Case Files: When ‘No Kids or Pets Allowed’ Didn’t Hold Up in Court

In the property management industry, fair housing violations are serious legal offenses, often resulting in significant penalties for housing providers. However, not all cases end in victory for plaintiffs, as highlighted by a recent case where a Fair Housing Center lost its lawsuit and subsequent appeals. This case sheds light on the importance of understanding both fair housing laws and the evidentiary requirements necessary to win in court.

Fair Housing Ctr. v. Shutters Condo

Background of the Case

A fair housing advocacy group, tasked with investigating potential fair housing violations, was reviewing online housing advertisements and found a Craigslist listing for a condominium rental that included the phrase, “Sorry, no kids or pets.” This raised red flags for the group, as it is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act to restrict residency based on the presence of children.

Upon further investigation, the group discovered that the condominium’s bylaws, dating back to 1986, restricted residency of children, allowing only adult children of condo owners to live in the property. Although familial status was not added as a protected category under the Fair Housing Act until 1988, clearly the condominium association had not updated its bylaws to reflect this change in the law.

Legal Proceedings and Outcome

The Fair Housing Center filed a formal complaint alleging familial status discrimination. After investigating, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined there was cause to believe a violation had occurred, moving the case to federal court.

After the lawsuit was filed, the housing provider took proactive steps by amending their online ad and updating their condominium bylaws to remove restrictions on children. However, what ultimately worked in the housing provider’s favor was the fact that no individuals had responded to the ad, either before or after it was corrected. Because of this, the Fair Housing Center was unable to demonstrate that anyone had been harmed by the advertisement—a necessary component to proving damages in fair housing cases.

The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the housing provider, and when the Fair Housing Center appealed the decision, the 11th Circuit Court upheld the original verdict. No damages were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Right of Fair Housing Groups to File Complaints

One of the questions raised by this case is why a fair housing advocacy group can file a legal complaint if no direct harm occurred to an individual applicant. According to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, these groups have the right to initiate legal action, even if they did not personally intend to apply for housing or experience harm in the traditional sense. The rationale is that these organizations incur expenses when investigating potential violations, and the diversion of resources toward these investigations can justify their standing to sue. However, in this case, the jury found that the Fair Housing Center did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of incurring substantial costs during their investigation.

The Condominium Owner’s Misstep

While the defendant ultimately prevailed, the initial rental ad still constituted a violation of fair housing laws (along with the condo’s bylaws). It was revealed during the investigation that the condominium owner’s daughter had posted the ad online as a favor and was unaware of the Fair Housing Act’s requirements. This highlights the importance of ensuring that anyone involved in advertising rental properties is knowledgeable about fair housing laws. Whether a property owner or a management company, it’s critical to have housing advertisements reviewed by someone with expertise in fair housing compliance to avoid costly legal issues.

Lessons for Property Management Professionals

This case serves as a reminder for property management professionals to stay vigilant when it comes to fair housing compliance. Even a seemingly small mistake, such as a misworded ad, can lead to a lawsuit. Taking proactive steps—such as reviewing ads and ensuring that internal policies and bylaws are up-to-date—can help prevent legal challenges. Additionally, while fair housing advocacy groups have the right to file complaints, they must still meet the burden of proving harm and damages in order to succeed in court.

Understanding the nuances of fair housing law is essential in protecting both your business and the rights of residents. This case illustrates that a proactive approach, coupled with a clear understanding of legal requirements, can help property management professionals navigate the complexities of fair housing compliance successfully.

You Might Also Like: