“It pays to advertise” is one of the tenets of a successful business. However, when the ads discriminate, just the opposite can be true. So learned the publishers of the Renters’ Guide, who recently paid $20,000 to settle allegations that they had an ongoing practice of publishing discriminatory advertising.
The settlement concluded an effort begun by HOME in 1999 to prevent discriminatory advertising from being published by the Renters’ Guide.
Advertising for the sale or rental of housing which shows a “preference, limitation or discrimination” due to race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, marital status, military status, disability, sexual orientation, or the presence of children in a family is a violation of fair housing law. The alleged violations first came to HOME’s attention in 1999, when an anonymous home seeker reported advertising on the Renters’ Guide website which appeared to discriminate on the basis of age, marital status, familial status, and lawful source of income.
HOME contacted the Publisher, Bill Burton, advised him of fair housing laws governing advertisements, and asked that the Guide both refrain from further discriminatory advertisements and print a statement of non-discrimination. HOME also invited Mr. Burton to join more than 40 Western New York newspapers in the Publishers’ Voluntary Agreement to End Discriminatory Advertising.
Although the Renters’ Guide chose not to respond to the invitation, since the statement of non-discrimination was published and no further discriminatory language was observed, the case was considered resolved. However, in 2002, discriminatory language in the Renters’ Guide was reported again. Ongoing monitoring revealed that nearly one-fifth of the ads published over a multiple-month period contained language that appeared to violate fair housing law. Accordingly, HOME filed a case with both DHR and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging discrimination on the basis of age, marital status, and familial status.
One month later, DHR resolved the complaint with a conciliation agreement in which the publisher: agreed to print a notice of non-discrimination, print six fair housing ads, send two staff members to a fair housing training, and pay $3,500. HOME agreed that in 60 days, the agency would resume monitoring the paper.
Renewed monitoring revealed that the paper had more discriminatory ads. Therefore, in December of that year, HOME filed a complaint of non-compliance with DHR. Dan Kohane of Hurwitz and Fine PC represented HOME.
After filing the case, HOME learned that the publication had been sold. Because Mr. Burton remained interim publisher and the terms of the conciliation agreement were revealed at the time of the sale, the new owner also was bound by the terms of the agreement.
The new case resulted in an agreement to send advertising staff to fair housing training, abide by the terms of the 2003 conciliation agreement, and pay $20,000.
