Search

  Federal fair housing law doesn’t ban discrimination based on military or veteran status, but many state and local governments have gone beyond what’s required under federal law to ban discrimination based on veteran and military status.

Meanwhile, veterans with disabilities are covered under current federal law. Among other things, fair housing law requires communities to respond properly to reasonable requests for accommodations or modifications that are necessary to meet the disability-related needs of veterans and returning servicemembers.

In this month’s lesson, we’ll explain how fair housing and other civil rights laws protect military servicemembers and returning veterans from discrimination and offer six rules to help you comply with your legal obligations. 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

Veterans with disabilities are covered under the FHA’s ban on disability discrimination. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to exclude or otherwise discriminate against prospects, applicants, and residents because they, or someone associated with them, has a disability.

The FHA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. According to HUD regulations, “physical or mental impairment” includes any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more specified body systems. So the definition covers both physical injuries—such as loss of a limb, traumatic brain injury (TBI), burns, and hearing loss—as well as mental or psychological disorders—such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.

The disability protections may apply even if the veteran doesn’t now have—or hasn’t ever had—a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a life activity. The FHA’s definition of disability protects individuals who are “regarded as” having such an impairment. So a community could trigger a fair housing complaint for denying housing to a veteran based on preconceived notions about emotional problems faced by some veterans transitioning from military service to civilian life.

The FHA goes further to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination by imposing affirmative duties to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications as necessary to allow veterans with disabilities to fully enjoy their dwellings. The law also includes accessibility requirements in the design and construction of covered multifamily communities.

Reasonable accommodations. The law requires communities to make reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable an individual with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property. HUD defines “reasonable accommodation” as a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Common examples include a request to keep an assistance animal in a community with a no-pet policy or a request for a reserved parking space in a community that doesn’t have assigned parking.

Reasonable modifications. The law requires owners to permit applicants or residents with a disability, at their expense, to make reasonable modifications to the housing if necessary to afford them full enjoyment of the premises. Under the FHA, a “reasonable modification” is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability, to afford that person full enjoyment of the premises. Communities must consider requests for reasonable modification not only to the interior of a unit, but also to lobbies, main entrances, and other public and common use areas of buildings. Examples include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for people in wheelchairs, installing grab bars in bathrooms, lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for people in wheelchairs, adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible, or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area.

6 RULES TO COMPLY WITH LAWS PROTECTING

VETERANS AND MILITARY SERVICEMEMBERS

Rule #1: Comply with Applicable State and Local Law

Check whether your community is subject to state and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination against military servicemembers or veterans.

Currently, eight states have adopted some form of fair housing protections based on military status, though the laws vary in the language used and whom they cover. In New York, the law prohibits discrimination based on military status, while in Massachusetts, the law prohibits housing discrimination against an individual because “such person is a veteran or member of the armed forces.” In general, these laws prohibit discrimination against active duty members and veterans of the armed forces, reserves, or state National Guard.

In some states, fair housing protections for veterans are tied to the nature of their discharge. In Illinois, the list of protected characteristics under the state’s human rights law includes military status as well as “unfavorable discharge from military service,” which generally applies to individuals who have been separated from the service with less than an honorable discharge, but it excludes those with a dishonorable discharge. In contrast, Washington’s fair housing law protects military status, but only honorably discharged veterans. The law in Rhode Island bans discrimination based on “military status as a veteran with an honorable discharge or an honorable or general administrative discharge,” or “servicemember in the armed forces.”

In the absence of statewide protections, there may be local laws protecting military status. Though Texas doesn’t list military status as a protected class, the law in San Antonio bans discrimination based an individual’s veteran’s status.

If subject to state or local laws banning discrimination based on military or veteran status, then you’ll need to review your policies and procedures to ensure compliance with legal requirements. It’s a good idea to ask your attorney about the specifics of the laws in your state and local area because of variations in the language used.

Coach’s Tip: Stay on top of proposed changes to antidiscrimination laws on the state and local level. In California, for example, the state legislators have approved a bill to ban housing discrimination based on veteran or military status; the measure was sent to the governor on Sept. 20, 2019. You should be able to get updates on what’s happening on the state and local level from your attorney or your local apartment association.

States with Laws Banning Discrimination Based on Military or Veteran Status

•      Connecticut
•      Illinois
•      Massachusetts
•      New Jersey
•      New York
•      Ohio
•      Rhode Island
•      Washington

Rule #2: Recognize Fair Housing Protections for Veterans with Disabilities

Regardless of whether military status is protected under applicable state or local law, federal fair housing law bans discrimination against veterans with disabilities. Under the FHA, disability means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

Recent veterans report high rates of service-connected disabilities (that is, disabilities that were incurred in, or aggravated during, military service), according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. About 29 percent of recent veterans report having a service-connected disability, as compared to about 13 percent of all veterans. Common injuries incurred by these veterans include missing limbs, burns, spinal cord injuries, PTSD, hearing loss, traumatic brain injuries, and other impairments. Other veterans leave service due to injuries or conditions that aren’t considered service connected.

Nevertheless, fair housing law doesn’t prevent communities from responding to actual incidents of dangerous or violent behavior by a resident, even if he has a disability. According to federal guidelines, the FHA doesn’t protect an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation.

TIME OUT!

What Is Traumatic Brain Injury?

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant health issue that affects servicemembers and veterans during times of both peace and war. The high rate of TBI and blast-related concussion events resulting from current combat operations directly affects the health and safety of individual servicemembers and subsequently the level of unit readiness and troop retention. The impacts of TBI are felt within each branch of the service and throughout both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems.

In the VA, TBI has become a major focus, second only to recognition of the need for increased resources to provide health care and vocational retraining for individuals with a diagnosis of TBI, as they transition to veteran status. Veterans may suffer TBIs throughout their lifespan, with the largest increase as the veterans enter into their 70s and 80s; these injuries are often caused by falls and result in high levels of disability.

Active duty and reserve servicemembers are at increased risk for suffering a TBI compared to their civilian peers. This is a result of several factors, including the specific demographics of the military; in general, young men between the ages of 18 to 24 are at greatest risk for TBI. Many operational and training activities, which are routine in the military, are physically demanding and even potentially dangerous. Military servicemembers are increasingly deployed to areas where they’re at risk for experiencing blast exposures from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombers, land mines, mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades. These and other combat-related activities put our military servicemembers at increased risk for suffering a TBI.

Source: Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC)

Rule #3: Consider Reasonable Modification Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

Carefully consider requests by veterans with disabilities for reasonable modifications. Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to permit, at the expense of a person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises as necessary to afford him or her full enjoyment of the premises.

The law requires you to consider modification requests by a current or prospective resident to make structural changes to the interior or exterior of units and to common and public use areas when there’s an identifiable relationship between the requested modification and the individual’s disability. For example, it would be unlawful to refuse to permit the installation of a ramp by a veteran who uses a wheelchair due to loss of a limb or other mobility impairment.

Before granting a request for a reasonable modification, you may require a description of the proposed modifications. You may also require the resident to obtain any building permits and that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. You may not insist that a particular contractor perform the work.

Rule #4: Consider Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Veterans with Disabilities

If a veteran qualifies as an individual with a disability, then you may be required to grant a request for a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as necessary to allow him an equal opportunity to fully enjoy his dwelling.

Requests for reasonable accommodations often involve assistance animals or parking, but communities may face a wide range of disability-related accommodation requests for exceptions to rules and policies. Examples include requests for live-in aides, transfers to different units, early lease termination, and allowing a cosigner on the lease. In general, communities are responsible for paying the costs associated with a reasonable accommodation as long as it doesn’t pose an undue financial and administrative burden.

It may be challenging to handle accommodation requests when the disability isn’t obvious. If the nature of the disability isn’t apparent, federal guidelines permit you to ask for reliable disability-related information to verify that the person meets the FHA’s definition of disability—that is, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Likewise, you’re allowed to ask for more information if there’s no identifiable disability-related need for the requested accommodation.

You can’t reject an accommodation request simply because it imposes some financial costs on the community. Before rejecting a request because you think it’s too costly, you should compare the cost of the requested accommodation and your financial resources against the benefits to the disabled resident, and whether there are other, less expensive alternative accommodations that would effectively meet the resident’s disability-related needs.

Example: In 2015, a court ordered a California community to transfer a veteran with disabilities and his family to a more expensive unit—and to let them stay there until the end of the lease—as a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

The resident was an Army combat veteran who was diagnosed with PTSD. Due to ongoing construction near his unit, the veteran asked the community to transfer his family to another unit away from the noise as a reasonable accommodation due to his disability. According to the veteran, the construction noise triggered nightmares, anxiety, and other symptoms because it reminded him of gunfire, explosions, and screaming, making him feel as if he were in a war zone.

Allegedly, the community didn't dispute that he had a disability-related need to be relocated during the construction, but the parties disagreed whether he could pay his current rent to live in a more expensive available unit. The community offered to move the family to another unit at his current rent but wanted them to move back when the construction was completed.

The resident rejected the offer, asking for a court order to let them stay until their lease ended five months later. He argued that the construction noise had already caused significant distress, so letting them stay until their lease ended would offer a reprieve from his PTSD triggered by the construction.

The court granted his request, ruling that the cost of moving the family to the more expensive unit during the construction was a reasonable accommodation that wouldn’t cause an undue financial burden on the community. And the increased financial burden to let them stay there through the end of their lease was minimal [Holland v. The Related Companies, July 2015].

Rule #5: Don’t Reject Disability-Related Requests for Assistance Animals

Pay particular attention to reasonable accommodation requests for an exception to your pet policies to allow a veteran to keep an assistance animal because of a disability.

Fair housing law doesn’t prevent you from having a pet policy—as long as you don’t use it to keep out assistance animals. Some communities ban pets altogether, while others place limits on the number, type, size, or weight of pets and impose conditions such as extra fees, pet deposits, or additional rent charges. Whatever your policy on pets, it’s unlawful to deny an exception for an assistance animal needed by an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the community.

Example: In July 2019, HUD charged a Maine community and one of its agents with discrimination for denying a veteran with disabilities the right to keep his assistance animal. In his HUD complaint, the veteran alleged that he called the community in response to an ad on Craigslist. When he told the agent that he had a disability-related need to live with his assistance dog, according to the veteran, the agent allegedly responded, “absolutely not,” and said she regretted allowing a prior tenant to live with his assistance dog because other tenants then wanted to get pet dogs.

“No person with a disability should be denied the accommodation they need, especially individuals who served in the Armed Forces to defend our freedom,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “HUD will continue to work to ensure that housing providers meet their obligation to comply with this nation’s fair housing laws.”

Rule #6: Comply with Other Federal Laws Protecting Military Servicemembers and Veterans

Apart from your obligations under fair housing law, communities should know about—and comply with—two important federal laws protecting military servicemembers and returning veterans:

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), formerly known as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, is a federal law that provides protections for military members as they enter active duty. It covers issues such as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, eviction, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings, automobile leases, life insurance, health insurance, and income tax payments.

Among other things, the SCRA allows servicemembers to terminate, without penalty, leases and rental agreements before or during active military service under certain circumstances. The SCRA also bars communities from evicting military members or their dependents from their principal residence during the period of their active military service without a court order. Complying with the SCRA should be at the top of community concerns when it comes to dealing with military servicemembers. Failure to do so can lead to civil penalties or damages—even criminal liability.

Example: In March 2019, a Virginia-based property management company and related entities agreed to pay up to $1.59 million to resolve allegations that they violated the SCRA by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military residents and by charging improper lease termination fees, according to the Justice Department. The settlement is the largest ever obtained by the department against a landlord or property management company for violations of the SCRA.

The complaint alleged that from 2006 to 2017, the company obtained at least 152 default judgments against 127 SCRA-protected servicemembers by failing to disclose their military service to the court or by falsely stating that they weren’t in the military.

Under the SCRA, if a landlord files a civil lawsuit against a tenant and the tenant doesn’t appear, the landlord must file an affidavit with the court stating whether the tenant is in the military before seeking a judgment. If the tenant is in military service, the court typically can’t enter judgment until it appoints an attorney to represent the tenant, and the court must postpone the proceedings for at least 90 days. Landlords and lenders can verify an individual’s military status by searching the Defense Manpower Data Center’s free publicly available website or by reviewing their files to see if there are applications, military leave and earnings statements, or military orders indicating military status.

The complaint also alleged that the company imposed unlawful charges against servicemembers who attempted to terminate their leases early in order to comply with military orders. The SCRA allows military tenants to terminate a residential lease early if the servicemember receives deployment or permanent change of station orders or enters military service during the term of the lease. If a tenant terminates a lease pursuant to the SCRA, the landlord may not impose any early termination fee.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. In their role as employers, communities must comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of an individual's past, current, or future military status, service, or obligation.

In general, USERRA seeks to ensure that servicemembers are entitled to return to their civilian employment upon completion of their military service. Servicemembers should be reinstated with the seniority, status, and rate of pay that they would have obtained had they remained continuously employed by their civilian employer. In addition, USERRA provides protection for veterans with disabilities, requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability.

• Fair Housing Act: 42 USC §3601 et seq.
• Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003: 50 USC App. §501 et seq.
• Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: 38 USC §4301 et seq.

 

 

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Section 3604(f)(1)(B) of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination against rental applicants, tenants, or the people associated with them, such as a tenant’s child, because of their disability. It’s also illegal (under Section 3604(f)(3)(B)) to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary for a person with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces, or to fulfill their program obligations” (if they’re in federally assisted housing). Examples:

• A community that doesn’t assign parking spaces makes an exception so that a mobility-impaired tenant will always be able to park near the building entrance;
• A community that requires tenants to pay their rent in person each month makes an exception for a tenant with a mental disability that makes her afraid to leave her apartment; and
• A community with a no-pets policy makes an exception allowing a sightless tenant to keep a seeing-eye dog in his apartment.

DEEP DIVE:

Reasonable Accommodations vs. Reasonable Modifications

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) of the FHA also bans refusing to allow “reasonable modifications of existing premises.” Like reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications are reasonable changes necessary to afford a disabled applicant or tenant “full enjoyment” of the premises, but with two key differences:  

• A reasonable modification is a structural change made to the property, while a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service; and
• More significantly, tenants are responsible for the costs of modifications while landlords must pay for accommodations. 

You may also have to comply with more stringent accommodations requirements under other laws, including:

• If you open all or part of your community to the public, you must make “reasonable modifications” and ensure it’s designed, constructed, and maintained to be fully accessible to the disabled under federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements;  
• Section 504 of the of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which imposes stricter discrimination rules on landlords that participate in HUD housing and other federal assistance programs; and
• State and local fair housing laws, which are often much stricter than the FHA.

10 STEPS FOR PROPERLY HANDLING

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS

Complying with your FHA duty to provide reasonable accommodations is one part substance and one part process. The first and most obvious challenge is to determine whether a requested accommodation is reasonable; the part that often gets overlooked relates not so much to the actual decisions you make but how you make them. Accordingly, the game plan below incorporates both challenges.

Step 1: Ensure Requestor Is (or Is Acting on Behalf of) a Disabled Person

Remember that while the FHA bans housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability, entitlement to reasonable accommodation applies to just one group: persons with disabilities. In other words, protection from fair housing discrimination doesn’t necessarily equate to the right to accommodation.

DEEP DIVE:

Are Other Protected Classes Entitled to Accommodations?

Although the FHA doesn’t expressly provide it except in the context of disabled persons, the argument has been made that reasonable accommodations are also required when necessary to allow a person protected by the law equal opportunity to “use and enjoy” housing. A notable case testing these principles involved a Chicago condo community whose tenants included the Blochs, a family of strong Jewish faith that posted a religious symbol called a Mezuzah on their door post. For over three decades, nobody said a word about the Mezuzah. But after a repainting, the condo board adopted a new rule banning tenants from posting any mats, signs, or other displays on their door posts. The Blochs requested a religious exemption allowing them to keep their Mezuzah, but the board said no.

The result was years of litigation, culminating in a U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ruling denying the board’s motion to dismiss and allowing the Blochs to take their religious accommodations lawsuit to trial [Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009)].

What “disability” means: The FHA defines “disability” broadly as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more “major life activities.” Protection against discrimination and entitlement to accommodation extends to a person who:

• Actually has such a disability;
• Is perceived as having such a disability, even if that perception is wrong, such as where a landlord rejects an applicant that it wrongly believes has HIV; and
• Has a record of such an impairment, such as a recovered drug addict.

What “major life activities” are: “Major life activities” are those of central importance to daily life, such as walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking. Conditions that substantially limit mobility are deemed disabilities, regardless of whether they’re plain to see or due to physical or mental conditions that aren’t readily apparent, such as heart disease, muscle weakness, or breathing ailments.

Step 2: Don’t Reject an Accommodation Because of How or When It’s Requested

You don’t have to make accommodations unless they’re specifically requested. On the other hand, you can’t make a big deal over the timing and formalities of a request. There’s no rule saying that requests must be in writing. Nor do requestors have to use the words “reasonable accommodation,” “fair housing,” “disability,” or any other magic language. All they need to do is make it clear that they’re requesting an accommodation. Note also that an accommodation request can come from either the rental applicant/tenant or a person acting on his or her behalf. According to HUD/U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidelines (which we’ll refer to as the “Guidelines”), a landlord is on notice “that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or someone acting on her behalf requests a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability.”

Other key things to keep in mind:

• Accommodation requests can be made by rental applicants as well as tenants at the start or at any time during their tenancy;
• You can ask requestors to put their requests in writing, but you can’t require them to do so; and
• While a family member, guardian, or other third party may request a reasonable accommodation on a disabled person’s behalf, a third party can’t demand an accommodation solely for his or her own benefit, such as an assigned parking space.

Tip: HUD recommends that landlords create forms and procedures that people can use to submit written requests for accommodations. This can facilitate and speed up the processing of requests and “prevent misunderstandings regarding what’s being requested, or whether the request was made.” However, the Guidelines add, landlords “must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the [landlord’s] preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.”

Step 3: Promptly Respond to Accommodation Requests

Don’t ignore an accommodation request, no matter how baseless and frivolous you think it is. While there’s no specific deadline, the Guidelines make it clear that landlords and other housing providers must provide a “prompt response” to a reasonable accommodation request. “An undue delay in responding to a reasonable accommodation request may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation,” according to HUD/DOJ.

Step 4: Engage Your Accommodation Process

Engage in an interactive process with the requestor to gather the necessary information about the request and disability (which we’ll discuss under Step 5) and discuss ways to accommodate it. Recognize that failure to reach agreement on an accommodation request is tantamount to a denial. Result: The requestor can file a disability discrimination complaint with HUD or the equivalent state or local fair housing agency, which will then perform an investigation to determine whether there’s “reasonable cause” to believe you violated your accommodation duties. If so, you’ll end up having to defend yourself in a federal court or HUD Administrative Law Judge proceeding.  

Example: A Missouri landlord had to shell out $44,000 for denying a tenant’s request to transfer to a unit with fewer stairs to accommodate her mobility-impaired daughter. The landlord flatly refused the request, saying it had no apartments available. In dishing out the fine, the federal court cited the landlord’s failure to even engage the tenant, evaluate the daughter’s medical needs, and explore ways to accommodate them [United States v. Dunnwood, (E.D. Mo.) July 16, 2020].  

Strategy: Although the FHA doesn’t expressly require it, HUD recommends that landlords implement formal rules and procedures for handling accommodation requests. Advantages of having a formal accommodations process include:

• Ensuring that all accommodations requests get a prompt response and that no requests fall through the cracks;
• Enhancing the likelihood of agreement and preventing misunderstandings and miscommunications that can lead to complaints and investigations; and
• Generating a paper trail documenting the proper consideration you gave to the request, setting up your legal defense in case complaints and investigations do occur.

Caveat: The Guidelines warn that you can’t refuse to consider a reasonable accommodation request just because the requestor won’t follow your formal procedures or use your preferred forms.

Step 5: Properly Verify the Requestor’s Disability and Need for Accommodation

Let’s turn to how to actually make decisions on particular accommodation requests. The first step is to verify the need for the requested disability accommodation. Normally, you’re not allowed to ask applicants or tenants if they’re disabled or about the nature and extent of their disability. However, the Guidelines give landlords some leeway to gather information about a person’s disability in response to a reasonable accommodation request to the extent the information is necessary to determine three things:

1. The person meets the FHA definition of disability—that is, has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
2. Exactly what accommodation is being requested; and
3. Whether there’s a “nexus,” or relationship, between the disability and the need for the requested accommodation.  

Example: A tenant requested an assigned parking space as an accommodation for his Alzheimer’s Disease. The landlord said no. The California federal court dismissed the tenant’s failure-to-accommodate complaint because of the lack of evidence showing the link between Alzheimer’s and parking and how having an assigned parking spot was an accommodation necessary to “ameliorate” the disease’s effects [Elliott v. QF Circa, Case No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS, June 18, 2018].  

Beware: There are limits on what information you can and can’t ask for, depending on what you already know or can easily surmise.

Rule 1: If the person’s disability and need for the accommodation is obvious, or otherwise known to you, you can’t request any additional information about the disability or disability-related need for the accommodation.

Rule 2: If the disability is known or readily apparent to you, but the need for the accommodation is not, you may request only information that’s necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the accommodation.

• OK to request verification: A rental applicant in a building without elevator service wants a ground-floor apartment, claiming she can’t climb steps due to asthma or some other respiratory ailment. Since the claimed disability isn’t readily apparent, the landlord would be justified in asking for verification of the ailment and why she needs a first-floor apartment to accommodate it.
• Not OK to request verification: Same scenario but instead of a respiratory ailment, the applicant uses a wheelchair. Since the physical disability (that is, a mobility impairment) and disability-related need for the requested accommodation are both readily apparent, the landlord can’t require the applicant to provide any additional information about the disability or need for a ground-floor apartment.

Strategy: You may be able to get the information you need to verify that the person meets the FHA definition of disability directly from the requestors themselves, such as in the form of credible statements from the individuals, or the fact they have government-issued disability license plates or placards on their vehicle or receive Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits despite being under age 65.

If necessary, the Guidelines say landlords may also seek verification from a doctor or other medical professional, peer support group, non-medical service agency, or reliable third party in a position to know about the individual’s disability. However, they must limit the request to only the information needed to verify the disability and need for the accommodation. 

Step 6: Determine If Requested Accommodation Is Reasonable

You need only grant requested accommodations that are reasonable. According to HUD, a request for an accommodation is reasonable if it:

• Doesn’t cause landlords to incur an undue financial and administrative burden;
• Doesn’t cause a basic or fundamental change in the nature of the housing program available;
• Won’t cause harm or damage to others; and
• Is technologically possible.

These criteria are critical, so let’s look at them more closely.

Financial and administrative burden. You can’t deem a requested accommodation unreasonable simply because it costs time and money to provide. The burden must be “undue,” based on the accommodation’s costs, the landlord’s financial resources, the benefits to the requestor, and the availability of cheaper, easier alternatives that would effectively meet the requestor’s needs. Examples of accommodations for disabilities that would impose undue financial or administrative burden would include making structural changes to common areas or completely paving over and reconstructing the entire parking lot for the sake of one tenant.  

Fundamental alteration. Accommodations require “fundamental alterations” when they alter the essential nature of a landlord’s operations.

Example: A tenant with a severe mobility impairment asks his landlord to transport him to the grocery store and help him with his grocery shopping. The request wouldn’t be a reasonable accommodation to the extent that the landlord doesn’t provide any transportation or shopping services for any of its tenants, according to the Guidelines.

Harm or damage to others. You don’t have to make accommodations that would endanger the health and safety of others or pose the risk of unreasonable damage to property, such as by making an exception to a no-pets policy to allow a tenant to keep a full-grown elephant or camel in her apartment as a “therapy animal.”   

Detrimental to other disabled persons. Accommodations aren’t reasonable if they require you to deprive other disabled applicants or tenants an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their own apartments. For example, you don’t have to force one mobility-impaired tenant to vacate a ground-floor apartment or give up a reserved accessible parking space in favor of another tenant who’s “more disabled.” If resources are limited, create a waiting list for granting requests as things open up in the order you receive them based on which disabled tenant has been waiting the longest.

Technologically impossible. Accommodations aren’t reasonable if they’re technologically impossible. Thus, for example, the owner of a three-story prewar urban brownstone building wouldn’t have to—and probably wouldn’t be able to—install an elevator just so a mobility-impaired tenant could continue living on the third floor.   

Strategy: It’s a good idea to consult an attorney for advice before notifying the requestor of your decision if, for whatever reason, you determine that a requested accommodation is unreasonable.

Step 7: Consider Alternative Accommodations If Request Is Unreasonable

The accommodations process shouldn’t end simply because you conclude that a requested accommodation is unreasonable. Before you reject the request, dig deeper and ask yourself this question: Is there some other change you can make or action you can take that would enable the requestor to more fully use and enjoy his or her home?

Example: Let’s go back to the example above where a disabled tenant’s request that a landlord drive him to the grocery store would be deemed an unreasonable accommodation to the extent such services aren’t offered to any tenants. Even though the landlord can deny the request, it should consider alternatives that would meet the tenant’s needs without forcing a fundamental alteration of operations. For example, maybe it can alter its parking policy to allow a local volunteer to park her car close to the tenant’s apartment so she can drive him to the store and help him shop for groceries.

You can also offer easier or cheaper alternatives to those who make reasonable requests. However, if an accommodation is reasonable, the requestor isn’t obligated to accept any of your suggested alternatives.

Step 8: Don’t Charge Accommodation Request Fees or Deposits

The Guidelines state that you can’t make individuals with disabilities pay extra fees or deposits as a condition for receiving a requested accommodation. That includes charging an administrative fee for processing an accommodation request. If an accommodation is reasonable, you must pay the associated costs out of your own pocket and not charge the requestor a fee or deposit to defray the associated expenses.  

Example: A Pennsylvania seniors housing provider had to shell out $80,000 to settle discrimination claims brought by mobility-impaired tenants and fair housing agencies, including for allegedly charging disabled tenants as much as $350 for designated parking spaces necessary to make their apartments accessible [Clover Group, May 2020].

Similarly, if an accommodation is reasonable, you must provide it without imposing financial or other conditions, such as by requiring tenants to pay “pet deposits” or carry extra insurance coverage for their service animals.

Example: A Minnesota apartment community paid $35,000 to settle claims of placing undue conditions on a tenant’s request for a service animal by requiring her to:

• Buy an insurance policy covering the dog and listing the landlord as a co-insured;
• Make the dog wear a special emotional support animal vest at all times outside the apartment; and
• Sign an “indemnification and hold harmless waiver” covering the landlord against any harm the dog caused [United States v. Brooklyn Park 73rd Leased Housing Assoc., LLC, (D. Minn., Jan. 22, 2016)].

Step 9: Don’t Retaliate Against Persons for Requesting Accommodations

You can’t evict, reject, or take any other adverse action against any person for requesting a reasonable accommodation. You can be liable even if retaliation is just one motive for a decision—for example, evicting a tenant for not paying rent and for requesting an accommodation.

Example: A Tennessee landlord evicted a disabled tenant after he requested reasonable modifications (removal of a concrete parking bumper) and accommodations (two assigned parking spaces). The tenant filed a complaint with HUD, claiming the eviction was retaliatory. Rather than risk a trial, the landlord paid $52,500 to settle the claims [United States v. Fairfax Manor Group, LLC, (W.D. Tenn., March 19, 2018)].

Step 10: Keep Requestor’s Personal Information Confidential

The personal information you collect to process an applicant or tenant’s request for a disability accommodation is protected by privacy laws. Result: You must keep the information confidential and secure, use it only for purposes of processing the accommodation request, and not disclose it to others except when you’re legally required to do so, such as when  a court issues a subpoena requiring you to disclose the information. These privacy obligations apply regardless of whether you ultimately grant or deny the accommodation request.

Screening Criteria

 

The manufactured housing section of Oregon's landlord-tenant law provides that "Any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser... as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home" should be disclosed in the rental or lease agreement."[1] Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

 

 

MHCO's rental and lease agreement forms[2] contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as: (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

 

 

Although there may be other criteria that landlords may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant as a tenant, the above list is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a tenant wishes to sell their home on site. MHCO additionally has an application form which solicits this and other information from prospective tenants.

 

 

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check that provides the necessary verification. Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day period within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does not prohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees. Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete - and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned. Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided bad information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

 

 

It is also important to note that Oregon law permits the '_landlord and the prospective purchaser (to) agree to a longer time period for the landlord to evaluate the prospective purchaser's application or to allow the prospective purchaser to address any failure to meet the landlord's screening or admission criteria." Thus, as noted on the MHCO Application form, there is a place for the landlord to insert a period longer than the statutory seven day period. If the landlord suspects any delay, either on the applicant's part or his own part, a longer period should be inserted. If the applicant rejects this extension, then the landlord can decide whether he wants to proceed to process the application at all.

 

 

Note: If a tenant has not previously given the landlord the 10 days' advance notice of intent to sell as required in ORS 90.680(4) (a), the landlord's seven day response time is extended to 10 days. But remember, in no instances does the landlord have to receipt and process an inaccurate or incomplete application. It is better not to accept a defective application - or return it immediately upon finding that it is inaccurate or incomplete, than continuing to process it.

 

 

If a landlord requires a prospective purchaser to submit an application for occupancy at the time that the landlord gives the prospective purchaser the application the landlord shall also give the prospective purchaser copies of the statement of policy, the rental agreement and the facility rules and regulations, including any conditions imposed on a subsequent sale. It is important to remember that the terms of these park document given to the prospective tenant need not be the same as those in the existing (i.e. selling) tenant's documents.[3]

 

 

Park Documents.

 

 

Landlords and managers should always remember that when they change one of the park documents, they may have to change others. This is because of two risks: (a) The failure to incorporate a change in the lease, say, into the Statement of Policy, and (b) An inconsistency between one or more of the park documents, such as the rental agreement and the rules. Rules can generally be changed in the middle of a tenancy, but rental agreements cannot. So landlords should remember to make sure their documents are all internally consistent.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair Housing Laws.

 

 

 

 

 

The state and federal fair housing laws are essentially - but not completely - the same. Landlords and managers should familiarize themselves with any special ordinances found in their city or county laws. However, Oregon law prohibits any form of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing when directed at the following protected classes: '_race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income."[4] The easiest, best, and safest way to deal with the risk of a discrimination claim is to make all screening criteria facially neutral. Do not have rules which - even unintentionally - could have a negative impact on a member of a protected class.

 

 

In Oregon, most claims of discrimination relate to familial status. Examples range from managers encouraging families to purchase and reside in one particular area of the community (where there are more children), to making off-hand comments to applicants (e.g. "there would be very few children for your kids to play with here") that may be construed as indicating a desire not to rent to people with children. For this reason, landlords and managers should strive to apply their screening criteria neutrally regardless of the applicant's membership in a protected class.

 

 

Additionally, caution should be exercised in answering questions over the phone, since federal and state "testers" have been known to test parks by making multiple phone calls asking various loaded questions, such as "Is this a good place to raise my children?" If the community is a family park, the best response to open-ended telephone inquiries is to tell the caller that it is a family park, open to all, and that they are welcome to come in and pick up an application for processing.

 

 

One of the biggest areas of concern for landlords and managers today involve issues of immigration status. At the risk of minimizing the problem, there is one basic rule that landlords and managers should always remember when screening applicants. While it is not a "silver bullet," it should help avoid the vast majority of issues regarding immigration status. Never treat any single applicant differently from another. This means that landlords should not automatically "suspect" that certain persons are illegally in this country and then impose more rigorous screening criteria on them alone. It is best not to ask about immigration status.[5] If the applicant passes the same screening criteria imposed upon others, and all of the information in their application checks out, you should accept the current applicant, regardless of whether you have suspicions about their immigration status. One of the frequently asked questions is whether a landlord may insist that applicants provide their social security number. While this is not automatically illegal, it can be when applied to some applicants and not others. Consistency is the name of the game. Do not request verification in some cases and not others. Do not accept some tenants who fail to provide the number, but accept others (who are not obviously immigrants) without also providing such proof.

 

 

Another area of concern is occupancy limits or extra occupancy charges.[6] This is somewhat of a grey area because Oregon law currently permits a two person per bedroom rule - assuming that it is expressly listed as part of the park's screening criteria and uniformly applied. However, the problem is that federal law contains no specific occupancy limits. This means that, in theory, one could be in compliance with state law, while violating federal law. For example, if a family consisted of two adults and three children who owned a 2-bedroom home, a "2-persons per bedroom" requirement would mean that they could not move into the park. But if the third child was an infant who slept in the parents' room, one may ask whether this standard is reasonable, even though it complies with Oregon law. At the risk of violating federal law, which imposes no such occupancy limits, the better approach might be to avoid the "slippery slope" problem entirely, by not creating occupancy limits.[7]

 

 

Perhaps the most difficult of screening criteria issues is in the area of assistance animals. Since handicap is a protected class, this means that if one could establish a legitimate need for an assistance animal they could not be prevented from having one - even though the park might have a one-pet policy and this might be their second pet. This could be so even though the animal was not trained or certified in providing assistance. MHCO has Form 15 that may be given to tenants applying for a "reasonable accommodation" which is the technical term used when an allegedly handicapped person requests relief from strict application of a rule that interferes with their handicapped. [8] As most landlords and managers know, the handicap protections can be severely stretched. There are many reasons for this, including, among other things, the handicap may be allegedly psychological, and the tenant has nothing more than a note from a doctor - not a treating psychologist or psychiatrist.

 

 

The other difficult issue is that assistant animals are not technically "pets" and therefore are not subject to the requirement that the Pet Agreement be completed. Ultimately it comes down to a rule of reason and proof. Does it appear that the person requesting the accommodation is legitimately handicapped? Do they have a known history of the handicap - that is, has it ever come up before? Does it appear that the claim of a handicap is new, and possibly raised as a pretext, say to circumvent a one-pet policy?

 

 

Ultimately, the issue comes down to public safety in the community. For example, if the tenant wanted to have a pit bull (in violation of a dangerous breed prohibition) or a bull-mastiff (in violation of a size restriction), the landlord should ask which battle he or she wants to fight? If the tenant isn't credible, has a history of skirting the rules on this or other issues, it might make sense to refuse and let them take the next step. If they bring the animal into the park in light of the denial, you will have a choice; either do nothing or send out a notice of violation which would require removal of the animal. The risk in allowing dangerous or oversized breed into the park is that it may harm someone, and then the landlord will have to defend a lawsuit for failing to enforce their own rules. Additionally, in consenting, the precedent has been set, now permitting such animals based upon a tenant's assertion the need it for assistance. Remember, "reasonable accommodations" need only be "reasonable." Dogs with vicious propensities or who pose danger to children because of their size, are not the only type of assistance animals available.

 

 

Marijuana cards raise the same issue, although perhaps even worse, since the cards seem to be freely given to almost anyone. In some cases, however, this too can be dealt with on another level. If the persons with medical marijuana cards have an inordinate amount of traffic at their home throughout the day and night, perhaps the issue is one for the police, since it is still illegal to sell or distribute marijuana, medical or otherwise. If they are dealing in the illegal drug, careful (documented) scrutiny of these comings and goings might prove useful.

 

 

Miscellaneous Screening and Application Issues

 

 

• Occasionally, tenants apply for occupancy even though they cannot afford to purchase the home on their own, and perhaps would not qualify under the financial criteria imposed for acceptance into the park. However, they may have a parent or other person willing to assist in the purchase and willing to guarantee the applicant's performance. There is nothing wrong with this approach, assuming that the guarantor passes all of the financial criteria the park would impose. First, remember that the guarantor will not be living in the home - they may have their own housing requirements that impose financial limitations on them. If the tenant defaults, can the guarantor actually afford to pay the space rent? Under such cases, the financial criteria applied to co-signers should be more rigorous than those imposed on tenant applicants. Secondly, landlords should be sure to have their attorney draft a solid guarantee agreement that gives them the right to seek payment against the guarantor without having to first evict the tenant. Third, before accepting a co-signer, a landlord should ask whether they have a sufficiently significant relationship with the applicant such that they will actually be willing to subsidize the space rent if it is not paid.

 

 

• A fundamental problem in the tenant screening process is the denial process. Landlords must be prompt in informing applicants if their application is denied. Obviously, a denial can provoke an angry response. Landlords need to be proactive. MHCO has two forms to address the issue, so that the landlord or manager does not have to engage in any more explanation than that provided in the form. MHCO Form 10, identifies the source of the material or information resulting in the turn down. That is all the landlord is required to do, unless it comes from a credit reporting agency. In that case, MHCO's Form 10A should be given so that applicant has the ability to know which credit company was involved and track down the source of the information.

 

• It is due to financial issues that many applicants get turned down. Especially today. For that reason, MHCO has developed the "Straight Talk" form, describing manufactured home living and affordability issues. It should be used in all cases, if possible.

 

 

• Although we discussed the Statement of Policy ("SOP") above, there are two additional points to be made: (a) Always be sure to obtain a receipt (MHCO Form 7C), since it is proof positive that the resident received the SOP and the Rules and Rental or Lease Agreement. Without the receipt, the tenant can deny receiving it, and the burden of proof to establish delivery is on the landlord. This can be a difficult task unless witnesses were present who can verify delivery. (b) The second item to note is use of the Rent History attachment to the SOP a copy of the Rent History (Form 7A). This permits the tenant to see the monthly base rent for each of the five years preceding the current year of tenancy.

 

 

• Perhaps one of the most important (and newest) forms if not used, is the Flood Plain Notice (MHCO Form 6). It notifies those residents whose homes are located in all or part of a 100-year floodplain. This means that landlords and/or their managers, should look at a current FEMA map to determine whether all or a portion of their park is located inside such a plain. If so, those residents whose spaces are in the floodplain should be notified. While technically, being located in a 100-year floodplain means that flood water levels are statistically expected to flood onto the plain once every 100 years, most people realize that over the course of 100 years, there could be three or more such floods or none at all. The MHCO form, in compliance with Oregon statute, suggests to those receiving the notice that they consider obtaining flood insurance. The good news is that once having given this notice, a landlord is not liable for any uninsured water loss suffered by the resident due to a flood; the bad news is that failing to give the notice can subject the landlord to the lesser of two months' rent or the resident's actual damages, whichever is less.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes. Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly sometimes results in the process becoming rushed. And landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them. Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed. Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws.

 

[1] Rental Agreement MHCO Form 5A and Lease Agreement Form 5B.

[2] Rental Application MHCO Form 1, and Application Screening Charge Notice and Receipt, MHCO Form 9.

[3] See, ORS 90.680(5)

[4] Source of income would refer to whether the applicant was receiving some form of state or federal assistance, or child support, for example.

[5] While compliance with the law seems like a reasonable area of inquiry, the problem is that managers and landlords don't ask this question of a family from England or Germany. This creates the appearance that questions regarding immigration status are reserved for Latinos or those from other Central American countries. National origin is a constitutionally protected class. As a result, this type of selective screening creates (in legal terms) a "disparate impact" on folks from Mexico and Central America, and can therefore be found to be a violation of the Fair Housing laws.

[6] Occupancy limits are sometimes used as "tools" by landlords to impose restrictions on persons with larger families, and therefore poses a potential violation of the familial status protected status. This has not been a significant problem Oregon.

[7] Generally, the only strong justification for occupancy limits in family parks is where it can be claimed that too many people in a home overtaxes the utility systems. While legitimate in some instances, proving it could be very costly.

[8] However, prudence should be exercised here. You would not ask an obviously blind person to fill out a request for reasonable accommodation when asking for a guide dog.

Screening Criteria

 

The manufactured housing section of Oregon’s landlord-tenant law provides that “Any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser…as a tenant in the event the tenant elects to sell the home” should be disclosed in the rental or lease agreement.”[1]Although those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal laws, there are no limitations or restrictions as to what may be placed in the rental or lease agreement.

 

MHCO’s rental and lease agreement forms[2]contain a number of criteria that landlords may impose, such as:  (a) prior rental references; (b) unsatisfactory credit history or no credit history; (c) character references; (d) criminal history; (e) insufficient income to reasonably meet the monthly space rent and other expense obligations imposed by the rental or lease agreement; (f) the presence, number and size of pets; (g) age verification criteria if the park is a 55+ facility; (h) evidence of falsified or misleading material information; (i) refusal to sign a written lease or rental agreement; (j) additional occupants; and (k) adverse public record information.

 

Although there may be other criteria that landlords may wish to use when deciding whether to accept an applicant as a tenant, the above list is very comprehensive, and should be sufficient in imposing adequate guidelines when a tenant wishes to sell their home on site.  MHCO additionally has an application form which solicits this and other information from prospective tenants.

 

Landlords and managers should become familiar with the criteria imposed in their rental agreements and rental application forms. Additionally, they should not rely upon the application information submitted to them without a thorough background check that provides the necessary verification.  Although Oregon law imposes a 7-day period within which landlords have to respond to a submitted application, it does notprohibit landlords from imposing a longer period so long as the applicant agrees.  Additionally, Oregon law expressly states that the 7-day period does not commence if the application is incomplete or inaccurate.  Accordingly, landlords and managers would be wise to immediately return any submitted application if it is incomplete – and upon discovering that the prospective tenant/purchaser provided inaccurate information, the application should also be returned.  Accepting an incomplete application or continuing with the process after discovering that the applicant has provided bad information can result in an argument by the existing tenant or the new applicant that the landlord is intentionally delaying the process.

 

It is also important to note that Oregon law permits the “…landlord and the prospective purchaser (to) agree to a longer time period for the landlord to evaluate the prospective purchaser’s application or to allow the prospective purchaser to address any failure to meet the landlord’s screening or admission criteria.”  Thus, as noted on the MHCO Application form, there is a place for the landlord to insert a period longer than the statutory seven day period.  If the landlord suspects any delay, either on the applicant’s part or his own part, a longer period should be inserted. If the applicant rejects this extension, then the landlord can decide whether he wants to proceed to process the application at all.

 

Note: If a tenant has not previously given the landlord the 10 days’ advance notice of intent to sell as required in ORS 90.680(4) (a), the landlord’s seven day response time is extended to 10 days. But remember, in no instances does the landlord have to receipt and process an inaccurate or incomplete application.  It is better not to accept a defective application – or return it immediately upon finding that it is inaccurate or incomplete, than continuing to process it. 

 

If a landlord requires a prospective purchaser to submit an application for occupancy at the time that the landlord gives the prospective purchaser the application the landlord shall also give the prospective purchaser copies of the statement of policy, the rental agreement and the facility rules and regulations, including any conditions imposed on a subsequent sale. It is important to remember that the terms of these park document given to the prospective tenant need not be the same as those in the existing (i.e. selling) tenant’s documents.[3]

 

Park Documents. 

 

Landlords and managers should always remember that when they change one of the park documents, they may have to change others. This is because of two risks: (a) The failure to incorporate a change in the lease, say, into the Statement of Policy, and (b) An inconsistency between one or more of the park documents, such as the rental agreement and the rules. Rules can generally be changed in the middle of a tenancy, but rental agreements cannot.  So landlords should remember to make sure their documents are all internally consistent.

 

 

 

 

Fair Housing Laws.

 

The state and federal fair housing laws are essentially – but not completely – the same.  Landlords and managers should familiarize themselves with any special ordinances found in their city or county laws.  However, Oregon law prohibits any form of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing when directed at the following protected classes: “…race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income.”[4]  The easiest, best, and safest way to deal with the risk of a discrimination claim is to make all screening criteria facially neutral.  Do not have rules which – even unintentionally - could have a negative impact on a member of a protected class.  

 

In Oregon, most claims of discrimination relate to familial status.  Examples range from managers encouraging families to purchase and reside in one particular area of the community (where there are more children), to making off-hand comments to applicants (e.g. “there would be very few children for your kids to play with here”) that may be construed as indicating a desire not to rent to people with children.  For this reason, landlords and managers should strive to apply their screening criteria neutrallyregardless of the applicant’s membership in a protected class.  

 

Additionally, caution should be exercised in answering questions over the phone, since federal and state “testers” have been known to test parks by making multiple phone calls asking various loaded questions, such as “Is this a good place to raise my children?”  If the community is a family park, the best response to open-ended telephone inquiries is to tell the caller that it is a family park, open to all, and that they are welcome to come in and pick up an application for processing.

 

One of the biggest areas of concern for landlords and managers today involve issues of immigration status.  At the risk of minimizing the problem, there is one basic rule that landlords and managers should always remember when screening applicants. While it is not a “silver bullet,” it should help avoid the vast majority of issues regarding immigration status.  Never treat any single applicant differently from another.  This means that landlords should not automatically “suspect” that certain persons are illegally in this country and then impose more rigorous screening criteria on them alone.  It is best not to ask about immigration status.[5]  If the applicant passes the same screening criteria imposed upon others, and all of the information in their application checks out, you should accept the current applicant, regardless of whether you have suspicions about their immigration status. One of the frequently asked questions is whether a landlord may insist that applicants provide their social security number.  While this is not automatically illegal, it can be when applied to some applicants and not others.  Consistency is the name of the game.  Do not request verification in some cases and not others.  Do not accept some tenants who fail to provide the number, but accept others (who are not obviously immigrants) without also providing such proof.

 

Another area of concern is occupancy limits or extra occupancy charges.[6]  This is somewhat of a grey area because Oregon law currently permits a two person per bedroom rule – assuming that it is expressly listed as part of the park’s screening criteria and uniformly applied.  However, the problem is that federal law contains no specific occupancy limits.  This means that, in theory, one could be in compliance with state law, while violating federal law.  For example, if a family consisted of two adults and three children who owned a 2-bedroom home, a "2-persons per bedroom" requirement would mean that they could not move into the park.  But if the third child was an infant who slept in the parents’ room, one may ask whether this standard is reasonable, even though it complies with Oregon law.  At the risk of violating federal law, which imposes no such occupancy limits, the better approach might be to avoid the “slippery slope” problem entirely, by not creating occupancy limits.[7]  

 

Perhaps the most difficult of screening criteria issues is in the area of assistance animals.  Since handicap is a protected class, this means that if one could establish a legitimate need for an assistance animal they could not be prevented from having one – even though the park might have a one-pet policy and this might be their second pet.  This could be so even though the animal was not trained or certified in providing assistance. MHCO has Form 15 that may be given to tenants applying for a “reasonable accommodation” which is the technical term used when an allegedly handicapped person requests relief from strict application of a rule that interferes with their handicapped. [8]As most landlords and managers know, the handicap protections can be severely stretched.  There are many reasons for this, including, among other things, the handicap may be allegedly psychological, and the tenant has nothing more than a note from a doctor – not a treating psychologist or psychiatrist. 

 

The other difficult issue is that assistant animals are not technically “pets” and therefore are not subject to the requirement that the Pet Agreement be completed.  Ultimately it comes down to a rule of reason and proof.  Does it appear that the person requesting the accommodation is legitimately handicapped? Do they have a known history of the handicap – that is, has it ever come up before?  Does it appear that the claim of a handicap is new, and possibly raised as a pretext, say to circumvent a one-pet policy?  

 

Ultimately, the issue comes down to public safety in the community.  For example, if the tenant wanted to have a pit bull (in violation of a dangerous breed prohibition) or a bull-mastiff (in violation of a size restriction), the landlord should ask which battle he or she wants to fight?  If the tenant isn’t credible, has a history of skirting the rules on this or other issues, it might make sense to refuse and let them take the next step.  If they bring the animal into the park in light of the denial, you will have a choice; either do nothing or send out a notice of violation which would require removal of the animal.  The risk in allowing dangerous or oversized breed into the park is that it may harm someone, and then the landlord will have to defend a lawsuit for failing to enforce their own rules.  Additionally, in consenting, the precedent has been set, now permitting such animals based upon a tenant’s assertion the need it for assistance.  Remember, “reasonable accommodations” need only be “reasonable.”  Dogs with vicious propensities or who pose danger to children because of their size, are not the only type of assistance animals available.

 

Marijuana cards raise the same issue, although perhaps even worse, since the cards seem to be freely given to almost anyone.  In some cases, however, this too can be dealt with on another level. If the persons with medical marijuana cards have an inordinate amount of traffic at their home throughout the day and night, perhaps the issue is one for the police, since it is still illegal to sell or distribute marijuana, medical or otherwise.  If they are dealing in the illegal drug, careful (documented) scrutiny of these comings and goings might prove useful.

 

Miscellaneous Screening and Application Issues

 

• Occasionally, tenants apply for occupancy even though they cannot afford to purchase the home on their own, and perhaps would not qualify under the financial criteria imposed for acceptance into the park.  However, they may have a parent or other person willing to assist in the purchase and willing to guarantee the applicant’s performance.  There is nothing wrong with this approach, assuming that the guarantor passes all of the financial criteria the park would impose.  First, remember that the guarantor will not be living in the home – they may have their own housing requirements that impose financial limitations on them.  If the tenant defaults, can the guarantor actuallyaffordto pay the space rent?  Under such cases, the financial criteria applied to co-signers should be more rigorous than those imposed on tenant applicants.  Secondly, landlords should be sure to have their attorney draft a solid guarantee agreement that gives them the right to seek payment against the guarantor without having to first evict the tenant.  Third, before accepting a co-signer, a landlord should ask whether they have a sufficiently significant relationship with the applicant such that they will actually be willing to subsidize the space rent if it is not paid.  

 

• A fundamental problem in the tenant screening process is the denial process.  Landlords must be prompt in informing applicants if their application is denied. Obviously, a denial can provoke an angry response.  Landlords need to be proactive.  MHCO has two forms to address the issue, so that the landlord or manager does not have to engage in any more explanation than that provided in the form.  MHCO Form 10, identifies the source of the material or information resulting in the turn down.  That is all the landlord is required to do, unless it comes from a credit reporting agency. In that case, MHCO’s Form 10A should be given so that applicant has the ability to know which credit company was involved and track down the source of the information.  

 

• It is due to financial issues that many applicants get turned down.  Especially today. For that reason, MHCO has developed the “Straight Talk” form, describing manufactured home living and affordability issues.  It should be used in all cases, if possible. 

 

• Although we discussed the Statement of Policy (“SOP”) above, there are two additional points to be made: (a) Always be sure to obtain a receipt (MHCO Form 7C), since it is proof positive that the resident received the SOP and the Rules and Rental or Lease Agreement.  Without the receipt, the tenant can deny receiving it, and the burden of proof to establish delivery is on the landlord.  This can be a difficult task unless witnesses were present who can verify delivery.  (b) The second item to note is use of the Rent History attachment to the SOP a copy of the Rent History (Form 7A).  This permits the tenant to see the monthly base rent for each of the five years preceding the current year of tenancy.

 

• Perhaps one of the most important (and newest) forms if not used, is the Flood Plain Notice (MHCO Form 6).  It notifies those residents whose homes are located in all or part of a 100-year floodplain.  This means that landlords and/or their managers, should look at a currentFEMA map to determine whether all or a portion of their park is located inside such a plain.  If so, those residents whose spaces are in the floodplain should be notified.  While technically, being located in a 100-year floodplain means that flood water levels are statistically expected to flood onto the plain once every 100 years, most people realize that over the course of 100 years, there could be three or more such floods or none at all.  The MHCO form, in compliance with Oregon statute, suggests to those receiving the notice that they consider obtaining flood insurance.  The good news is that once having given this notice, a landlord is not liable for any uninsured water loss suffered by the resident due to a flood; the bad news is that failing to give the notice can subject the landlord to the lesser of two months’ rent or the resident’s actual damages, whichever is less.

 

Conclusion

 

Landlords would have fewer tenant problems if they took more time during the screening process. This means resisting the temptation to fill a space quicker than the approval process actually takes.  Unfortunately, the desire to have the rental flow commence quickly sometimes results in the process becoming rushed.  And landlords and managers should never allow the applicant to rush them.  Nor should they ever permit an applicant to move into a home before the process has been completed and a new rental agreement signed.  Lastly, fairness and uniformity in screening will help to avoid the ever-present liability that can occur under the federal and state Fair Housing laws.

 

©Copyright by Phillip C. Querin. No portion may be reproduced without the express written consent of the author.

 

[1]Rental Agreement MHCO Form 5A and Lease Agreement Form 5B.

[2]Rental Application MHCO Form 1, and Application Screening Charge Notice and Receipt, MHCO Form 9.

[3]See, ORS 90.680(5)

[4]Source of income would refer to whether the applicant was receiving some form of state or federal assistance, or child support, for example.

[5]While compliance with the law seems like a reasonable area of inquiry, the problem is that managers and landlords don’t ask this question of a family from England or Germany.  This creates the appearance that questions regarding immigration status are reserved for Latinos or those from other Central American countries. National origin is a constitutionally protected class.  As a result, this type of selective screening creates (in legal terms) a “disparate impact” on folks from Mexico and Central America, and can therefore be found to be a violation of the Fair Housing laws.

[6]Occupancy limits are sometimes used as “tools” by landlords to impose restrictions on persons with larger families, and therefore poses a potential violation of the familial status protected status.  This has not been a significant problem Oregon.

[7]Generally, the only strong justification for occupancy limits in family parks is where it can be claimed that too many people in a home overtaxes the utility systems.  While legitimate in some instances, proving it could be very costly. 

[8]However, prudence should be exercised here. You would not ask an obviously blind person to fill out a request for reasonable accommodation when asking for a guide dog.

We’ll explain the current state of the fair housing law governing whether landlords can be liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment. We’ll outline the seven things you can do to manage these liability risks, and we’ll give you a tool, a Model Anti-Harassment Policy for Tenants, that you can use to implement these measures. We’ll finish the lesson with a Coach’s Quiz so you can see how well you learned the material.   

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap (disability). The FHA doesn’t specifically use the word “harassment.” But it’s well established that harassment is a form of illegal discrimination banned by general provisions of the law, including:

• Section 3604(b), which makes it illegal to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, on in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith”; and
• Section 3617, which makes it illegal to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere” with those who exercise their fair housing rights.

These provisions enable courts to hold landlords liable for the harassment they commit personally. But establishing landlord liability gets trickier when the harassment is committed by a third party.

What’s the basis for holding landlords liable for third-party harassment? Historically, the theory is based on comparing housing discrimination banned by the FHA, a.k.a. Title VIII of the federal Civil Rights Act, to employment discrimination banned by Title VII. The employer’s Title VII duty to protect employees from workplace harassment applies not only to their own conduct but also to that of managers, supervisors, and employees under their control. Over the years, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), courts, and fair housing tribunals have looked to Title VII for guidance in interpreting Title VIII as making landlords and other housing providers liable for harassment committed by managers, leasing agents, and other third parties under their control.

But using the Title VII comparison to hold landlords liable for harassment committed by tenantstakes a bigger leap of faith. After all, landlords don’t control their tenants the way employers control their employees. To get around this hurdle, HUD, courts, and tribunals have relied on the tort law standard of negligence to argue that landlords have a duty to prevent harassment that they know or should reasonably know about. Even though landlords don’t control tenants, they are in a position to take measures to prevent them from harassing other tenants.

The 2016 HUD Regulations

On Sept. 14, 2016, HUD took the first steps to turn what had previously been just a theory into an actionable legal principle by publishing new regulations holding housing providers responsible for failing to “take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party, where the [provider] knew or should have known” of the conduct and “had the power to correct it.”

Using the Title VII employment analogy, the regulations (entitled “Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices Under the Fair Housing Act”) state that landlords can be liable for a “hostile housing environment” the way employers are for a “hostile work environment.”

The regulations define hostile environment harassment as unwelcome conduct that’s “sufficiently severe or pervasive as to interfere with. . . the [tenant’s] use or enjoyment of a dwelling.” Determination of whether hostile environment harassment exists is based on an objective, rather than subjective standard—that is, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the tenant’s position, as opposed to how the tenant actually experienced it. Key factors in the determination include:  

• The nature of the conduct;
• Where it took place;
• How often it took place (although a single incident may be enough if the conduct is egregious enough); and
• The relationship between the alleged harasser and the victim.

The Courts

Less than five months after their publication, the HUD regulations were relegated to the mothballs by the new Trump administration. As a result, the spotlight passed to the courts. There have been two significant federal court rulings on landlord liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment, one going for and the other against the landlord.

Landlord Is Liable: The Wetzel Case. Already grieving from the loss of her lover of 30 years to cancer, Marsha Wetzel’s life became a living hell once she moved into her Illinois retirement community. For 15 months, neighboring tenants regaled her with obscenity and verbal abuse because of her sexuality. They called her a “f***** d***” and a “lesbian f*****.” They harassed her physically, once knocking her off her motor scooter. Wetzel complained repeatedly to the landlord. But instead of stepping in to rein in the harassment, management labeled her a troublemaker and plotted her eviction.

Wetzel sued, but the federal court said that landlords aren’t responsible for tenant-on-tenant harassment under the FHA and tossed the case. In a landmark ruling, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that she had a valid FHA claim for hostile environment harassment. To prove such a claim, a tenant must prove three things, the court reasoned:

1. The tenant suffered harassment based on a protected characteristic (in Wetzel’s case, her sexual orientation);
2. The harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with her tenancy; and
3. The landlord knew about the harassment but didn’t take steps to stop it.

Although the decision tracks the HUD regulations, there’s one crucial difference: Unlike the regulations that hold landlords accountable for harassment they know or should reasonably know about, the court ruled that a landlord must have actual notice of the harassment, which the landlord in this case did [Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018)].

Landlord Is Not Liable: The Francis Case. A case from New York had similar facts but a totally different outcome. Like Wetzel, the New York tenant in this case was the target of “a brazen and relentless campaign of racial harassment, abuse, and threats” authored by his neighbor. And like Wetzel, his appeals for help from the landlord fell on deaf ears.

But that’s where the similarities ended. Unlike the Seventh Circuit, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, 7 to 5, that landlords can’t be liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment, even if they know it’s taking place, because they don’t exercise control over tenants’ behavior. To rule otherwise, the majority reasoned, would force landlords to intervene in a wide range of common disputes between neighbors [Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 8761, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 1137441].

The Bottom Line. The question of whether landlords have a fair housing duty to protect tenants from harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap (disability) and additional protected characteristics under state laws, remains unresolved at this time—other than in the Seventh Circuit, where such a duty does exist and the Second Circuit where it doesn’t. But there are nine other circuits that haven’t yet addressed the issue. Meanwhile, the new administration is very likely to adopt the 2016 HUD regulations authored while President Biden served as Vice President (although HUD hasn’t yet officially addressed the issue).

Key question: What, if anything, should you do to prevent tenants from harassing other tenants?

Answer: Take action. Keep in mind that while the current law may be unsettled, for landlords there’s much more at stake than what the law requires. Ensuring a harassment-free housing environment where residents don’t harass their neighbors is not only a moral but a business imperative, at least for landlords who care about the quality of their tenants’ lives. This is true for all forms of tenant-on-tenant harassment, not just harassment based on personal characteristics protected under fair housing laws. And, contrary to what the Francis court says, this anti-harassment imperative is one that landlords can achieve without having to constantly meddle in tenants’ private affairs and squabbles between neighbors.

7 THINGS TO INCLUDE

IN YOUR ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY FOR RESIDENTS

Preventing tenant-on-tenant harassment in housing requires the same approach as preventing employee-on-employee harassment in the workplace. The starting point is to create and implement a written anti-harassment policy for the residents of your community. Like our Model Policy: Adopt Anti-Harassment Policy, Procedure & Guidelines for Tenants, your policy should include seven elements.

Element #1: Anti-Harassment Policy Statement

Start by drawing a line in the sand on harassment. State that, as landlord, you’re committed to providing a harassment-free housing environment enabling all tenants are to enjoy their tenancy. Make it clear that harassment is unacceptable and that you’ll follow a “zero tolerance” approach if anybody at the community engages in it [Policy, Sec. 1].

Element #2: Clear Definition of ‘Harassment’

Just about any kind of unpleasant or unwelcome conduct or treatment can be interpreted as “harassment” the way that word is used in everyday language. But in the fair housing context, “harassment” has a much narrower meaning. It’s important that tenants understand what harassment is so they can regulate their conduct accordingly. Specifically, define “harassment” as “action, conduct, or comment that can reasonably be expected to cause offense, humiliation, or other physical or psychological injury or illness to a tenant or other person.” And be sure to list examples. Equally important, explain what does not constitute harassment—namely, honest, good faith, and respectful disagreements—so tenants don’t “cry wolf” and make unjustified accusations any time they get into an argument with their neighbors.

Strategic Pointer: The Model Policy definition closely tracks HUD regulations in the sense that conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile housing environment. But recognize that discrimination comes into play only when harassment is based on a person’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or other protected class(es) under your state’s fair housing laws. Still, your enemy isn’t just discriminatory harassment but harassment of any kind. Accordingly, your definition should use the phrase “including but not limited to” so that your policy applies to any and all forms of harassment and not just discriminatory harassment [Policy, Sec. 3] .

Element #3: Harassment Reporting Protocols

Now we come to the hard part. Having established the general principles, the balance of your policy should be dedicated to what happens if harassment actually occurs. Since you can’t do anything unless you know about the harassment, the starting point is getting tenants to come forward to report the harassment they suffer or witness. That’s easier said than done.

First Choice: The best outcome is for tenants to settle the issue civilly between themselves without your having to intervene. So, start by suggesting that tenants who feel like they’re being harassed by a neighbor approach the person with their concerns and ask him or her to stop. “Many, if not most disputes between neighbors are the product not of harassment but simple miscommunication or misunderstanding that can be resolved by respectful conversation,” notes a New York fair housing attorney.

Fallback: Harassment victims may not feel comfortable or safe confronting the person who’s harassing them; or they may try the approach and find it ineffective. That’s why you also need to give them a way to summon help from their landlord. Let tenants know that they not only can but are “strongly encouraged” to go to you and report the harassment they experience or witness. Best Practice: Provide not only a contact person but also an alternate off-site person or office to whom tenants can report harassment in case the primary contact is the one who committed (or was otherwise involved in) the alleged harassment.

Safety Net: You also need to tell tenants to call 911, the police, or other emergency responder for help in an emergency, such as where the harassment poses a threat of violence or immediate bodily harm [Policy, Sec. 4].

Element #4: Assurance of Non-Retaliation

Tenants may be hesitant to come forward and report harassment out of fears of retaliation and being labeled a troublemaker—especially when the alleged harasser is a property manager or a powerful, longstanding, or influential tenant. And, while such retaliation is highly illegal, it still happens. Just ask Marsha Wetzel, the tenant that management plotted to get rid of after she complained of harassment. Of course, you’d never let this happen at your community. The problem is that fear and perception may be stronger than reality. That’s why your policy should include clear and strong language (which our Model Policy boldfaces) assuring tenants that they won’t suffer any form of retaliation for reporting harassment [Policy, Sec. 5].

TIME OUT!

Something to Consider: Qualified Retaliation Assurance

Some landlords worry that tenants will abuse their reporting rights to engage in witch hunts or file reports they know are false to harass or carry out a vendetta against tenants they don’t like. One thing you can do to prevent this is to qualify your non-retaliation assurance by indicating that it applies to harassment that tenants report “in good faith.” Because the language is so important to an anti-harassment policy, we chose to leave this qualifying phrase out of our Model Policy.

Don’t punish the victim. Evicting or relocating a tenant for reporting discriminatory harassment is illegal retaliation even when you do it for the tenant’s own protection. Your duty under fair housing laws, in other words, is to protect tenants from harassment without taking away their right to decide where they want to live.

Element #5: Harassment Response & Resolution Protocols

Be aware that in establishing a protocol for tenants to report harassment, you may be taking on additional compliance responsibilities. Explanation: Remember that for a landlord to be liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment, two things must be true:

• The landlord must know about the harassment (this is the Wetzel standard—the HUD regulations go farther by making landlords liable for harassment they should reasonably know about); and
• They must have the power to correct the problem.

The Wetzel standard thus gives you the option of deliberately avoiding knowledge of harassment and the accompanying duty to do something about it. (This ostrich head-in-the-sand strategy wouldn’t be available under the HUD “should reasonably know about” standard.) As a result, reporting creates extra responsibility because once tenants report it to you, you have knowledge of the harassment and must take steps to address it.

The heart of the policy, then, are the provisions explaining how you intend to address the harassment reported to you. Although there’s no one formula, your policy should provide for three layers of response to harassment complaints:

Level 1: Calling for Emergency Help. The first and most immediate concern is to call 911, law enforcement, or other emergency responders if there’s a risk of violence or other emergency. Hopefully, this is something tenants do themselves before reporting the harassment to you [Policy, Sec. 6(a)].

Level 2: Mediation and Conciliation. Being the landlord puts you in the position to intervene and resolve tenant-on-tenant harassment. The most effective way to leverage that position is to empower the tenants to resolve things themselves by acting as a neutral mediator or conciliator. Bring the parties together, listen to both sides of the story, seek common grounds of agreement, and suggest resolutions [Policy, Sec. 6(b)].

Level 3: Investigation. For mediation to work, both sides must be willing to work together in good faith to resolve their dispute. So, you need to have some other mechanism to deal with harassment complaints that mediation can’t resolve. At that point, the imperative becomes to determine exactly what happened and whether the harassment accusations are true. Accordingly, your policy should provide for a full, fast, and fair investigation. While procedures vary depending on the circumstances and situations, investigations should be carried out by a qualified and neutral investigator who isn’t involved in the disputes and is deemed impartial to both parties [Policy, Sec. 6(c)].

The policy should also include assurances that you’ll keep the investigation report and other personal information about the tenants involved confidential and not disclose it to third parties unless the laws allow or require you to do so [Policy, Sec. 6(d)]. In addition, you should describe the steps you’ll take to support tenants who suffer harassment. At a minimum, that should include providing victims with information about the medical, psychological, or other support services available; if feasible, you might also want to pay all or some of the costs for such services [Policy, Sec. 6(e)].

Element #6: Potential Discipline for Harassment Violations

Having an anti-harassment policy is worse than useless if you’re not prepared to hold tenants accountable for the harassment they commit. Such accountability should include reserving the right to discipline and even evict tenants found to have engaged in harassment, particularly when that harassment is based on the victim’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or other protected class(es) under your state’s fair housing laws.

Accordingly, your policy should state that harassment is a “material” violation of the lease that may justify termination of the harasser’s tenancy. The good news is that your standard lease probably already includes provisions governing tenant conduct that you can rely on to enforce this rule, including the requirement that tenants (and other persons on the premises with tenants’ consent):

• Conduct themselves in a civil, respectful, and lawful manner at all times;
• Refrain from annoying, harassing, embarrassing, disturbing, inconveniencing, or harming other tenants or persons on the premises; and
• Not engage in acts of discrimination, nuisance, breach of the peace, or any other illegal activity.

Be careful how you word the disciplinary provisions. What you want to do is reserve the right to evict for a first offense; what you don’t want to do is require termination automatically and fail to leave yourself leeway to impose lesser discipline for less severe offenses and/or tenants you believe are capable of correcting their behavior [Policy, Sec. 7].  

Element #7: Clarification of Tenant’s Right to File a Fair Housing Complaint

Based on best practices and principles of employment discrimination law, anti-harassment policies should include clear language spelling out that victims of harassment based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or other protected class(es) under your state’s fair housing laws have the right to file a fair housing discrimination complaint. Otherwise, victims may think that the anti-harassment policy is designed to substitute rather than supplement their fair housing protection rights [Policy, Sec. 8].

 

The CDC has warned against stigmatizing people or groups because of COVID-19. Health officials noted that people in the United States may be worried or anxious about friends and relatives who are living in or visiting areas where COVID-19 is spreading. Some people are worried about getting the disease from these people. Fear and anxiety can lead to social stigma, for example, toward people who live in certain parts of the world, people who have traveled internationally, people who were in quarantine, or healthcare professionals.

Stigma is discrimination against an identifiable group of people, a place, or a nation, according to the CDC. Stigma is associated with a lack of knowledge about how COVID-19 spreads, a need to blame someone, fears about disease and death, and gossip that spreads rumors and myths.

But, as the CDC points out, stigma hurts everyone by creating more fear or anger toward ordinary people instead of focusing on the disease that’s causing the problem. And in multifamily housing communities, stigma against particular people or groups because of COVID-19 could also lead to fair housing trouble.

In this lesson, we’ll review the law and offer six rules to follow to help you avoid fair housing trouble at your community while dealing with COVID-19.

MHCO Tip: The news regarding COVID-19 has been rapidly evolving, so it’s important to stay up to date on the latest developments. For the health information related to virus, visit the CDC’s website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html. And check your state, county, or municipal government websites to find out what’s happening in your area.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is a federal law that prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability—also known as “protected classes.”

In general, fair housing law targets housing practices that exclude or otherwise discriminate against anyone because of their race or other protected class. Owners, managers, and individual employees all may be held liable for discriminatory housing practices, including:

• Refusing to rent or making housing unavailable;
• Falsely denying that housing is available for inspection or rental;
• Using different qualification criteria or applications, such as income standards, application requirements, application fees, credit analysis, or rental approval procedures;
• Setting different terms, conditions, or privileges for the rental of housing, such as different lease provisions related to rental charges, security deposits, and other lease terms;
• Discouraging prospects from renting a unit by exaggerating drawbacks or saying that the prospect would be uncomfortable with existing residents;
• Assigning residents to a particular section of a community or floor of a building;
• Providing different housing services or facilities, such as access to community facilities; and
• Failing or delaying maintenance or repairs.

In addition, the FHA makes it unlawful to advertise or make any statements that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. The law also prohibits retaliation by making it unlawful to threaten, coerce, intimidate, or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right.

Deep Dive: Disability

General Rules: Technically, the FHA bans discrimination based on “handicap,” though the term “disability” now is more commonly used. Under the FHA, disability generally means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. The list of impairments broadly includes a wide range of physical and mental conditions, including visual and hearing impairments, heart disease and diabetes, HIV infection, and emotional illnesses. Examples of major life activities include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s self, learning, and speaking. In sum, the law protects anyone with a physical or mental impairment that’s serious enough to substantially affect activities of central importance to daily life—even if it isn’t obvious or apparent.

The law protects not only individuals who have a disability, but also individuals with a record of such disability (such as medical history of such an impairment), or those who are regarded as having such a disability (such as someone who is believed to have a mental illness, but in fact does not have such an impairment).

Despite the general rule banning discrimination against individuals with disabilities, the law recognizes an exception that allows communities to exclude an individual whose tenancy would constitute a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others—or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others—unless the threat can be eliminated or significantly reduced by reasonable accommodation. But it’s a limited exception—federal guidelines warn against a blanket policy that excludes anyone based upon fear, speculation, or stereotypes about disabilities. Instead, the law requires an individualized assessment of the particular applicant or resident based on reliable objective evidence of current conduct or a recent history of overt acts.

Special Rules: In addition to the general rules banning disability discrimination, there are extra rules that require communities to grant requests for reasonable accommodations or modifications if necessary to allow individuals with disabilities to fully enjoy their dwellings. The law also includes accessibility requirements in the design and construction of covered multifamily communities.

6 RULES FOR COMPLYING WITH FAIR HOUSING LAW

WHILE DEALING WITH COVID-19

Rule #1: Remember Fair Housing Requirements While Responding to COVID-19

Fair housing law may not be the first thing you think of when it comes dealing with the coronavirus crisis, but it’s important to remember that the law bans discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, disability, and other protected characteristics, even if motivated by concerns about COVID-19. It’s certainly on the minds of federal and state fair housing enforcement agencies and advocates.

“As the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the Justice Department will remain vigilant in enforcing civil rights laws,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Eric S. Dreiband said in a statement. “We must ensure that fear and prejudice do not limit access to housing, schools, benefits, services, jobs, and information, among other things, on account of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, or other protected classes.

“It is important that we all work together to address unlawful discrimination, including violent acts or threats based upon protected classes. As in all emergencies, the COVID-19 outbreak has affected people of many different races, religions, and ethnicities, as well as those with disabilities. Unlawful discrimination may also discourage people from coming forward to seek treatment or information. Laws prohibiting unlawful discriminatory behavior must and will be vigorously enforced,” he said.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson echoed those sentiments in HUD’s Statement on Fair Housing and COVID-19:

We all must be vigilant to take protective measures recommended by public health officials to prevent the spread of COVID-19, knowing that many individuals with COVID-19 show no symptoms and have no awareness of exposure to the virus. Regardless of specific laws, now is not the time to evict people from their homes. If a housing provider is concerned that a person has COVID-19 and may pose a threat to the health or safety of others, the housing provider should set aside fear and speculation, and rely on objective medical information and advice from public health officials to determine steps that could mitigate or prevent the risk of transmission.

Likewise, officials in New York State explain that state law bans discrimination against anyone because of a perceived connection between his race, national origin, or disability, and COVID-19. The law prohibits discrimination against anyone assumed to have been exposed to COVID-19 based on any of these traits.

Fast Fact About Face Masks: If an applicant or resident is wearing a face mask as a precaution, he’s still protected against discrimination, warn officials in New York State. The law prohibits discrimination based on a perceived connection between race, national origin, or disability and possible exposure to coronavirus—wearing a face mask doesn’t change this.

Rule #2: Comply with Laws Banning Discrimination and Harassment Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Fair housing law bans discrimination based on race and national origin, so it’s unlawful to exclude or otherwise discriminate against racial or ethnic minorities, even if motivated by concerns about COVID-19.

“As the CDC has said, viruses do not target specific racial or ethnic groups,” HUD Chief Ben Carson said in a statement. “Be aware that the Fair Housing Act and other federal laws prohibit the eviction, turning away or harassment of a person in housing because they are profiled, on the basis of race, national origin or other protected class, to be associated with COVID-19. The Fair Housing Act also prohibits retaliation and intimidation against persons who report acts of discrimination they have witnessed to law enforcement authorities, like HUD, or who aid someone who has been the victim of discrimination.”

Of particular concern during the COVID-19 outbreak are increasing reports of discrimination and harassment against Asian Americans. In the first four weeks following its official launch in mid-March, the STOP AAPI HATE reporting center said that it had received nearly 1,500 reports of coronavirus discrimination from Asian Americans across the country. More than half originated in California and New York—the states hardest hit by COVID-19 at the time. Civil rights violations involving workplace discrimination and being barred from businesses and transportation or refused service made up almost 10 percent of incident reports.

In New York City, officials announced the formation of a COVID-19 Response Team to handle reports of harassment and discrimination related to the outbreak. By mid-April, the New York City Commission on Human Rights recorded 248 reports of harassment and discrimination related to COVID-19, over 40 percent of which identify incidents of anti-Asian harassment or discrimination. By comparison, during this same time period in 2019, the commission received just five reports of anti-Asian discrimination.

The COVID-19 Response Team has taken action in 148 cases, including conducting early or emergency intervention, providing information on how to request a reasonable accommodation, referring the individual to another service or agency, or commencing an investigation. The 18 matters currently under active investigation span discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and employment on the basis of race, national origin, disability, and lawful source of income. Additionally, the Response Team has successfully resolved nine matters of COVID-19-related harassment and discrimination.

“In this time of unparalleled crisis, the NYC Commission on Human Rights is dedicated to responding to and investigating reports of bias, harassment and discrimination related to the COVID-19 outbreak in our city,” Chair and Commissioner of the NYC Commission on Human Rights, Carmelyn P. Malalis, said in a statement. Even in the midst of a pandemic, human rights cannot be violated, and we encourage anyone who has experienced COVID-19- related discrimination to report it to us.”

Fast Fact About Retaliation: Fair housing law also bans retaliating against anyone for complaining about discrimination or bias-based harassment, or otherwise exercising her rights under fair housing law. For example, a housing provider can’t evict someone for reporting housing discrimination to a state enforcement agency, explain New Jersey officials.

Rule #3: Don’t Let Fear of Virus to Lead to Disability Discrimination Claims

It’s important to keep fair housing disability rules in mind when dealing with COVID-19. The FHA bans discrimination based on disability, so it’s unlawful to deny housing to people—or to treat them less favorably than others—because of a disability.

As noted by Secretary Carson, “There is much still to learn about COVID-19. We know, however, that persons with disabilities, including those who are older and have underlying medical conditions, are vulnerable and at high risk for a severe, life-threatening response to the virus. HUD recognizes that these persons may face unique fair housing and civil rights issues in their housing and related services. Housing providers are required to make reasonable accommodations that may be necessary to deliver housing and services to persons with disabilities affecting major life activities.”

There are no clear-cut answers about whether individuals who contract COVID-19 qualify for the disability protections under fair housing law. In part, that’s because the nature of the virus itself: For example, the symptoms of the condition vary so widely: Some people have no symptoms at all, while others suffer life-threatening, often fatal, consequences. For another thing, there’s still much that isn’t known about the virus—for example, whether people who have recovered from the virus are no longer contagious, and whether and for how long, they may be immune from the virus.

Under fair housing law, the disability provisions protect anyone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. For example, the law would protect people with disabilities from discrimination, even if you believe that they have a higher risk of serious consequences from the coronavirus.

The law is also likely to cover anyone with serious symptoms of the virus, but it’s debatable whether it would cover someone with only mild or no symptoms of the virus. On one hand, even people with mild or no symptoms must self-quarantine to avoid any activities that could spread the virus to others, including work, a major life activity. On the other hand, the self-quarantine period is usually only a few weeks—and the disability provisions generally don’t cover temporary conditions.

Even in people with few, if any, symptoms of the virus, it’s important to remember that fair housing law protects not only individuals who have a disability, but also those who are regarded as having a disability—that is, anyone who is mistakenly believed to have a disability. Consequently, you could face a discrimination complaint if you take adverse action against someone because you believe they have the virus—whether or not they actually do.

Q&A

Q: Can or should I disclose the identity of residents who test positive for the virus to other residents?

A: In general, fair housing law requires that disability-related information be kept confidential, so you should exercise caution concerning what you tell your residents about anyone diagnosed with COVID-19.

The first step is to find out about recommendations of state and local authorities, if any, with respect to your obligation to disclose active COVID cases to the residents at your community. Absent applicable requirements, fair housing expert Doug Chasick says it’s fine to send a general notice to advise residents that there are active COVID cases at the community, but not to disclose the names or unit numbers of people with the virus. Disclosure may not only violate the resident’s privacy, but also trigger discrimination or harassment of the resident by others living at the community.

Rule #4: Carefully Consider Reasonable Accommodation Requests

In addition to the general rules banning disability discrimination, there are extra rules that require communities to grant reasonable accommodations if necessary to allow individuals with disabilities to fully enjoy their dwellings.

Under the FHA, it’s unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services if necessary for an individual with a disability to fully use and enjoy the housing. By definition, reasonable accommodations are exceptions to your general policies or practices. For example, fair housing attorney Terry Kitay says that if someone wants to break a lease early because she has COVID-19, and needs to be hospitalized for treatment, then a request for early lease termination would be an accommodation to a disability.  

Only individuals who qualify under the FHA’s definition of disability are entitled to reasonable accommodations. For example, someone who isn’t sick, but has lost employment because of stay-at-home policies, isn’t entitled to a payment plan as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, explains Kitay. Instead, this would be a customer service you’re providing for residents because of the pandemic.

In other cases, you could get a reasonable accommodation request for an exception to policies adopted to minimize residents’ exposure to the virus. For example, many communities closed amenities, such as fitness centers and pools, and other areas to slow the spread of the virus, but you could get a request by a resident with a disability, who usually uses the treadmill as part of his therapy, for an exception to the policy as a reasonable accommodation so he could use it.

Even though his request is related to a disability, fair housing law doesn’t require you to grant a request for a disability-related accommodation if it’s unreasonable—that is, it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the community or result in a fundamental alteration of its operations. In this case, Kitay says that his request to use the fitness center would probably be considered unreasonable—it would not only pose a direct threat of spreading the virus, but also impose an additional financial and administrative burden on the community to clean and sanitize the facility and the equipment after each use.

Rule #5: Comply with Laws Banning Discrimination, Harassment Based on Sex

Sexual harassment—that is, unwelcome sexual conduct—is a form of discrimination based on sex. Though most sexual harassment claims are filed by women, the law is broad enough to protect both men and women from sexual harassment, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman.

Since the COVID crisis began, there have been increasing reports of landlords pressuring women unable to pay rent due to lost income from the COVID crisis into “arrangements” and sexual conduct, according to Khara Jabola-Carolus, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Though the law temporarily protects renters from evictions, there’s no official policy for rent forgiveness. About one-third of Americans were unable to pay their rent on April 1—and male landlords were taking advantage of the intensifying financial pressure, she said. 

In response to reports of sexual harassment during the pandemic, Attorney General William Barr directed federal prosecutors throughout the nation to deploy all available enforcement tools against anyone who tries to capitalize on the current crisis by sexually harassing people in need of housing.

“As the country adopted drastic measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, many Americans have lost their jobs and many more have seen their wages curtailed,” Barr said. “These losses have forced many to seek abatements or suspensions of their rent, with reports that nearly one-third of Americans were unable to pay their April rent at the beginning of the month.”

Though many landlords responded by trying to work with their tenants to weather the current crisis, Barr said that others have responded to requests to defer rent payment with demands for sexual favors and other acts of unwelcome sexual conduct. “Such behavior is despicable and it is illegal,” he said. “This behavior is not tolerated in normal times, and certainly won’t be tolerated now.”

In a statement, HUD Secretary Ben Carson praised the Attorney General for devoting all “necessary resource” to aid HUD investigations into reports of landlords demanding sexual favors in exchange for rent.

“The Fair Housing Act embodies the spirit of this great Nation where everyone is entitled to equal opportunity and respect,” Carson said. “No one should have to endure sexual harassment and degrading treatment, especially to keep a roof over their heads. I’m pleased Attorney General Barr has partnered with HUD to fully investigate and prevent sexual harassment in housing particularly during this difficult time in our country.”

Rule #6: Treat Applicants and Residents Consistently

Don’t treat people differently based on whether they have—or you believe they have—been exposed to COVID-19. Absent a positive COVID test, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether someone has the virus, because so many people have few, if any, symptoms of the virus.

It’s discriminatory to assume that someone has been exposed to the virus, simply based on where they—or their ancestors—were born. For example, enforcement officials in New Jersey explain that owners or managers can’t refuse to make necessary repairs to a unit because the resident is Asian and they’re afraid of contracting COVID-19. Nor can an owner or manager refuse to rent a property to someone based on these reasons. Fair housing law doesn’t prohibit a landlord from taking reasonable steps to protect himself or other residents from COVID-19, but such reasonable steps wouldn’t include actions premised on stereotypes based on race or national origin.

Consistency is key to fair housing compliance, says fair housing expert Doug Chasick. During the COVID crisis, for example, many communities have suspended regular maintenance operations, responding only to emergencies, to avoid the risk of exposure between residents and staff. When responding to emergency repair requests, it’s important for maintenance staff to respond to requests using the same safety practices to avoid potential discrimination claims.

Kitay agrees. When dealing applicants and residents, she says it’s a good idea to assume that everyone is positive, so you go into every situation with the same protocol.

Fair Housing Compliance Basics

• Suspend Judgment
• Think: Equal, Not Fair
• Be Consistent, which doesn’t mean “treat everyone the same”
• Manage Expectations
• Be Transparent – Communicate the “Why”
• Appreciate that Perception Is Reality