Posted on September 23, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

DOJ Announces a $95,000 Settlement in a Housing Discrimination Case

HUD and the Department of Justice continue to monitor compliance with and enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  As I have written many times before, management needs to train our employees to follow the law.  Examples of misconduct can be found from Alaska to Florida -- and just about everywhere in between.  For example, earlier this month the DOJ announced a $95,000 settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed last year alleging that the former community manager of Park Towers Apartments in Waterloo, Iowa, sexually harassed female tenants at the complex.   

According to the allegations, which followed housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD, a former community manager repeatedly made unwelcome and offensive sexual comments and gestures toward two women residing at the property he managed.  The former employee also was alleged to have suggested the women could exchange sex for rent, cable service, and other housing services. The charge concluded that the employee's actions were sufficiently severe and pervasive to unreasonably interfere with the women's tenancy and cause them emotional distress, economic loss, and other damages. The two women eventually moved from the apartment complex.The consent decree, pending approval by the court, will require the defendants to pay $80,000 to 10 victims and $15,000 to the United States as a civil penalty.  The consent decree also prohibits the defendants from engaging in discrimination and contains a provision preventing the former employee from returning to work in the management, rental or maintenance of rental housing.  

 

This type of case and settlement also serves as a warning to all of us in the professional apartment management field that we can be held accountable if our employees engage in or enable others to engage in acts of sexual harassment against residents.

 

Just a Thought.

Tags:
Posted on September 19, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Remember that HUD and Fair Housing Testers Are Reviewing Ads to Confirm Compliance with the Fair Housing Act

I have discussed familial status discrimination any number of times here at the Fair Housing Defense blog.  Apartment owners and management companies must understand that advertising and attempting to lease most apartments to "adults only" renters or charging extra for children will subject you to unneeded scrutiny.  Just recently, HUD charged several properties under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for violating the law against discriminating against families with children.

You might ask how HUD learned of some of these matters?  Well, local fair housing testers were scanning advertisements and found ads on various sites that appeared to state the owners did not want children in their units.  Testers were sent in and ultimately HUD charged the cases.

Specifically, on September 8, 2011, HUD charged the owners of an apartment building in Wayne, Pennsylvania with discrimination on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent or show apartments to families with children.  The case arose from a complaint filed by fair housing testers who initiated testing of the property after viewing several advertisements for the apartments on craiglist.com indicating a “no children” policy.

On September 2, 2011, HUD charged the owner and apartment manager of a single family house in La Crosse, Wisconsin with discrimination with violating the FHA on the basis of sex and familial status. The manager would not rent nor show the property to a single mother, because she did not have a man to "shovel the snow." The manager reiterated this opinion to HUD staff four times during the investigation.

On July 21, 2011 HUD charged the owner and manager an apartment building in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania for discriminating against families with children, by imposing different rental charges when a child was present in the family.  Management quoted one price for adults and an increased amount if a child was going to live in the unit.  

Remember I am a defense lawyer and I always want to hear the other side of the story.  In fact, it is my job to ensure HUD knows what really took place.  However, in these cases -- which will now be heard by a HUD Administrative Law Judge or referred to federal court -- management will have some serious explaining to do. 

Just A Thought.

Tags:
Posted on September 8, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

How Many Fair Housing Complaints Were Filed During 2010? More than 10,000.

Last month, HUD released data concerning the number of fair housing cases filed during 2010 as well as the protected classes alleged in many of those cases.  HUD reported that of the 10,155 complaints filed with the department and its partner agencies, 48 percent of the complaints alleged discrimination based on a disability, 34 percent alleged discrimination based on race, and 15 percent alleged discrimination based on familial status.  These percentages -- including that disability remains the most cited protected class -- are consistent with the number and type of complaints received during the previous three years.
 
Does this reflect that over 10,000 instances of housing discrimination took place during 2010?  Of course not.  The data also reveals that the vast majority of cases ultimately get dismissed or are amicably resolved.  To be fair, however, HUD and its fair housing tester partners will claim that they only become aware of a small percentage of discriminatory actions by management such that the actual number of people facing housing discrimination is higher.  I will leave it to you to decide who is right.
 
 
As I have also noted previously, under the law HUD is tasked to process the complaints within 100 days of filing.  The statistics reveal that less that half of the cases are actually completed during that time period (although it appears that more cases are being resolved during the 100 days than in previous years).  I would like to see that deadline given some real teeth in an effort to ensure that cases not remain open indefinitely -- but so far my efforts have been unsuccessful.
 
What does this mean for professional property management companies?  HUD and its partners are out there looking for housing discrimination.  Don't let your community get caught.  Follow the law.  Train your staff.  Ensure everyone is treated appropriately.  Document your interactions with residents and applicants.  And if a complaint comes, you will be well prepared to defend against it.
 
Just A Thought.

 

Tags:
Posted on September 7, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Remember to Document Your Interaction with Residents

I have written on this topic before, but this seems like a good time for a reminder.  As a part of our role as management, we must engage in the "interactive process" with our residents.  That means we must reach out to and appropriately respond to our residents.

As a part of the "interactive process," I always recommend that we document our interaction with residents.  Failing to do so is a mistake I see time and time again.  For example, we must always respond to a request for a reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification.  Providing an interim response does not mean that management will grant every accommodation or modification request, but we must ensure that each request be evaluated.  Note that while it is good practice for residents to submit their requests in writing, there is no requirement they do so.  When we make a decision about a reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification request, that must be documented as well.

Similarly, I suggest you keep copies of correspondence with your residents in their individual files or via a community computer system which can print records if needed.  I also like a log in which leasing office staff members can note oral communications with residents.

Does this seem like overkill?  Maybe at the outset it does -- but wait until a fair housing case gets filed and the investigator comes to see you or me.  All that documentation will make our job much easier.

Just A Thought.

 

Tags: