|
Family denied housing, not once but three times
Ms. S., a mother of four children is no stranger to housing
discrimination. Although she believed that she and her children had been
denied housing for discriminatory reasons many times in the past, she had
never reported it. But when it occurred three times in October 2002, she
had had enough. Ms. S. contacted HOME and filed three separate
discrimination complaints on the basis of familial status.
In the first incident,
Ms. S. had called in response to an ad she saw for an apartment in North
Buffalo and had spoken with a man who immediately asked her who the
apartment was for. When she said “Me and my kids,” the man stated “Kids
aren’t going to work out because my wife is sick,” and hung up.
The second incident
occurred when Ms. S. called about another apartment in North Buffalo. The
woman who answered the call asked her who the apartment was for. When Ms.
S. told her it would be for herself and her children, the woman asked her
how many kids she had, how old they were, and if there were any little
ones. When Ms. S. gave her children’s ages, the woman said “No,” and
hung up.
The third time occurred when Ms. S. responded to an ad on the
Buffalo News website. When she called about the apartment, she asked the
man who answered the phone when the apartment would be shown. The man
stated that before he showed it he wanted to know what kind of response he
got and who would be occupying it. As the man started telling her what
the apartment looked like, he asked, “Who is the apartment for?” Ms. S.
answered “Me and my kids” and he told her, “That’s not going to work, it’s
not suitable,” and hung up the phone.
After HOME received Ms.
S.’ reports of familial status discrimination, HOME conducted
investigations which supported her claims. The investigators who posed as
single persons with children were asked by the landlords who the apartment
would be for and how many children they had. Each time the investigators
disclosed having children, they were either denied the apartments or
discouraged from renting.
They were offered
different reasons for the denials such as “I have a sickly wife and we
live in the lower”, “You have too many children” or “There is no back yard
and no laundry hook up privileges.” In contrast, the investigators
without children were immediately offered the opportunity to view the
apartments-- and in one case also offered an early move-in incentive.
HOME then assisted Ms.
S. in filing the discrimination complaints with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A settlement agreement was reached
in each case, requiring the landlords to pay the equivalent of one month’s
rent to Ms. S. But for Ms. S., the most gratifying part of each
settlement was that along with the financial remuneration, each landlord
was also required to write a letter of apology to her for the
discrimination done to her family
Let me decide where I
want my family to live
Ms. J., a single mother
with two young boys was interested in renting an apartment in West
Seneca. She saw an ad for a two bedroom upper, called the number, and
spoke with the landlord to inquire about the unit.
The landlord asked who
would be renting the apartment. When Ms. J. said it was for her and her
two sons, the landlord asked her how old the sons were. When she gave
their ages, the landlord told her “I do not rent to young mothers with
children because you have to walk up stairs.” When Ms. J. said that that
was discrimination, the landlord said again very firmly, “I do not rent to
mothers with young children,” and hung up the phone.
After receiving the
complaint, HOME conducted an investigation which revealed that the phone
number listed in the ad belonged to Metro Crown Realty and that one of the
agents there was also the owner of the listed property. HOME also “tested”
the agency to corroborate Mrs. J’s allegations.
The investigator who
posed as a mother with two young children was asked by the agent how many
children she had and after saying “two,” was told that the apartment would
be too small. After this investigator insisted in viewing the apartment
and making that assessment for herself, the agent said she would call her
back and make arrangements to show her the apartment. Despite making
additional calls, this investigator was never given an appointment. In
contrast, the investigator without children was given an opportunity to
view the upper apartment.
Based on Mrs. J’s
allegations and the results of HOME’s investigation, HOME joined Mrs. J in
filing a HUD complaint of familial status discrimination. After failing
to reach a settlement during negotiations, the respondent elected to have
the complaint heard in Federal Court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary E.
Fleming brought an action in the U.S. District Court of Western New York.
Dan D. Kohane of Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., represented HOME and Mrs. J. and
her children.
The case, which was
brought before Judge John T. Curtain, was settled before trial. The
consent order directed the defendants to pay $7,500 and take several
affirmative actions including: informing current tenants and all future
applicants that families with children are allowed to live at their
dwellings; making compliance with federal state and local fair housing
laws a condition of employment; posting “equal housing opportunity” or the
fair housing logo in all future advertising; and attending a fair housing
training acceptable to the U.S. Attorney’s office. |
