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!

 

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.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a report on Tuesday, September 5th that really struck me.  The report revealed the findings of a pilot study on rental housing discrimination on the basis of mental disabilities.  As most readers of this blog know, I devote a substantial amount of space discussing disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.  And for good reason, apparently, given that HUD’s recent report identified that persons with disabilities—specifically mental disabilities—received fewer responses to their rental inquiries, were informed of fewer available units and were less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider when compared to people without mental disabilities.

In addition, the report also focused on another topic I have devoted a significant amount of time on—reasonable accommodations—finding that a significant number of people with mental disabilities were given a negative response to their request.  Interestingly enough, HUD’s study also found that a higher percentage of housing providers were willing to grant accommodation requests to people with intellectual or developmental disabilities than to people with mental illness.

So what’s the bottom line?  The findings of HUD’s study really reveal that there is still an underlying stigma against residents and prospects with mental disabilities.  As a property manager or landlord, you need to have policies in place to ensure that all prospects and residents are treated equally.  With regard to handling reasonable accommodation requests, you must have strong policies in place, and I would recommend that you set up a centralized processing system for reviewing and responding to accommodation and modification requests.  Not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because HUD has given strong indicators that it will be focusing its testing efforts on disability discrimination in the immediate future.