The FHA prohibits the following actions (among others) as “discriminatory housing practices“: “[M]ak[ing] [a dwelling] unavailable” to a person because the person is a member of a protected class. (42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).) “[D]iscriminat[ing] … in the provision of services … in connection [with]” the “sale or rental of a dwelling.”

using providers,” homeowners associations and condominium associations (community associations or associations) are subject to the restrictions contained in both the FHA and the FFHA and are required to make reasonable accommodations in their rules, policies, practices, or services when doing so is necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to the use of a dwelling and common areas. For instance, a disabled unit owner’s request to keep an assistance animal in his or her condominium unit, notwithstanding an association’s “no animals” policy, is a request for reasonable accommodation and should be carefully considered and approved if appropriate.Less often implicated, however, are the obligations similarly imposed on housing providers by the FHA and the FFHA to allow reasonable modificationsof the premises, to the extent the modification is necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. More specifically, Chapter 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604 (f)(3)(A) of the FHA provides that an association discriminates when it refuses to make certain reasonable modifications to afford a person with a disability the full access and enjoyment of the premises, including, but not limited to, the common areas:(3)For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes:(A)a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.Reviewing Requests for Reasonable Modifications Unlike requests for an accommodation, requests for modification involve a physical or structural change to the existing pre

Numerous condominiums and homeowner associations have Governing Documents, or rules and regulations that regulate leasing, including restriction to whom owners may rent. Many associations base their decisions on the results of a criminal background check or on a potential renter’s disclosure of criminal history on a rental application. If an association considers criminal backgrounds in determining whether to approve a lease, then the association needs to ensure it complies with the Fair Housing Act (FHA).Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604, the FHA prohibits the refusal to lease a residence to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published guidance on the use of criminal records, noting that:African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers.As such, HUD discourages against blanket policies that would prohibit leasing to any individual with any criminal record. Should an association’s policy come under challenge, a court will test whether the policy is necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. To meet this standard, associations should take a holistic and individualistic approach and craft an objective policy that considers, among other things, the

First, HUD used its response to express the view that “discriminatory insurance practices can violate … [Sections] 3604(a), (b), (c), (f)(1), (f)(2), 3605 and 3617” of the FHA.The FHA declares that several different actions constitute “discriminatory housing practices“: not only “mak[ing] [a dwelling] unavailable” to a person because the person is a member of a protected class (42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)), and “discriminat[ing] … in the provision of services … in connection [with]” the “sale or rental of a dwelling” (§ 3604(b)), but also “discriminat[ing] against any person in making available” a “real estate-related transaction[],” or “in the terms or conditions of such a transaction” (§ 3605(a)).There is general consensus that discrimination in the sale of property insurance can violate § 3604. See, e.g., N.A.A.C.P. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., supra; Fuller v. Teachers Ins. Co., No. 5:06-CV-00438-F (E.D.N.C., Sept. 19, 2007).

(b) To discriminate against any person…in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (b). As defined under the statue, discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

gaged in a “pattern or practice” to prevent or delay approval for residents who qualify for an emotional support animal (“ESA”) to live with them in their apartment.Facts The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sued the association alleging that its policies and practices relative to emotional support animals (“ESAs”) violated federal law.The jury found some claims in favor of the DOJ and some claims in favor of the association. The most important part of the case is that it laid out the rules applicable to associations when considering ESA requests.Those are the following:The Law (As laid out by the court in the case)The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) makes it unlawful:“to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of (A) that buyer or renter, (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, renter, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.”42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Discrimination includes:“a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]”42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). “Handicap” means“(1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such persons major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment[.]”42 U.S.C. § 3602(h).The United States may bring an action against “any person or group of persons” that has “engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights” or denied “any group of persons” “any of the rights granted by” the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). Neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit has addressed the meaning of the term “pattern or practice” as found in the FHA. Nonetheless, it is clear that Congress passed the FHA in order to deter discrimin

Additionally, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) makes it unlawful to discriminate against “any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services of facilities in connection with such dwelling” on the basis of that person’s handicap. 42 U.S.C.A §3604(f)(2).Discrimination is defined to include refusing to make reasonable accommodations in “rules, policies, practices or services” when necessary to afford a person with a handicap “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C.A. §3604(f)(3)(B). See, See, Trovato v. City of Manchester, 992 F. Supp 493 [D. N.H. 1997].Under the FHAA, an accommodation is “necessary” to afford “equal opportunity” when plaintiffs have shown that but for the accommodation, they “will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice, and the “reasonable accommodations” requirement of the FHAA applies to zoning ordinances. Id.For example, in the case of Austin v. Town of Farmington 826 F.3d 622 [2d Cir. 2016], the Austins obtained zoning variances to build a pool, fence and deck on their property to accommodate their disabled son. Located in Ontario County, New York, the Town Board of Farmington granted a “temporary accommodation” to allow for the proposed improvements. However, the re

HMK didn’t respond to that request or a subsequent one, instead filing a state action to recover possession of the property.The Howards filed suit, alleging that HMK violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), which prohibits discrimination in the form of “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” The district court granted summary judgment for HMK, concluding that the Howards failed to show that extending their tenancy was necessary because of Glenn’s medical condition, and that the FHAA does not impose independent liability for a landlord’s failure to interact with a tenant.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”) prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap….” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).Discrimination is defined as “[a] refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be made necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Although AI promises exciting developments and cost-savings, with great efficiency comes responsibility. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2). Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program (Jan. 30, 2019), https://prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf.Connecticut Fair Hous.