|
January 26, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Caroline Peattie, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (415) 483-7552, peattie@fairhousingnorcal.org Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California and Client File Discrimination Complaint Against Landlord San Rafael, CA – For more than 20 years, it has been illegal for most California landlords to use a minimum income standard in assessing eligibility for a rental applicant that is not based on the portion of the rent to be paid by the tenant, if the tenant has a government subsidy. In January 2020, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act was amended to make it illegal to discriminate against or exclude tenants and applicants because they have housing choice vouchers, or Section 8. Despite these laws, some landlords continue to exclude Section 8 voucher holders, either by rejecting them for tenancy altogether, or using a minimum income requirement that is impossible for a voucher holder to meet. Late yesterday, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and one of its clients, Ronda Brooks, filed a lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court alleging that AMFP Creekview LLC, Tilden-Lamplighter LLC, and FPI Management, Inc. have excluded voucher holders by using an illegal minimum income standard in at least two of their Sonoma County properties. This minimum income requirement has the effect of excluding tenants who have vouchers. AMFP IV Creekview LLC is a Delaware company that holds title to the Lenox Apartments located in Rohnert Park, California; Tilden-Lamplighter LLC is a California company that holds title to the Parc Station apartment complex located in Santa Rosa, California. FPI Management, Inc. is a California corporation that manages both the Lenox Apartments and the Parc Station Apartments as well as rental properties in 18 states, including 654 rental properties in California. In April 2020, FHANC sent informational brochures explaining the new changes to the law to 50 housing providers and property managers in the region, including FPI Management, Inc. The informational brochure explained that rejecting rental applicants because they hold a government voucher constitutes unlawful discrimination based on source of income. The brochure also reiterated that existing law, which has been in effect since 2000, provides that a landlord who uses a minimum income threshold for a voucher holder must calculate that threshold based on the amount of rent that will be paid by the tenant, rather than the entire rent amount. Ms. Ronda Brooks is a recipient of a housing choice voucher, which is federally-funded rental assistance – through the Sonoma County Housing Authority. In June of 2020, Ms. Brooks found a listing for the Lenox Apartments on the website Zillow.com and thought that it might be a good fit for her needs. She drove by the apartments, liked what she saw, and called to inquire about a unit. When Ms. Brooks talked with the agent, she asked if they accepted housing choice vouchers. The agent at Lenox told Ms. Brooks that they accepted vouchers, but that Ms. Brooks would need to have an income of at least $5,000 per month, or roughly 2.5 times the rent. Ms. Brooks explained that if she had income in that amount, then she would not have qualified for a Housing Choice Voucher in the first place. The employee responded that the $5,000 minimum income requirement was the Lenox Apartments’ policy. Based on Ms. Brooks’ allegation, FHANC conducted an investigation in September 2020, replicating the experience of Ms. Brooks. A FHANC employee contacted the Lenox Apartments and an agent for the building told him that they accept Section 8, but only if the applicant has an income of at least 2.5 times the rent, and that this income requirement would still apply, even with the voucher. In December 2020, an employee of the Sonoma County Housing Authority contacted FHANC and reported that multiple voucher holders were rejected for tenancy by FPI Management, Inc. at the Parc Station Apartments because they did not meet the building’s minimum monthly income requirement of 2.5 times the monthly rent, regardless of the amount of rent the tenant would be responsible for paying using their voucher. In January 2021, a FHANC employee called the Parc Station Apartments, and the agent confirmed that they accept vouchers but still require that all applicants make a minimum of 2.5 times the monthly rent to qualify. “Discriminating against people who have housing choice vouchers is illegal, pure and simple,” said Caroline Peattie, Executive Director of FHANC. “The law requiring that a landlord must base income requirements for a voucher holders on their portion of the rent has been in effect for 20 years. A huge management company like FPI should not have policies in place that fail to comply with existing fair housing laws, and they should ensure all their agents are properly trained on those laws. We even sent them information about this specific law, and yet FPI still has discriminatory policies in place. As a result, we’ve had to redouble our efforts to educate the community that discrimination against housing choice vouchers is illegal.” “I really hope that this lawsuit makes all landlords understand the law and change their polices,” said Ms. Brooks. “I want people to understand how important the law is to ensure that voucher holders can find housing. If landlords can refuse to rent to Housing Choice Voucher holders, it makes it incredibly difficult for people like me to find housing.” Ms. Brooks is represented by Liza Cristol-Deman of Brancart & Brancart. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: This material is based on work supported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under FHIP PEI Grant FPEI190035. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of HUD. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a non-profit organization serving several Bay Area counties that provides free counseling, enforcement, mediation, and legal or administrative referrals to persons experiencing housing discrimination. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California also offers foreclosure prevention counseling, pre-purchase education, seminars to help housing providers fully understand fair housing law, and education programs for tenants and the community at large. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agency. Please call Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California at (415) 457-5025 or TDD: (800) 735-2922 for more information
3 Comments
  As the day for celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King approaches, we have an opportunity to reflect on the past year with its many challenges – from COVID, to the police brutality that ignited the BLM movement, to the recent events at the Capitol; all these events inform our future actions and strategies. Following Dr. King's assassination on April 4, 1968, and as the nation mourned him and angry riots raged in America's cities, President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Fair Housing Act. On April 11, 1968, seven days after Dr. King’s death, the Federal Fair Housing Act was finally enacted into law – a lasting legacy of a man who had put the issue of fair housing firmly on the map in 1966 with the Chicago freedom movement, and who had been at the forefront of the struggle for racial equality in the United States. More than 50 years later, COVID-19 has highlighted the same racial inequities present in housing opportunities and accumulation of wealth. As the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum over the past year, so too did the white supremacist movement, something made abundantly clear on January 6, as our Capitol was overrun by rioters attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the Confederate flag flew inside the Capitol. In these unprecedented times, I’m reminded of Dr. King’s insistence on peaceful protests, and these words when he accepted the Nobel Peace prize in 1964: “Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself.” These are fitting words for where we now find ourselves. I, along with our agency, recommit ourselves to the work we've undertaken to serve our community. In 2020, our agency began internally examining how to incorporate more anti-racist values into our policies, procedures, and individual beliefs. We are continuing to reflect on and implement them in 2021. We are committed to supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. Our advocacy with our local government agencies and recipients of federal housing to understand and commit to the mandate to affirmatively further fair housing – that is, actively address and work to eliminate housing discrimination and segregation – is ongoing. We redoubled our efforts to support and enforce our civil rights laws that the current administration did its best to undermine, and joined a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s recent reversal of long-standing fair housing protections. There is hope: the new administration has clearly signaled its commitment to governance and to civil rights. That has been made clear through its choice of Marcia Fudge as the Secretary of HUD and Merrick Garland as U.S. Attorney General. I couldn’t be prouder of our staff as they recommit themselves daily to our mission and to help victims of housing discrimination. In the coming weeks and months, we will learn more about how many or to what extent our political leaders will attempt to curtail their previous commitments to racial equity. In the multiracial society we live in, we all have a part to play in continuing to push for racial equity and anti-racism. Thank you for your support and joining us in the peaceful struggle. Caroline Peattie Executive Director Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California Monday, December 21, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Caroline Peattie, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (415) 483-7552, peattie@fairhousingnorcal.org Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California and Client Settle Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Landlord San Rafael, CA – Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and one of its clients settled a sexual harassment and disability discrimination complaint that had been filed with the Housing and Urban Development’s Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity against Turina Associates, LP et al. Ana Hernandez – an alias to protect her anonymity – alleged that she and her adult children were injured by discriminatory acts of Turina Associates, LP, the owners of the property; EAH, Inc., the managers of the property; and its agents. Specifically, Ms. Hernandez alleged that the Respondents violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of sex and disability by permitting a member of EAH maintenance staff to sexually harass her, engaging in retaliatory acts after she reported the harassment, denying her accommodation request, terminating her tenancy, and making discriminatory statements. “We treat complaints of sexual harassment with the utmost seriousness,” said Caroline Peattie, Executive Director of FHANC. “It’s truly damaging psychologically to experience sexual harassment in the place where you live. Your home should be the one place where you feel safe, and it’s extraordinarily difficult to come forward with an accusation of sexual harassment because of the stigma connected to these complaints, not to mention that all too often, people deny that it occurred, causing further psychological damage.” Ms. Hernandez is a single mother with disabilities who lived at the San Rafael property with her adult children from 2006 until the beginning of 2019. In 2018, Ms. Hernandez contacted FHANC explaining that she had become romantically involved with an EAH maintenance worker who subsequently became abusive toward her. She said she attempted to end the abusive relationship several times but found it extremely difficult to do so because of his control over her tenancy based on his employment with the management company. Ms. Hernandez maintained that throughout their relationship, he subjected her to abuse, and she sought counseling from a domestic violence counselor beginning in September 2016. In June 2018, after another assault, she reported the abuse to the police and was granted a three-year criminal protective order against him. She said she complained multiple times to the manager about the maintenance worker’s abuse, disclosing her relationship with him, and that she shared the protective order and concerns for her family’s safety and continued tenancy. Ms. Hernandez asserts that the manager was dismissive of her allegations and even asked if she had done anything to provoke him. After failing to adequately address her concerns, EAH ultimately served her with an eviction notice alleging harassment of other tenants, which she disputed. Despite FHANC’s intervention on behalf of Ms. Hernandez and her request for additional time to move as a reasonable accommodation due to her disability, EAH denied her request and forced her to move out by January 30, 2019. Based on information obtained during counseling sessions with Ms. Hernandez, documents provided to FHANC, and interviews with another witness who made similar allegations against EAH’s agents, FHANC filed a complaint with HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Department in December 2018. HUD investigated her claims and FHANC ultimately negotiated a settlement agreement with the Respondents in which the owners agreed to pay Ms. Hernandez $8,667 and FHANC $4,333 in damages. In addition, Turina and EAH agreed to review and revise their rules, policies, and procedures regarding responding to and investigating claims of potential sexual harassment of tenants and applicants, to notify their tenants of the policy revisions in English and Spanish, to post HUD’s Fair Housing posters in common areas, and to have the property’s managers attend fair housing training. “I really appreciate the help I got from Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California,” said Ms. Hernandez. “The housing counselors at FHANC supported me and helped me during the whole process. The reason I came forward with my complaint was so that this wouldn’t happen to anyone else. It’s scary to speak out and without the help of the FHANC staff, I couldn’t have done it. I want other women who are victims of abuse to know that there are people out there who can help. I was grateful to have people on my side who listened and believed me.” __________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: This material is based on work supported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under FHIP EOI Grant FEOI19005. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of HUD. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a non-profit organization serving several Bay Area counties that provides free counseling, enforcement, mediation, and legal or administrative referrals to persons experiencing housing discrimination. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California also offers foreclosure prevention counseling, pre-purchase education, seminars to help housing providers fully understand fair housing law, and education programs for tenants and the community at large. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agency. Please call Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California at (415) 457-5025 or TDD: (800) 735-2922 for more information. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 22, 2020 CONTACT: Caroline Peattie, Executive Director | 415.483.7552 | peattie@fairhousingnorcal.org Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California joins the National Fair Housing Alliance to Challenge Harmful Trump Administration Reversal of Fair Housing Rule Lawsuit to Fight Ruthless Rollback of Equal Housing Protections Washington, D.C. – Today, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, and BLDS, LLC filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) recent reversal of long standing fair housing protections. The suit challenges HUD’s new “disparate impact” rule, which will make it exceedingly hard for victims of discrimination to fight against systemic racism and discriminatory policies by housing providers, financial institutions, and insurance companies that deprive people of the opportunities and services they need. The Trump administration rewrote the 2013 “disparate impact” rule adopted by the Obama administration, which included the well-accepted, standard approach to claims using this civil rights enforcement tool. It has been in place for almost 50 years to tackle structural barriers that unfairly lock people out of the housing and lending opportunities they deserve. The new rule is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to strip away protections for vulnerable communities. Its harmful action comes as the nation faces the COVID-19 pandemic and its ensuing economic fallout, and as we confront structural inequality and racial disparities that pervade every aspect of society. “We will not let the Trump administration get away with its disastrous decision to strip civil rights protections from people who need it most,” stated Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA). “The disparate impact tool is critical for challenging systemic barriers that block too many people from the housing and lending opportunities they deserve. It is also essential for tackling bias in the technologies used to determine who can rent an apartment, get a mortgage loan, or insure a home. This new rule goes back on everything the Fair Housing Act was created to address. NFHA is going to use every option we have to fight this rule and defend women, people with disabilities, survivors of domestic violence, people of color, families with children and others who should not have to endure any form of housing discrimination.” “HUD’s decision last month to upend the longstanding disparate impact rule is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to undermine decades of progress toward making our country more equal,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). “With this lawsuit, LDF seeks to stop the explicit effort by this president to revive and reinforce practices that promote racial segregation and to strip the Fair Housing Act of its power. The conservative movement to weaken the Fair Housing Act was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2015. The Trump administration now cynically seeks to use that decision to justify its effort to do by agency rulemaking what it could not convince a majority of the court to do.” “We are deeply disappointed in HUD’s final Disparate Impact Rule and its radical revision of the previous 2013 rule,” said Caroline Peattie, Executive Director of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. “Our agency will be hobbled in its effort to assist clients who desperately need our help — families with children who are faced with eviction or are barred from accessing housing because of restrictive occupancy or other discriminatory rules, domestic violence survivors facing eviction due to unfair policies that disproportionately affect women, people of color who are negatively impacted by restrictive housing policies barring people with criminal histories, and others. It will have a chilling effect on the willingness of our already vulnerable clients to come forward with a housing discrimination complaint when the burden of proving discrimination exists now appears insurmountable. In short, this is a rule that should not stand.” “Fair housing doesn't happen by itself, which is why we cannot weaken tools to fight racism,” stated Kristina Adamski, Zillow Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs. “It's critical that the disparate impact rule provide a clear basis to combat housing discrimination, and avoid unduly burdening victims of housing discrimination. At Zillow, we believe everyone deserves a home they love. This belief drives us every day to provide consumers with information and products to find an affordable, quality home. Weakening the disparate impact rule undercuts that goal. We applaud the National Fair Housing Alliance and its allies for taking action to protect this essential tool in our shared fight against housing discrimination." “For nearly fifty years, disparate impact law has made the promise of the Fair Housing Act a reality for millions of Americans,” said John Relman, Founder and Managing Partner of Relman Colfax. “It has helped reduce inequalities that unfairly disadvantage people of color by requiring industry and government to search for less discriminatory alternatives to rules, policies and practices that perpetuate our nation’s legacy of structural racism. HUD’s new rule eviscerates disparate impact law as we know it, without justification or purpose. If the rule is permitted to proceed, it will undo decades of civil rights progress in communities across the country. This lawsuit seeks to enjoin HUD from implementing its unlawful new rule. We must protect the hard won gains of the civil rights movement and the rights of our clients and client communities.” “More than 50 years after passage of the Fair Housing Act, and more than five years after the Supreme Court confirmed the longstanding view that the Act bars both intentional discrimination and policies that have an unnecessarily discriminatory effect, this administration is attempting to use rulemaking to turn back the clock,” stated Allison Zieve director of Public Citizen Litigation Group and co-counsel in the case. “The job of HUD is to enforce the law, not to undermine it. Through this lawsuit, we seek to establish that HUD has exceeded its authority and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” The lawsuit filed by NFHA, LDF, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, and BLDS, LLC asserts the Trump administration acted improperly in implementing the final “disparate impact rule.” It alleges that HUD violated the Administrative Procedures Act by taking final agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, is in excess of statutory authority, and is not in accordance with law. Among other allegations, the complaint alleges that the final rule is not a product of reasoned decision-making and will undermine the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that HUD failed to respond adequately to the public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. Millions of people will be negatively affected if the disparate impact tool is lost. We will continue our efforts to preserve this vital civil rights tool and use every weapon in our arsenal to defend it. Visit DefendCivilRights.org to learn more and find out how you can speak out against this devastating attack on civil rights. ### About Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a non-profit fair housing organization serving several Bay Area counties that provides free counseling, enforcement, mediation, and legal or administrative referrals to people experiencing housing discrimination. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California also offers foreclosure prevention counseling and pre-purchase education, seminars to help housing providers fully understand fair housing law, and education programs for tenants and the community at large. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California provides training and guidance on affirmatively furthering fair housing. The mission of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is to ensure equal housing opportunity and to educate the community on the value of diversity in our neighborhoods. About The National Fair Housing Alliance Founded in 1988, NFHA is a consortium of more than 200 private, nonprofit fair housing organizations and state and local civil rights agencies from throughout the United States. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., NFHA works to eliminate housing discrimination and ensure equal housing opportunity for all people through leadership, education, outreach, membership services, public policy initiatives, community development, advocacy, and enforcement. About the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) Founded in 1940, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is the nation’s first civil and human rights law organization. LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957—although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or LDF. Download the complaint below. 
In April, we will celebrate Fair Housing Month and the 52nd anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 to ensure that every American would have equal access to housing and be free from discrimination. Today it remains one of the most critical pieces of civil rights legislation for advancing racial and other forms of equality, and helps foster stronger and more inclusive communities, essential to our collective success and prosperity. Despite the country’s increasingly diverse population, discrimination and racial segregation in housing persists in rental, lending, sales, and insurance markets.
One of the tenets of the Fair Housing Act is that entities receiving federal funding must do its part to affirmatively further fair housing, that is, foster communities that are diverse and inclusive, eliminate systemic discrimination based on race and other factors, topple the barriers created by government-sponsored segregation, and ensure that residents of all communities have access to the resources and opportunities they need to thrive. In 2015, the administration released an affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) rule that encompassed elements intended to create an effective fair housing planning process, centered on the concerns raised by community members and resulting in concrete strategies for tackling barriers to fair housing. It set the nation on a path toward dismantling the systemic discrimination and deeply entrenched segregation that harm us all. The proposed rule would eliminate the suspended 2015 AFFH rule entirely, replacing it with a new rule that does not address segregation, conflates affordable housing with fair housing, and allows the status quo of discriminatory policies to continue. Here are just some of the differences between the 2015 and proposed rule:
This country has a long history of segregationist and discriminatory housing policies and we must reverse the effects of those policies. We cannot allow this proposed rule to go unchallenged. You can join the fight to preserve the ability of our communities to effectively tackle segregation and create diverse, inclusive communities by writing a unique comment letter. Those who are interested can find a template letter and more information here: www.fightforhousingjustice.org/affh-resources. Comments are due by COB Monday, March 16. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 19, 2019 Contact: Caroline Peattie, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (415) 483-7552 / peattie@fairhousingnorcal.org HUD has just released proposed changes to a rule that would make it harder for people to bring discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act – and easier for businesses to discriminate. The federal register can be viewed here. The Trump administration now seeks to gut one of the Act’s critical tools: the Disparate Impact rule. The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional discrimination as well as the application of a policy or practice that appears neutral on its face but has a discriminatory effect. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development implemented the Disparate Impact rule that ensured that housing and related services such as lending and insurance are made available in ways that do not adversely impact particular communities protected by the Fair Housing Act. Now, however, the proposed rule change would set a higher bar, requiring civil rights advocates to meet five rather than three requirements in order to succeed with a disparate impact claim. The new rule provides a virtual blueprint for how housing providers can successfully defend against disparate impact claims and even claims that the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) would not override state laws that regulate the insurance industry. The Fair Housing Act, enacted by Congress in 1968 following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., carried a promise with its passage that every American would have equal access to housing and be free from discrimination. “Many civil rights organizations like Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California have effectively used the Act to help eliminate barriers to housing and promote equal opportunity, and it remains one of the most critical pieces of civil rights legislation for advancing racial and other forms of equality,” said Caroline Peattie, Executive Director of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. Despite strides made in the last half-century, however, discrimination in housing persists in the rental, lending, sales, and insurance markets. “FHANC is currently involved in three different lawsuits against lenders that allege disparate impact where the lenders’ practices have adversely affected homeowners in communities of color,” said Peattie. “Making the federal fair housing law less accessible and setting the bar even higher to prove discrimination is sending exactly the wrong message to both consumers and the housing industry alike. It’s telling people in the housing industry – including managers, owners, realtors, lenders, and insurers – ‘go ahead, you can discriminate, as long as you’re careful about it and aren’t obvious about showing intent,’ while telling consumers – renters and buyers who are supposed to be protected under the Fair Housing Act – that it may not be worth filing a complaint because it will be too difficult to prove that what you experienced was illegal discrimination.” In 2015, the Supreme Court reached a landmark decision reaffirming the use and importance of disparate impact in Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, where Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating that the Fair Housing Act has a “continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.” It is used to address structural discrimination leading to