No Love Leased: Determining a Landlord's Liability for Tenant-on-Tenant Harassment Under the Fair Housing Act

N/A

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

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.

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

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.

Repräsentative Kollektivklagen im Antidiskriminierungsvertragsrecht

The thesis examines the possibilities to collectively enforce prohibitions of discrimination in contract law which have yet not been fully clarified in law and literature. Since the General Act on Equal Treatment does not stipulate respective regulations for collective redress, the fundamental question is to what extent these prohibitions can be qualified as consumer protection and be enforced by means of consumer collective redress. The author, who works as a consultant for the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, explores the effectiveness and limitations of such enforcement by means of consumer law, also in comparison with special anti-discrimination collective actions as regulated under the U.S. Fair Housing Act.

Conflict Preemption: A Remedy for the Disparate Impact of Crime-Free Nuisance Ordinances

Thousands of municipalities across the country have adopted crime-free nuisance ordinances—laws that sanction landlords for their tenants’ behaviors, coercing them to evict tenants for actions as innocuous as calling 9-1-1 in an emergency. These facially neutral ordinances give wide discretion to municipal officials, leading to discriminatory enforcement of evictions. As a result, these ordinances have a devastating impact on victims of domestic violence and are used as a tool to inhibit integration in majority-white municipalities. Many plaintiffs have brought lawsuits alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. However, bringing lawsuits under various anti-discrimination protections presents many challenges. Less than five percent of all discrimination plaintiffs will achieve relief, and eighty-six percent of discrimination claims end in dismissals. Professor Katie Eyer, an anti-discrimination legal scholar, has advocated for increasing the use of “extra-discrimination remedies,” litigation-based approaches that are not rooted in anti-discrimination laws. This Note explores one potential extra-discrimination remedy that could be used to challenge crime-free nuisance ordinances: conflict preemption. Crime-free nuisance ordinances that are not tailored to state landlord-tenant laws’ grounds for eviction may be in conflict with, and preempted by, state law. This Note also recommends that fair housing advocates collaborate with landlord associations when challenging crime-free nuisance ordinances. Although the interests of landlords and tenants often conflict, both groups are harmed by municipalities that enact crime-free nuisance ordinances.

Remediating Racism for Rent: A Landlord’s Obligation Under the FHA

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) is an expansive and powerful piece of legislation that furthers equal housing in the United States by ferreting out discrimination in the housing market. While the power of the Act is well recognized by courts, the full contours of the FHA are still to be refined. In particular, it remains unsettled whether and when a landlord can be liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment. This Note argues, first, that the FHA does recognize liability in such a circumstance and, second, that a landlord should be subject to liability for her negligence in such a circumstance. Part I illustrates how the purpose and text of the FHA and analogous civil rights provisions suggest that a landlord should be held liable for her response to tenant-on-tenant harassment. Part II analyzes the standards of liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment that currently exist in the context of the FHA. Part III argues that a negligence standard of liability best accounts for the special status of the home and the unique nature of the landlord-tenant relationship.

OPPOSING AND POLICING RACIAL INTEGRATION

Over fifty years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, how have mechanisms of residential segregation changed? Using a case study of a Los Angeles suburb’s reaction to Black movement through the federal Housing Choice Voucher program, I argue that policing should be considered among the contemporary forces of residential segregation. Through interviews with forty-three local residents, I show how one community’s reaction to voucher movement spans from attitudes to actions. First, I document widespread hostility towards Black voucher holders on the basis of their race, gender, and participation in the voucher program. Second, I trace how the city’s municipal code changes have responded to public sentiment and created an incentive to participate in policing. By attaching fines and incentives for landlords to evict tenants to broadly written and subjective nuisance codes, the city has created a pathway by which local residents can pressure unwanted neighbors out of the community. Third, I illustrate how some residents engage in participatory policing by surveilling neighbors they believe are using vouchers and dispatching city and police agencies to inspect, fine, and possibly evict these targets. These findings illustrate how communities can use policing to racially segregate space, how eviction might be communally produced, and how local opposition to Black movement breaks the pathway between residential mobility and socio-economic gains that underlies the voucher program.