Fair Housing Act

HUD changes guidelines for emotional support animals

Standard

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against individuals based on their physical handicaps. In addition, the Act requires that housing providers make reasonable accommodations to their rules and policies when an adjustment of a policy is necessary for a disabled person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the offered housing.    

One fairly uncontroversial example of a reasonable accommodation is the case where a blind person has the assistance of what we might have once called a seeing-eye dog. These are trained animals that provide specific and essential services to persons with clear disabilities. A “no pets” policy cannot be applied to prevent the disabled person from having the assistance of such an animal under the Act.  

But in recent years there have been a growing number of more controversial accommodations requested where the disability of the applicant is not as easy to verify and the support animal itself is not particularly a trained animal specialized to the problem. Many people seeking these accommodations report that they suffer from mental issues such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress and that their issues are much relieved when they have emotional support animals.

Landlords and management companies have had a great deal of trouble determining where the line lies between untrained “support animals” and simple pets. It’s become something of a cliché in comedy and pop culture. For instance, Homer Simpson’s emotional support pig, Plopper, who went from pet to emotional support animal in order to avoid his wife Marge’s urge to declutter.   

HUD’s previous guidance on the subject placed the housing providers in a precarious position as both medical providers and online services have made obtaining emotional support certifications for untrained animals reportedly fairly easy to obtain.  Landlords who attempted to enforce “no pets” policies were thus placed in the position of facing the cost and time of justifying their accommodation denials in HUD enforcement actions.

At the end of May HUD announced that it was amending its policy concerning reasonable accommodations for support animals.  According to the new directive, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity will now pursue charges only in those reasonable accommodation requests involving trained support animals that perform specific tasks for disabled persons.  

While the guidance only applies to the way HUD will process complaints and does not affect the ability of individuals to pursue their own lawsuits under the Act, the change in guidance likely will significantly decrease the number of agency level actions against housing providers by the Department. Certainly it would seem likely that fewer individuals will have the resources or desire to pursue lawsuits on their own.  The change in HUD’s guidance may give some insight as to how future rulemaking may develop and it may well impact the way that Courts interpret the Act. 

Should “love letters” in the real estate market be banned?

Standard

The Oregon legislature believes they should, but a Federal Court issued an injunction

Late last year, my son and daughter-in-law decided to buy a new house, mainly to move into the school district where their children attend school and to be closer to their children’s friends. My daughter-in-law is an elementary school teacher who had enrolled her children in the school where she teaches. She’s a great teacher, by the way, as evidenced by being named Richland One teacher of the year several years ago. I’m not just bragging about her, although I am very proud of her. Being a great teacher is part of the story.

They immediately sold their house in our very hot seller’s market and were looking at the daunting process of having to move twice. They got lucky when their real estate agent found the perfect house in the perfect neighborhood. The real estate agent advised them to make an offer at full price, which they did, but apparently several other real estate agents gave the same advice to their customers.

My son and daughter-in-law got lucky again when they learned that she had taught the seller’s children. She wrote a letter to the sellers to make that connection and to express how much they loved the house. They are happily living in that house today.

I learned just this week that the real estate industry has dubbed such attempts to influence sellers “love letters”. And an article published in the oregonlive.com on March 6 entitled “Federal judge blocks Oregon’s first-in-nation ban on homebuyer ‘love letters’” tells the tale of the Oregon legislature attempting to ban these letters. The news story points to a preliminary injunction* issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The opinion defined “love letters” as “notes, letters, and pictures that buyers may submit along with their offer to purchase in order to create an emotional connection between sellers and buyers – especially when significant competition exists on a given property.” A practicing real estate agent who is also an Oregon legislator introduced legislation to ban these letters because they “perpetuate systemic issues of bias in real estate transactions.”

The legislation, which passed in 2021, amended a statute that enumerates the duties and obligations owed by a seller’s agent and reads:

In order to help a seller avoid selecting a buyer based on the buyer’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, married status or familial status as prohibited by the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), a seller’s agent shall reject any communication other than customary documents in a real estate transaction, including photographs, provided by a buyer.

The statute does not define “customary documents”, but Oregon’s Real Estate Commissioner offered guidance: “the Agency interprets (customary documents) to mean disclosure forms, sales agreements, counter offer(s), addenda, and reports. Love letters would not be considered customary documents.”

The plaintiff, a real estate agency, sought a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s real estate commissioner and attorney general against enforcing the statute. The Court said the purpose of the legislation is laudable, to stop discrimination in home ownership based on protected class status, but agreed to issue the preliminary injunction because the legislation “unquestionably” interferes with free speech.

The defendants presented evidence of the history and prevalence of housing discrimination in Oregon, and the Court agreed that considerable racial disparities persist in home ownership. The defendant’s expert opined that the vast majority of “love letters” disclosed the buyer’s race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status, or disability. He said about half the letters used as evidence in the case included photographs that revealed some information about race, color, sex, and other characteristics. He opined that love letters enable intentional and unintentional discrimination in housing.

The evidence indicated love letters are powerful documents! The opinion cites a study conducted by the real estate company Redfin that found 40% of offers include love letters and that love letters increase the likelihood of having an offer accepted by 52%.  A real estate agent testified that love letters allow her clients to compete with higher offers, including those submitted by investors. The evidence also indicates that real estate agents play a significant role in drafting love letters, including providing templates to their clients.

The plaintiff suggested alternatives to the legislation: (1) greater enforcement of existing fair housing laws; (2) requirement that agents redact client love letters, (3) prohibition on the inclusion of photos; (4) fair housing disclosure requirement in real estate transactions; (5) increased fair housing training for real estate agents; (6) increase the stock of affordable housing; or (7) do nothing and allow individual real estate agents to advise their clients to not send love letters.

The Court indicated the last two alternatives do not merit serious consideration. The other alternatives, however, show that the defendants’ objectives could be achieved in a manner that places less of a burden on otherwise lawful speech.

I am confident we will see more “love letter” legislation and litigation in future.

*Total Real Estate Group, LLC v. Strode, 22 WL 633670, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38653 (D. Or., March 3, 2022)

HUD to enforce sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination rule

Standard

This blog has referred to the Dirt Listserv* previously, and I point in that direction again today for those among us who may represent clients in the business of renting or selling housing. On July 12, Professor Dale Whitman published a post entitled “Fair Housing Act will be applied to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination.”

The post mentions a Supreme Court case and a Department of Housing and Urban Development Press Release.

The case** held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender. The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, worked as a child-welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia and was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee when he started playing in a gay softball league. (Two cases from other circuits were consolidated with this case. One involved a person who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor within days of mentioning to his employer that he is gay. The other involved a funeral home employee who was fired after disclosing to her employer her transgender status and intent to live and work as a woman.)

The press release was issued by HUD and can be read here. HUD announced that it will administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  

The release said that a number of studies indicate same-sex couples and transgender persons experience demonstrably less favorable treatment than their counterparts when seeking housing. But HUD was previously constrained in its efforts to address this housing discrimination because of a legal uncertainty about whether this discrimination is within HUD’s reach. HUD has now reached a legal conclusion based partially on the Bostock case. HUD indicates that it is simply saying that discrimination the Supreme Court held to be illegal in the workplace is also illegal in the housing market.

Complaints may be filed by contacting HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Office at (800) 669-9777 or hud.gov/fairhousing.

Clients involved in housing should be advised of this development.

* Real Estate Lawyers Listserv: Dirt@LISTSERV.UMKC.EDU

** Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)

HUD accuses Facebook of housing discrimination

Standard

facebook-dislike-thumb.jpgThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced last week that it has filed a civil complaint against Facebook, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act as a result of Facebook’s ad-targeting system. Twitter, Inc. and Google have been notified that their similar practices are under scrutiny.

Facebook’s ad-targeting system allows advertisers the ability to direct messages to target audiences with precision.  HUD charges this system has allowed real estate companies to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, religion, color familial status, sex and disability.

The complaint alleges Facebook is guilty of “encouraging, enabling and causing” unlawful discrimination when it allows advertisers to exclude users by certain characteristics, for example, whether they are interested in Hispanic culture and food, whether they are parents and whether they are non-citizens or non-Christians. Some ads are only shown to women. Other ads may exclude neighborhoods or geographic areas like ZIP codes. Secretary of HUD Ben Carson said using a computer to limit a person’s housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in that person’s face.

HUD alleges Facebook mines users’ extensive personal data and uses characteristics protected by law to determine who can view housing ads.

This is not the first time Facebook has been in trouble for ad-targeting. An earlier investigation by ProPublica found the advertising practices acted to exclude African American, Latinos and Asian Americans. HUD had filed an earlier complaint last August alleging ethnic groups were excluded from viewing some ads. Facebook took action by removing 5,000 ad target options.

The ACLU was not happy with that result and filed a lawsuit. That lawsuit was settled recently with Facebook announcing substantial changes to its platform including withholding a wide array of demographic information often used as indicators of race. Facebook also agreed to create a tool that would allow users to search for housing ads whether or not the ads could be viewed in individual news feeds.

HUD was apparently dissatisfied with the settlement as not going far enough to remedy housing discrimination and responded with the current complaint.