on the fifth day of that rental period and continuing until that rent payment (not including any late charge), is paid in full, through that rental period only.

(3) In periodic tenancies (e.g. month-to-month), a landlord may change the type or amount of late charge by giving 30 days' written notice to the tenant.

(4) A landlord may not deduct a previously imposed late charge from a current or subsequent rental period rent payment in order to make the rent payment short so as to issue a 72-hour notice of nonpayment.

(5) A landlord may charge simple interest on an unpaid late charge at the rate allowed for judgments (9.00%) and accruing from the date the late charge is imposed.

(6) Nonpayment of a late charge alone is not grounds for termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent, but is grounds for termination of a rental agreement for cause by using a curable 30-day written notice of termination. [Note: The landlord may identify the late charge on the 72-hour notice of nonpayment of rent, so long as it makes clear that the tenant may cure the nonpayment notice by paying only the delinquent rent, not including any late charge.]