Timeline for Rental discrimination because of family status?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2017 at 3:54 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @user662852 a "family" is not a legal person - each individual is jointly and severally responsible | |
| Aug 18, 2017 at 3:26 | comment | added | user662852 | If the landlord has say rented before to a single single person, and will not rent to 3 single persons, are they discriminating on "familial status"? Can a landlord not have a legitimate business interest in having a contract with only one economic unit as the responsible counterparty? | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 15:07 | comment | added | animuson♦ | @WindowsNT No, they can't. The term is further defined by law. You can't change the definition from what the law sees it as, and every single resource I've found states familial status only relates to discriminating against families in regards to them having children. You can't read the law however you want. That's why legal definitions exist. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 13:08 | comment | added | WindowsNT | It explicitly states examples of familial discrimination, but also has that general statement. One could argue that a family would be treated differently than an otherwise identical applicant. Even though that is in the favor of the family, it could be considered discrimination. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 13:06 | comment | added | WindowsNT | I found this here: (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 5:22 | comment | added | animuson♦ | But past that, from the various things I've been able to find online about it, the federal protection of "familial status" refers solely to having children (or being pregnant), and nothing else related to the family. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 5:15 | comment | added | animuson♦ | That... sounds like bad advice. Mentioning a legal aspect that you don't actually have any information on whether it would be a legitimate action is not a good plan. Psychological effect there would cause them to either become afraid of legal action and approve or be irritated by the threat of legal action and deny out of principle. Either way, all you're doing is making the situation uncomfortable when you don't even know for sure. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 5:12 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @animuson more directly: not being part of a family has to be familial status based simply on the words themselves. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 5:11 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @animuson I only need evidence if I'm going to court - no one here wants to go to court so the subtle suggestion that the landlord may just have handed the potential tenants a reason for taking him to court (even if they are ultimately unsuccessful) may mean that he approves their application just to avoid the possibility. In a more general sense, there are actions, laws and ordinances all over the place that, if challenged, will fall in a screaming heap - courts only resolve disputes, they don't actively go looking for unconstitutional laws to strike down. | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 4:05 | comment | added | animuson♦ | Do you have evidence that "familial status" actually covers the complete lack of them being a family? Several cities I've been to have city ordinances that explicitly forbid a home from being used as a permanent residence by four or more non-related occupants in certain residential zones. Would that also be considered discrimination if a group were declined because a city ordinance forbids it? That status sounds more like preventing situations like "we don't want children" or "we want a mother and father together" not "you guys aren't related." | |
| Aug 17, 2017 at 2:11 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |