scholarly journals Working 9 to Non-Stop: The Fair Housing Act's Sexual Harassment Protections for Domestic, Agricultural, and Other Live-In Workers

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-489
Author(s):  
Callen Lowell
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Fair Housing ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Equivalent State ◽  
Fair Housing Act ◽  
State Employment ◽  
Violence In The Workplace

Live-in workers, for whom their bosses are typically also their landlords, are often trapped in sexually harassing situations that feel as though they have no practical or legal redress, especially when the worker’s harasser can both fire and evict them in one fell swoop. This Note explores the novel possibility of using fair housing law, including the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and state/local fair housing statutes, as a tool to provide legal protections to workers with employer-provided housing (“live-in workers”) who experience sexual harassment or violence in the workplace. There is currently very little case law in which live-in workers have brought fair housing and employment discrimination claims simultaneously, and functionally no case law in which attorneys have brought both claims for live-in worker sexual harassment cases. This Note argues that, under existing fair housing law, many live-in workers should be eligible to bring claims under the FHA and equivalent state laws that prohibit discrimination in housing. As a result, the FHA and equivalent state claims can provide sexual harassment and assault protections for workers, including domestic workers and farmworkers, who may not receive protections under federal or state employment discrimination law. Furthermore, this Note argues that the FHA can provide supplemental or stronger protections from sexual harassment for live-in workers than traditional Title VII or employment discrimination claims. It accordingly suggests that plaintiffs facing harassment or sexual assault in live-in industries should pursue fair housing claims in addition to or in place of Title VII and employment discrimination claims, in order to achieve maximum protection and relief.

Faith and Fair Housing

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-316
Author(s):  
Bruce G. Merritt
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Southern California ◽  
Property Values ◽  
Fair Housing ◽  
Ballot Initiative ◽  
White Neighborhoods ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Fair Housing Act ◽  
Minority Families

In 1964, a California ballot initiative, Proposition 14, aiming to rescind a recent fair-housing act, proved controversial. Supporters argued that property owners had a right to sell to whomever they wished. An undercurrent addressed the supposed deleterious impact to property values if minority families could move into white neighborhoods. Racist motives were denied. This article analyzes the divisive effects of the issue on one southern California church community as it pondered the role of organized religion in matters of social justice.

scholarly journals The Legacy of the 1968 Fair Housing Act

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 571-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas S. Massey
Keyword(s):  
Fair Housing ◽  
Fair Housing Act

Images of Race, Class, and Markets: Rethinking the Origin of U.S. Fair Housing Policy

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mara S. Sidney
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Fair Housing ◽  
Housing Discrimination ◽  
The North ◽  
American Values ◽  
Fair Housing Act ◽  
Housing Professionals ◽  
The 1960S

As the first national law to address racial discrimination in housing, the 1968 Fair Housing Act was truly a landmark piece of legislation. It prohibited homeowners, real-estate agents, lenders, and other housing professionals from engaging in a range of practices they had commonly used to keep neighborhoods racially segregated, such as refusing to sell or rent to a person because of his or her race, lying about the availability of a dwelling, or blockbusting (inducing white owners to sell by telling them that blacks were moving into the neighborhood). The last of the 1960s-era civil rights laws, the Fair Housing Act tackled the arena long felt to be the most sensitive to whites. Intense controversy, demonstrations, and violence over fair housing issues had occurred in many cities and states since at least the 1940s. Although John F. Kennedy promised during his presidential campaign to end housing discrimination “with the stroke of a pen,” once elected, he waited two years to sign a limited executive order. In 1966, a fair housing bill supported by President Johnson failed in Congress. Unlike other civil rights bills, the issue of housing evoked opposition not just from the South but also from the North. Opponents claimed that it challenged basic American values such as “a man's home is his castle”; to supporters, the symbolism of homeownership as “the American Dream” only underscored the importance of ensuring that housing was available to all Americans, regardless of race.

scholarly journals 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employer Discrimination ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

scholarly journals The Uncertain Future of the Fair Housing Act: HUD’s Recent Changes to Disparate Impact Standard

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-54
Author(s):  
Leah Powers
Keyword(s):  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Disparate Impact ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Fair Housing ◽  
Housing Discrimination ◽  
Fair Housing Act ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
Core Mission

In 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published its Disparate Impact Final Rule in which it sought to formalize its longstanding interpretation of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by setting forth a three-part burden-shifting framework. HUD subsequently revisited its disparate impact standard following the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Inclusive Communities and published a Proposed Rule on August 19, 2019. On September 24, 2020, HUD published a new Final Rule substantially altering the disparate impact standard laid out by the 2013 Rule. This Comment will analyze the similarities and differences between the disparate impact standard in the 2013 Rule and the standard set forth in the current, 2020 Rule. Additionally, given that the 2020 Rule was drafted in response to Inclusive Communities, this Comment will examine whether, and to what extent, the 2020 Rule is consistent with the Court’s ruling. Finally, this Comment will address the criticism leveled at the 2020 Rule by fair housing advocates and explore potential consequences of the new standard. Ultimately, this Comment will argue that, although the 2020 Rule finds some textual support in Inclusive Communities for several elements of its new framework, given the broad remedial purpose of the FHA, the core mission of HUD to eradicate housing discrimination, the potential, negative consequences of the new standard, and President Biden’s recent memorandum on housing discrimination, HUD should abandon the 2020 Rule and readopt the 2013 Rule.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document