inequities, a point underlined by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s statement that: “Explicit, legally sanctioned racial segregation in housing may be over, but its vestiges remain today, intertwined with the country’s economic and social life.” As the most diverse and populous state with almost 40 million residents covering a wide range of communities, California could be the most impacted by changes to this longstanding tool to challenge disparities in housing. California and its residents have a strong history in using disparate impact and fighting to preserve it. As Attorney General of California, Senator Kamala Harris played a key role in the Inclusive Communities case, signing a strong amicus brief filed by Attorneys General around the country that strongly supported disparate impact. California cities also stepped up to support disparate impact. The compelling amicus brief filed by municipalities was led by San Francisco and included Los Angeles and Oakland. Both briefs were cited by Justice Kennedy. California has been the site of significant disparate impact litigation over the years, related to lending, families with children, residency restrictions, and replacement housing. For example:
Banking and insurance trade groups have been exerting pressure to take apart this key protection. Here are some potential outcomes of the elimination of the rule:
Furthermore, language in the proposal indicates that a defendant must simply prove that a practice or policy is profitable in order to withstand a challenge that it has a discriminatory impact, while placing the burden on victims of discrimination to prove that a company can be as profitable without discriminating. Gutting the disparate impact protections under the Fair Housing Act will affect the use of this civil rights tool in other areas, including education, employment, health, environmental justice, transportation, and policing. Following the publication of the proposed rule on the Federal Register, there is a 60-day comment period. Civil rights advocates are concerned that the HUD rule foreshadows a broader application within much of the federal government, as similar efforts are under way in the Education and Justice Departments. Without the use of disparate impact, civil rights groups are far less likely to be able to effectively challenge inequalities related to the nation’s gender wage gap, disproportionate discipline of children of color in schools, over-policing of neighborhoods of color, and the nation’s racial wealth gap. Government and private discriminatory housing policies such as redlining, lending and insurance policies, advertising, and zoning rules – past and present – have been identified by housing advocates, and analyses by various groups show that they persist around the country today, negatively impacting communities of color, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. Black homeownership is as low as it has been since the 1960s: See article in Urban Wire. "Where you live has everything to do with the opportunities you have available to you,” said Peattie, "and the Supreme Court's decision underlined that fact by supporting the Fair Housing Act's premise that everyone should have the same chance to live in the housing of their choice, free of discrimination. Now the administration is sending an entirely different message." Peattie maintains that the Trump Administration’s action to gut the disparate impact tool will have a profound, negative effect on the housing choices of millions of Americans of all backgrounds and will undermine equity and equality for decades to come. “Prejudice and bigotry have become more subtle,” said Peattie, “but it’s still there – it’s more difficult to prove, so it’s more important than ever that we strengthen rather than weaken the rule. The Trump administration has made a terrible mistake, and we all need to make our voices heard – both in general, as well as specifically during this comment period, to let them know we won’t stand for civil rights being rolled back.” _____________________________________________________________________ Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a non-profit organization serving several Bay Area counties, providing free counseling, enforcement, mediation, and legal or administrative referrals to persons experiencing housing discrimination. FHANC also offers foreclosure prevention counseling, seminars to help housing providers fully understand fair housing law, and education programs for tenants and the community at large. For more information about Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), fair housing laws, and disparate impact, call FHANC at (415) 457-5025 or TDD: (800) 735-2922, email at fhanc@fairhousingnorcal.org, or visit FHANC’s website at www.fairhousingnorcal.org or Facebook page. For Immediate Release
August 13, 2019 Contact: Morgan Williams | (202) 898-1661 | mwilliams@nationalfairhousing.org Late Monday, August 12, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California largely DENIED Fannie Mae’s Motion to Dismiss a fair housing lawsuit concerning housing discrimination against communities of color. The lawsuit, brought by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and 20 local fair housing organizations, charged Fannie Mae with failing to maintain foreclosed properties (also known as Real Estate Owned or “REO” properties) in Black and LatinX neighborhoods, even as Fannie Mae simultaneously was keeping foreclosed properties in predominately White communities well-maintained. The fair housing groups allege that Fannie Mae’s poor and improper maintenance policies and practices in Black and LatinX communities contributed to blight and other challenges in these areas. In a March, 2018 decision, the federal court found that the fair housing groups had standing to bring a lawsuit against Fannie Mae and upheld their disparate impact claims against the mortgage giant. Disparate impact is a longstanding protection that allows people to challenge unjustified policies that might seem neutral on their face but result in discriminatory outcomes. In doing so, the court found that the fair housing groups properly brought the lawsuit alleging that Fannie Mae’s REO maintenance practices unnecessarily discriminated against communities of color, regardless of what the company’s intent might have been. In Monday’s ruling the court again upheld plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional discrimination. But the court also pointed to the fair housing groups’ assertions that even though they repeatedly warned Fannie Mae that its policies and practices were causing discriminatory outcomes, the company did not change its behavior. The court noted that “…there are sufficient allegations to establish a claim for disparate impact…and the court finds that the Plaintiffs have set out sufficient allegations of intentional conduct.” “This decision proves that our courts matter when it comes to fighting illegal discrimination,” said Lisa Rice, President & CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. She continued, “Communities of color were the canaries in the coal mine when it came to redlining and predatory lending practices that contributed to the foreclosure and financial crises. These same communities that were targeted for unsustainable mortgages were the hardest hit. Fannie Mae’s practices have contributed to the blighted conditions of Black and LatinX neighborhoods and made it harder for these communities, ten years later, to recover from the crisis.” “We are quite pleased with the court’s ruling which paves the way for the fair housing groups to continue with our lawsuit against Fannie Mae on both disparate impact and intentional discrimination or disparate treatment claims,” said Morgan Williams, General Counsel of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “For centuries, lending institutions have behaved in ways that discriminate against communities of color. It’s difficult to get that hard-wired bias out of our lending DNA. It’s easier to default to practices that manifest discriminatory outcomes. Our goal with this lawsuit is to get the industry moving in another direction. We will never see change if we don’t make change.” The National Fair Housing Alliance and other local fair housing groups have similar lawsuits pending against Deutsche Bank and Bank of America. The fair housing groups are represented by Relman, Dane and Colfax, one of the nation’s leading civil rights law firms. The groups are also represented by Morgan Williams, General Counsel of the National Fair Housing Alliance, and Casey Epp, Supervising Attorney of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. Background On December 5, 2016, the National Fair Housing Alliance along with 20 local fair housing organizations throughout the United States filed a federal lawsuit against Fannie Mae in federal district court in San Francisco, California. The lawsuit alleged that Fannie Mae failed to maintain its foreclosed properties (REO properties) in Black and LatinX neighborhoods to the same level of quality and standards as it did for foreclosed properties it owned in predominately White communities. The plaintiff fair housing groups conducted a comprehensive multi-year investigation of over 2,300 properties owned by Fannie Mae in 38 metropolitan areas (see map below) and accumulated over 49,000 photographs documenting the mistreatment and poor maintenance conditions in communities of color as well as the superior treatment and proper maintenance of REOs in predominately White communities. The investigation revealed that Fannie Mae failed to perform routine maintenance, marketing and management activities such as mowing the lawn, trimming hedges, removing debris, maintaining gutters, etc. NFHA notified Fannie Mae many times of the company’s failure to maintain and market its foreclosed homes in communities of color to the same standard to which it was maintaining and marketing foreclosed homes it owned in similar, predominantly White neighborhoods. In spite of numerous meetings between NFHA and Fannie Mae to address these disparities, Fannie Mae persisted in its willful neglect of REO properties it owned in Black and LatinX neighborhoods. Resources Thursday, November 15, 2018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Caroline Peattie, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (415) 483-7552, peattie@fairhousingnorcal.org Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California and Client Settle National Origin Discrimination Complaint San Rafael, CA – Late last month, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) and one of its clients settled a complaint alleging discrimination based upon national origin that had been filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Continuum Housing Association – San Rafael Redevelopment Agency and its agents. Adan Bernardino Peralta was a prospective tenant who applied for and was subsequently denied the opportunity to rent a two-bedroom apartment at Lone Palm Court Apartments, 840 C Street in San Rafael, California in August 2017. Mr. Peralta’s household was to include his wife and their two minor children (aged 17 and 10 at the time). Mr. Peralta is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Mexico. His wife, born in Colombia, was a resident in the United States with a valid tourist visa. |
|||
|
|
TDD: (800) 735-2922
Se habla español Noí tiếng Việt Nam, xin goi We welcome our site visitors with content in Spanish and Vietnamese. En Espanol TIẾNG VIỆT |
|
Office hours 9:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday; Intake from 9:30 am - 2:00 pm, Monday through Friday; all other times by appointment only.