March 2008 Special Issue Coach's Quiz

Coach's Answers and Explanations

QUESTION #1

Correct answer: a

Reason: You could be liable for discrimination based on familial status under fair housing law. Her comments could be viewed as both discouraging a family with children from moving into your community and steering them away from your community, both of which are violations of the FHA.

Wrong answer explained:

1. Your staff member's seemingly good intentions are no defense to a fair housing complaint. Even though she says she honestly believed that the children would be happier in the other community because of its proximity to the school and playground, it is a violation of fair housing law to discourage families with small children from renting a unit in your community or steer them away from your community.

See: Southern California Housing Rights Center v. Krug

QUESTION #2

Correct answer: b

Reason: Not knowing that your staff is acting in a discriminatory manner will not necessarily protect you from liability under fair housing laws. Owners generally are liable for discriminatory acts by their agents and employees in the course of their duties.

Wrong answer explained:

1. You could be liable if the resident proves she was sexually harassed by your employee. In sexual harassment cases, owners may have a defense to liability because such misconduct often is viewed as outside the scope of the employee's duties. Nevertheless, you could be liable if your actions placed the employee in a position that allowed such misconduct to occur.

See: Southern California Housing Rights Center v. Krug; Glover v. Jones

QUESTION #3

Correct answer: c

Reason: Explain your community's policies and procedures for evaluating requests for reasonable accommodations by residents with disabilities. With proof of a disability and need for a service animal, courts have found that waiving a no-pets policy for a resident with a disability may be considered a reasonable accommodation.

Wrong answers explained:

1. The fact that the resident violated your community's policies regarding pets doesn't necessarily mean that he cannot keep the dog. If he satisfies your criteria for making reasonable accommodations for residents with a disability, you may have to allow him to keep the dog as a service animal.

2. It's not a good idea to make an exception to your no-pets policy without requiring the resident to demonstrate the need for the dog as a reasonable accommodation because of a disability. Consistency is the key to fair housing compliance, and suspending the rules for one resident may come back to haunt you when you try to enforce the rules in the future.

See: State ex rel. Henderson v. Des Moines Municipal Housing Authority

QUESTION #4

Correct answer: c

Reason: The federal courts disagree on whether a community may withdraw from the Section 8 voucher program without liability under the FHA. One federal court recently ruled that an owner may be liable under the FHA if its withdrawal from the program has a disproportionate impact on members of a protected class. Until the conflict is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, you should consult an attorney well-versed in fair housing law before you decide to withdraw from the Section 8 voucher program.

Wrong answers explained:

1. If your community is located in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee, it is subject to the recent ruling by the federal appeals court that owners may be liable under the FHA if withdrawal from the Section 8 voucher program has a discriminatory effect upon members of a protected class.

2. Even in states where the federal courts have found no liability under the FHA for withdrawal from the Section 8 voucher program, you may be liable for housing discrimination if your state or local law includes source of income as a protected characteristic.

See: Graoch Assocs. #33, L.P. v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Human Relations Commission