When Eviction Becomes Retaliation – Episode 48

Retaliation is one of the most clearly defined violations under the Fair Housing Act, and it carries serious consequences for housing providers. While much attention is often given to preventing discriminatory practices, retaliation can be just as damaging to residents and equally costly to housing providers. The recent case of United States v. Greenview Associates LP serves as a powerful reminder of why consistency, documentation, and professional restraint are essential whenever residents exercise their fair housing rights.

The Case Background

The case centered on a tenant at Greenview Village Apartments in New Hampshire who had lived there since 2019. In June 2023, he filed a complaint with HUD alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. The day after HUD notified the property of the complaint, management initiated a background check on the tenant, something not typically done for existing residents. Several months later, the tenant was served with a notice of termination, citing his alleged failure to disclose three reckless driving convictions from nearly twenty years earlier.

On the surface, using false information on a rental application may appear to justify termination. But in this situation, the decision raised concerns. The property had not previously conducted background checks on current residents, and the timing, directly following a HUD complaint, created the impression of a retaliatory motive.

The tenant also maintained that he had disclosed the convictions during his application process, though records from 2019 could not confirm this. Even more concerning was the fact that the convictions dated back to when the tenant was a teenager, involved nonviolent conduct, and were arguably unlikely to pose any current risk to the property.

How the Courts Responded

The eviction attempt was quickly challenged in state court. The court ruled in favor of the tenant and found that the eviction itself violated state fair housing law because it was retaliatory. Meanwhile, HUD’s investigation continued. During that process, a regional manager reportedly told investigators that management wanted the investigation to end so they could “get rid of this tenant.” This statement, coupled with the timing of the background check and eviction notice, only supported HUD’s eventual conclusion that retaliation had occurred. Later that year, HUD issued a charge of discrimination, and the lawsuit moved into federal court.

The Legal and Practical Lessons

This case highlights a critical principle: retaliation is a stand-alone violation of the Fair Housing Act. A housing provider cannot punish or attempt to remove a tenant simply because that tenant has filed a complaint. Even if management believes the original complaint is baseless, any action that appears punitive will almost always be viewed as retaliation if there is no consistent policy or legitimate business reason to support it. In the Greenview case, the decision to run a background check after years of tenancy and the reliance on outdated convictions gave the appearance that management was searching for a justification to evict.

The broader lesson for housing providers is the importance of consistency. If background checks are part of standard operations, they must be applied equally to all residents and applicants. If disclosures happen, they should be carefully documented so there is no confusion later about what information was provided. And when a tenant files a fair housing complaint, managers should take extra care not to act in ways that could appear retaliatory. Even legitimate actions handled without care can create significant legal exposure.

Respecting the Process

Retaliation often stems from an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned business decision. Property managers may feel frustrated or unfairly accused when a resident files a complaint, but the law protects the resident’s right to do so. The correct response is to respect the process, cooperate with the investigation, and ensure that any management decisions are lawful, consistent, and thoroughly documented. Attempting to punish a resident for exercising their rights only magnifies the problem and can quickly escalate into a costly federal case.

Moving Forward with Compliance

The Greenview case demonstrates that retaliation can turn a manageable situation into a major liability. Property management teams must view compliance as more than avoiding discrimination; it also includes protecting residents’ right to assert their fair housing protections without fear of adverse consequences. By training staff, applying policies consistently, and pausing before taking action, housing providers can safeguard themselves while maintaining the trust of their residents. Ultimately, respecting both the law and the process is the most effective way to ensure compliance and foster a fair housing community.

You Might Also Like: