Imagine this scenario for a second.  You have a group of people searching for an apartment in the same city.  A young mother with kids, a disabled gentleman with a service animal, a couple from Puerto Rico, and a wealthy, middle aged man.  The owner of the apartment community denies each person the ability to see the unit until he gets to the wealthy man, and then he essentially rolls out the red carpet.  Sounds like a practice we left in the 1960’s right?  Well, based on a charge recently filed by HUD against social media giant Facebook for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, apparently not.  The charge alleges specifically that Facebook allowed landlords and home sellers to discriminate in their advertising platforms.

Essentially, Facebook’s platform would allow advertisers to toggle certain characteristics of people they did not wish to see their advertisements.  Sounds initially innocent right?  Just effective and targeted advertising? Not quite. Some of the groups who were selected not to receive certain housing advertisements were “women in the workforce,” “moms of grade school kids,” and people interested in “accessibility” or “service animals.”  Indeed, there were even options to block “Hispanic culture” and “Puerto Rican Islanders”.  While this list is far from exhaustive, even one of these exclusions is enough to be damning.  I’m not sure how much more blatant this discrimination could be; these examples highlight an obvious violation of virtually every single protected class (gender, religion, ethnicity, familial status, disability).  At its core, Facebook was legitimately allowing targeting advertisements based solely on protected characteristics.

So, what’s the bottom line? Fair Housing 101= excluding specific groups, due to protected characteristics, from seeing your advertisements is discriminatory. You just cannot do it.  And here is a note of caution for everyone–while at first glance, Facebook is the one in hot water, there may be substantial potential liability for the advertisers (read you) as well.  While Facebook is the platform through which the discrimination occurred, the choices to discriminate based on a specific protected characteristic were toggled by the housing providers/ landlords themselves.  Therefore, I cannot stress enough the importance of inclusive advertising.  I have written about this before, but it bears repeating—don’t even think about specifying what your “ideal” tenant would be.  If you are going to advertise for your property, you need to ensure that your advertisement can be reached by everyone. What began as a possible $19,787 fine for Facebook may very well turn out to be one of the biggest HUD discrimination claims in recent history.

One question that has been popping up recently is how pet limits apply to assistance animals.  As I have written about before, pet limits in the form of breed and/or weight restrictions do not apply to assistance animals (i.e., you cannot deny a resident’s assistance animal because he is a German Shepherd or otherwise on your restricted breeds list).  The logic behind these rules is that assistance animals are not viewed necessarily as “pets,” but more along the lines of an auxiliary aid—similar to the way you would view a wheelchair or a cane.

This same logic also extends to the number of assistance animals allowed per resident or per unit.  While it is common practice for many apartment complexes and management companies to set a limit on the number of animals allowed in a specific unit, if an animal has been verified as an assistance animal they cannot be counted towards the pet limit.

Where the confusion usually comes is when you factor in additional animals that are solely pets, and not assistance animals.  A quick example might be illustrative here.  Let’s say a resident moves into a unit, bringing along with her three Labrador Retrievers.  The resident provides documentation from her medical provider verifying that one of the dogs is an assistance animal, while two of the labs are merely pets.  In this case, she has met the pet limit with the two labs that function as pets—but since the other animal has been verified as an assistance animal, the resident has not exceeded the pet limit.  Accordingly, the property must allow all three animals to live with the resident.

So what’s the bottom line?  Are apartment complexes going to become taken over by dogs?  Perhaps.  But, at some point it will obviously become a health and safety issue for the resident if there is an exorbitant number of animals living in a unit.  All of that being said, the main take-away from this post is that when dealing with pet limits and pet policies, it is important to remember that assistance animals are not considered “pets,” and you cannot discriminate against or deny a resident due to a request for multiple assistance animals.

In keeping with a recent blog post, and in order to emphasize the importance of taking the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) seriously, I wanted to introduce a relatively recent HUD charge levied against a property in Denver to illustrate and substantiate HUD’s active concern with FHAA compliance issues.  A Denver, Colorado property was charged this past month with failing to make its property handicap accessible.  Specifically, the property was accused of large portions of its property being inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.

There are two aspects of this charge that can easily be overlooked, but I believe are crucial for property managers to be aware of.  First, let’s talk about the use of testers.  These testers, sent by HUD to investigate potential Fair Housing issues, don’t come with flashing signs or official “tester” uniforms.  Instead, they appear to be your average prospects- unassuming and unsuspicious.  It’s like an episode of undercover boss, but minus the cameras.  This means, therefore, that properties must practice constant vigilance and treat every prospective resident seriously (as someone who could turn around and file a Fair Housing complaint with HUD).  But you are doing that already, right?  It is impossible to quantify or calculate the risk that comes from taking encounters with prospects and residents lightly.

The second, easy-to-miss concern this charge highlights is found in the parties who were named in the suit.  The couple who raised this complaint named the owners, architects, and builders all in the suit. Most importantly, however, even the current owner, who was not involved in the design or the construction of the property, was named in the suit. Even though the current owner and property manager may not have been guilty of the initial design flaw, there is a potential to be held liable for correcting those defects.

So what’s the bottom line?  Property managers and owners need to avoid becoming complacent in their interactions with prospects and residents alike.  My advice is to adopt principles centered on accessibility and practice them consistently, to the point that it becomes sheer muscle memory.  When you make accessibility a habit, the likelihood of facing a Fair Housing complaint is diminished.  Similarly, present owners and property managers need to be proactive when acquiring a property.  Go ahead and look for potential design and construction issues as part of your due diligence, or correct them as you became aware of them.  While the up-front cost may seem daunting, I can guarantee it won’t be nearly as daunting as being slapped with a charge that could result in actual and punitive damages, injunctive or other equitable relief, as well as attorney’s fees for the opposing party.

With the government shutdown now surpassing a month, and the future still relatively uncertain, the functioning of HUD and many other federal organizations has reached a standstill.  A government shutdown not only impacts federal workers and government employees, it also has a very real impact on landlords and tenants.

You may be thinking, why are we talking about politics in a Fair Housing blog?    As it turns out, the government shutdown has a direct impact on Fair Housing, specifically on the housing choice voucher program (formerly known as Section 8).  As a refresher, these vouchers are federally funded, given by local organizations (known as public housing agencies, or “PHAs”), and used to subsidize the rent of qualifying tenants—making the costs more manageable (as tenants now only have to pay the balance after the voucher is applied).  In order to qualify, the tenant must be either low-income, elderly or disabled, which means we are talking about a vulnerable population here.

The longer the government is shut down, the more depleted the federal funds will continue to get.  It is projected that by the end of February, the majority of federal housing assistance funding will be gone.  Therefore, if the shutdown continues much longer, the PHAs face a real possibility of losing federal funding altogether, leaving both landlords and these vulnerable tenants in a nearly impossible position.

So, what’s the bottom line? What happens if/when the federal funding runs out and tenants are not making rent?  Unfortunately, there is no easy or clear cut answer.  First, I will say—start preparing now.  Formulate a game plan for how you will handle your residents utilizing housing vouchers if worst comes to worst and federal funding runs out.  Bear in mind that the shutdown will presumably end, and once the government is back open you will receive full funding.  We are in uncharted territory here when it comes to evictions, and landlords should proceed cautiously when evicting based on the housing voucher program’s shortfall—the only advice I can offer is that, if you make the decision to evict, be as consistent and uniform in your policy implementation as possible.

Of all the potential violations of fair housing law, the one that gives me the most heartburn—and occasionally wakes me up at night in a cold sweat—is a violation of the design and construction guidelines of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA).  Why am I so worried about that particular violation?  Well, because—as I have written about before—the potential liability for housing providers from a design and construction violation can be catastrophic.

Which is why a recent charge from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination against a New York developer, owner, construction company, and architect (yes, HUD really ran the gamut there) caught my attention.  As everyone knows by now (right?), the FHAA requires that multifamily housing built after 1991 contain accessibility features for people with disabilities (known as the design and construction requirements).   In its charge, HUD has alleged that the (very prominent) developer, construction company, owner, and their architect violated the FHAA by failing to provide safe and accessible routes that persons with disabilities (and others) could use to travel between their units and common areas.  HUD also alleges that there were widespread violations inside the units, such as inaccessible doors, bathrooms, kitchens, and environmental controls.  If these allegations are found to have merit, not only can the complainant be awarded damages, the judge can also order retrofits, civil penalties, and other injunctive or equitable relief.  Now that’s enough to give anyone heartburn!

