Antidiscrimination Law

Fair Housing Act (FHA) protects homeowners from limits on their Christmas display if the reasons for those limits are based on the owners’ religion rather than the scope of their activities

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Condominiums and Homeowners Associations, Fair Housing Act, Religious Freedom, Servitudes

The Ninth Circuit has held that a homeowners association may not be able to enforce its rules limiting the scope of a Christmas display by owners in the common scheme if those limits are  motivated by opposition to the owner’s religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3617. Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 104 F.4th 1128 (9th Cir. 2024). The owners (Jeremy and Kristy Morris)  had engaged in these activities at their prior home where they had strung up thousands of Christmas lights, sang Christmas carols, employed costumed characters playing Santa Claus and the Grinch, and hosted a live nativity scene with a live camel. The family also offered free hot chocolate to visitors which led to 200 families visiting their property the first day with 20 to 100 families visiting the rest of the week. When the owners put in an …

Fair Housing Act (FHA) protects homeowners from limits on their Christmas display if the reasons for those limits are based on the owners’ religion rather than the scope of their activities Read More »

More courts hold that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to websites, only physical stores

/ Antidiscrimination Law

Two separate cases by judges in the Southern District of New York have held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to websites since it only covers “places” of public accommodation and websites have no “place. Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., 2024 WL 4350912 (S.D.N.Y. 2024); Sookol v. Fresh Clean Threads, 2024 WL 4499206 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). The Eleventh Circuit agrees. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021), as do the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 614 (3d Cir. 1998); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (6th Cir. 1997); Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2019); Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266, 1276-77 (11th Cir.), opinion vacated for mootness, 21 F.4th 775 (11th Cir. 2021). The First Circuit, however, held that the phrase “public accommodation” “is not limited …

More courts hold that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to websites, only physical stores Read More »

Violation of fair housing statute is a defense to eviction

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Leaseholds

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that a landlord who has violated fair housing laws may be disabled from evicted the tenant who was the victim of that discrimination. Miller v. Amos, 543 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2024). The court reasoned that the statutory rights to be free from discrimination not only provide claims but can operate as a valid defense to an assertion of property rights. In this case, the landlord repeatedly demanded that the tenant have sex with him. When she refused, he sued to evict her. In that eviction action, she raised the state fair housing statute as a defense (sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination), and the state supreme court agreed that the state fair housing law could be used as a defense when the the lease was an oral one that otherwise could be terminated for any reason.

Property tax assessments can violate Fair Housing Act if disproportionately high in communities of color

/ Antidiscrimination Law

The New York Court of Appeals has held that a municipal tax assessment practice may violate the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.. if assessments are higher without justification in areas of the city disproportionately inhabited by non-white residents. Tax Equity Now N.Y., LLC v. City of New York, 2024 WL 1160498 (N.Y. 2024). The court also held that these practices may perpetuate segregation. Both the disparate impact because of race and ethnicity and the perpetuation of segregation constitute prima facie claims of disparate impact discrimination under federal regulations. As a factual matter, the trial court found that similar properties in comparable neighborhoods were being assessed at extremely different rates.

Criminal trespass to commit a hate crime against supporters of gay rights

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Trespass

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a person under a trespass statute criminalizes trespass with the intent to commit a hate crime, State v. Geddes, 998 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 2023). See Iowa Code §716.8(3); §729A.2. The defendant targeted homes with rainbow flags or decals and taped anonymous notes saying “burn that gay flag”. The Court rejected the argument that the defendant had a first amendment right to place stickers on someone else’s home. The court found that the statute did not criminalize speech but conduct: trespassing because of the owner’s sexual orientation or association with persons of a certain sexual orientation.

Conflicting rulings on whether testers have standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

/ Antidiscrimination Law

The First Circuit has held that a tester may bring a lawsuit against a hotel for an inaccessible website even if the tester never had an intention of booking a room at the hotel. Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC., 50 F.4th 259 (1st Cir. 2022). The Eleventh Circuit agrees, Laufer v. Arpan LLC, 29 F.4th 1268 (11th Cir. 2022), but the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits disagree, Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435 (2d Cir. 2022); Laufer v. Mann Hospitality, Inc., 996 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2021); Laufer v. Looper, 22 F.4th 871 (10th Cir. 2022). The issue is likely to be one the Supreme Court will need to resolve.

Broker remarks to prospective tenant that landlord might object to housing voucher approval process violate state law that prohibits statements that indicate a preference to refuse to rent to such tenants

/ Antidiscrimination Law

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has held that it violates state statutes that prohibit discrimination against housing voucher recipients to indicate a preference not to rent to tenants whose rental payments are subsidized by government. Lopez v. William Raveis Real Est. Inc., 272 A.3d 150 (Conn. 2022). While there was no statement of an intent to discriminate, the state law does not require proof of intent; rather it prohibits making any statement that indicates a preference not to rent to someone because of their “source of income.” Conn. Stat. §46a-64c(a)(3).

Fair Housing Act claim available for racial harassment by one owner against another but no claim against the homeowners association itself even though the harassers were president of the HOA

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act

When an African American couple bought property and were subject to taunts and told they were unwelcome by other owners, they had claims against those owners under the Fair Housing Act both by “making housing unavailable” under 42 U.S.C. §3604(a), and “interfering” with others in the “enjoyment of… right[s] granted by [the Fair Housing Act].” Watters v. Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Preserve at Bridgewater, 48 F.4th779 (7th Cir. 2022). However, even though the harassers were the president and former president of the homeowners’ association, the association itself was not liable despite its failure to intervene to stop the harassment.

Disparate impact claim unavailable against public water utility for increasing the security deposit required of public housing tenants

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act

The Ninth Circuit held, in Southwest Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Maricopa Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17 F.4 950 (5th Cir. 2021), that no violation of the Fair Housing Act occurred under a disparate impact theory when public housing tenants were required to pay a new higher security deposit to obtain water services from a public water utility. The court found a disparate impact against Black and Native American customers, as well as unmarried women with children and found that the plaintiffs had shown the utility’s actions caused the impact. However, the utility had a legitimate business justification for its actions that outweighed the disparate impact. Its justification was the public housing tenants tended to have unpaid utility bills in excess of its prior security deposit amount and that they had higher unpaid bills than tenants in private housing. Plaintiffs lost on the disparate impact issue because they could not prove that …

Disparate impact claim unavailable against public water utility for increasing the security deposit required of public housing tenants Read More »

Washington Supreme Court holds racial covenants in public records must be retained but can be marked void

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Servitudes

Construing a state statute, Wash. Stat. §49.60.227, the Washington Supreme Court held that racial covenants cannot be completely excised from public records. The court determined that the statute allowed a court order to be filed with the recorded title voiding the covenant but did not authorize excising the covenant from the public records entirely. This result occurred despite the fact that the statute provided that courts should “strik[e] the void provisions from the public records.” Wash. Stat. §49.60.227(1)(b). The statute did provide that the original record “shall be separately maintained in the county’s records.” This meant that the public title would note the illegality of the limitation but public records would continue to document the historical existence of the covenant. The court explained that “future generations [should] have access to these documents because, although the covenants are morally repugnant, they are part of a documented history of disenfranchisement of a …

Washington Supreme Court holds racial covenants in public records must be retained but can be marked void Read More »

Scroll to Top