So what’s the bottom line?  First off, you should know that, generally speaking, if you are involved with the design and construction process for developing or building multifamily housing, you can be held liable for a design and construction violation of the FHAA (just look at all the parties named in this charge).  Second, as referenced above, the remedy for a design and construction violation can be a judicial order to correct the deficiencies—and, as you can imagine, the cost to correct the deficient construction can be stratospheric.  So make sure it is done right the first time!


Looking at the Fair Housing Act from today’s perspective, it seems like simple common sense—of course we don’t want to be discriminatory in our housing practices.  So why is the 50th birthday of the FHA such a big deal?  In order celebrate the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, I thought I would take a look back at both the immediate context surrounding the enactment of this legislation, as well as the history of the Fair Housing Administration.

The Fair Housing Administration was created in 1934 to help regulate interest rates and mortgage terms so people could afford housing following the great depression and banking crisis of the 1930’s.  Sounds like a great opportunity for homeownership, right?  Unfortunately, the Underwriting Manual, created in 1936 for the association, severely inhibited the rights of homeownership based on personal characteristics—namely race.  In fact, the Underwriting Manual stated that deed restrictions could and should include a “prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended.” The application of this is a process known as “redlining,” where certain minorities would be refused mortgages in specific neighborhoods in order to preserve the “devaluation” of neighborhoods.

Now fast forward to the 1960’s. Common practices and beliefs were beginning to be challenged.  Pressure for change was mounting, and racial tensions and riots erupted all over the nation.  In 1967, President Johnson appointed the Kerner Commission to investigate the source of these riots.  The subsequent report highlighted frustration surrounding unfair housing practices, but no action was taken.

It was not until the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, that the Fair Housing Act gained the needed momentum to be enacted.  As it turns out, King’s death actually brought to life the Fair Housing Act, adding to his enormous legacy.  A mere seven days after his assassination, the Act was passed, after languishing in Congress for several years.  Originally, the Act prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of swellings based on race, color, religion, or national origin.  The Act was amended in 1974, adding “sex” as a protected class, and further amended in 1984 to protect “familial status” and “disability” as well.

And the bottom line?  The 50th birthday of the Fair Housing Act is cause for great celebration, as it represents and embodies the culmination of work pioneered by King and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s as well as a commitment to working towards equal housing opportunities for all.

Ok, so I know I have written about this several times before.  But apparently some people still haven’t gotten the message.  So, one more time for the record—as a landlord, you cannot restrict the number of children at your property!  Just don’t do it!

This issue hit my radar after I saw a recent Charge of Discrimination from The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).   So what was the problem?  Well, apparently there was a property management company in Alabama that purportedly had a policy against renting to families with more than two minor children.   The issue was uncovered and reported to HUD after the Center for Fair Housing conducted testing on the property management company, which revealed that the property management company refused to rent to testers who claimed to have more than two minor children—even when the rental homes at issue had three or more bedrooms.

So what’s the bottom line?  This is an easy one—unless you fall under a certain exception (e.g., housing for older persons), make sure that your policies do not in any way impede individuals with children from renting.

It’s summertime and everyone is headed to the pool – can my assistance animal join me?  Well, before I can answer that, I have a couple of questions for you:  1) is your pool private or is it open to the public; and 2) do you have a service or emotional support animal?

So to begin, let’s tackle the scenarios regarding a pool that is open to the public. As I have discussed at length before, areas that are open to the public fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  And according to the ADA, service animals (defined as dogs that are trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities) must be allowed to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is permitted to go.  However, an emotional support animal does not qualify as a service animal.  So if you are going to your public community pool, your service dog may come with you, but your emotional support pig must stay at home in the air conditioning.

Now, let’s take a look at a private pool that is only open to the residents and their guests; therefore, falling under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  The FHA has a broader definition for assistance animals, which includes animals that provide emotional support.  And unlike the ADA, the FHA has no restriction on what type of animal can serve as an assistance animal, only that the resident has a disability and a disability-related need for the animal.  So in this case, your assistance animal can lounge by the pool with you.

I’ve got one more example for you (just to make you scratch your head).  Let’s say your private apartment community has a swimming pool for the residents, but also sells memberships to the public for the use of the pool.  In this instance, both the ADA and the FHA apply.  Hence, a person who purchased a membership may bring their service dog, but not their emotional support animal.  However, a resident is permitted to bring either their service dog or their emotional support animal along with them to the pool.

So what’s the bottom line?  Well, generally speaking, the first question should always be whether the pool is private or open to the general public.  The answer to that question will dictate what animals are allowed at the pool.  And I hope it goes without saying, but just in case, local public health rules likely prohibit service dogs or emotional support animals in swimming pools.  Your assistance animal can hang out with you on the pool deck, but cannot take a dip!

As if keeping the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) straight wasn’t difficult enough, my practice also involves a horse of a different color—the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).  So I thought I would take a break from my usual topics and address the elephant in the room—the recent airline incident involving an emotional support peacock that was denied access to a flight at Newark Liberty International Airport.  This story has really taken flight since it was first reported, sparking a firestorm of questions surrounding the limitations and qualifications of assistance animals.

The principal question that I have been asked the most is, what exactly constitutes an assistance animal?  That is a valid question—and it depends on whom, or which law, more specifically, you ask.  The FHA is my bread and butter, so let’s tackle that one first.  Under the FHA, an assistance animal is defined as “an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.”  The FHA includes emotional support animals in its definition of assistance animals in order to deal with a broader scope of disabilities.  Contrast this from the ADA, which applies to businesses and areas generally open to the public.  The ADA has the most stringent of definitions, dealing only with service animals, and defining them as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.”  Under the ADA, emotional support animals are not recognized as service animals, and only dogs (and miniature horses, for those keeping score at home) qualify as service animals.

Now you might be thinking, wouldn’t the situation at issue fall under the ADA since the airport is a public place?  As it turns out, you would be partially correct—while the ADA applies to the airport building itself (including the lobbies, security areas, terminals, etc.), the actual airplanes themselves are subject to the ACAA.  The ACAA defines assistance animals as, “any animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability; or any animal shown by documentation to be necessary for the emotional well-being of a passenger.”  As you can see, this definition is very similar to the FHA and, therefore, emotional support animals are allowed under the ACAA.  However, the caveat to this rule is that if the animal “would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others[,]” then the airline has the right to deny that animal access to the flight.

So what’s the bottom line?  Airlines need to be more inclusive of exotic animals?  Pride can only get you so far? I need to stop squeezing in as many bird/animal puns as I can find? All of these might be true, but the main takeaway is this—it is important to know not only when these laws have jurisdiction, but also what accommodations they provide in regards to assistance animals.

As a fair housing attorney, I often field the question, “What can I do to avoid having a complaint filed against me?”  Avoiding complaints seems like a pretty obvious and sensible goal, right? While the goal may be straightforward, the execution is often anything but.  Dealing with the Fair Housing Act is inherently difficult due to its complexity and complicated nature.  Although there is no magical formula to avoid claims altogether, I do have one hard and fast rule I abide by when dealing with the FHA—have written policies, and make sure you apply them uniformly.  (So technically I guess that is two hard and fast rules, but they go hand in hand).

One of the biggest—and most overlooked—areas to have clear and consistent procedures in place is with regard to reasonable accommodation or modification requests.  Part of my practice actually involves serving as a clearing house for accommodation/modification requests for property management companies.  In order to streamline this process and ensure that all requests are handled fairly, I have developed templates for various common scenarios that property managers can utilize in documenting accommodation and modification requests—and, in fact, I highly recommend that all property management companies and landlords do the same.

For example, when a resident requests an accommodation for their assistance animal, I recommend that the community manager provide them with a template reasonable accommodation/modification form (which we have developed for our clients).  These forms make each resident aware of the property policies as well as ensuring proper documentation is received.  However, one important caveat to note is that you cannot require that a resident or prospective reside use your template form.  If a resident or prospective resident chooses to bring in a letter from his or her medical provider or any other legitimate documentation, you do have to accept that documentation for review.

Once you have developed a comprehensive system that suits your needs, it is IMPERATIVE that you are uniform and consistent in the application of your policies. Although you may be tempted to bend the rules for that one sweet, elderly lady who has rented from you for thirty years or make an exception for the resident’s adorable puppy even though they have not filled out the verification form, you must stand firm.   Your firm policies and uniform application will be your defense if a fair housing complaint is filed.

So what’s the bottom line?  Although drafting and enforcing written policies can be work-intensive on the front side, complaining about drafting comprehensive policies beats dealing with numerous complaints filed against you in the future.  Not only will this golden rule make your life easier in the long run by keeping you organized and honest, it can also help avoid costly complaints and settlements.  Bottom line, consistency is key.