HUD Publishes Very Weakened Version of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule in the Federal Register

 

On March 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published its stripped-down version of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule in the Federal Register. This interim final rule repeals the 2021 interim final rule, including any parts of the 2015 AFFH Rule incorporated therein, and the 1994 AI requirements where they appear in regulation or guidance.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule is intended to implement a provision of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned housing discrimination and predatory real estate practices. The AFFH was designed to help local governments and housing agencies proactively address persistent barriers to fair housing and equal opportunity. Learn more about the history of the Fair Housing Act and the AFFH rule at the National Fair Housing Alliance. 

Under the new AFFH Interim Final Rule (IFR), jurisdictions will still be required to certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). However, these certifications will be deemed sufficient as long as the jurisdiction took any action during the period that is rationally related to promoting fair housing, such as efforts to eliminate housing discrimination or to improve housing conditions. Unlike previous requirements, jurisdictions will not need to provide detailed reports or justifications to demonstrate compliance.

The rule will be finalized on April 2, 2025. HUD is inviting public comment on the IFR for a 60-day period until May 2, 2025 and has said that all feedback will be considered as part of its ongoing review to ensure consistency. Comments can be submitted to the Federal Register: Federal Register: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions.

To support stakeholders in the AFFH public comment process, PolicyLink has developed a public comment guide for the Biden Administration’s 2023 Proposed AFFH Rule. While the 2025 IFR differs from the 2023 proposed rule, the guidance in this resource are relevant. The Guide provides essential tools to help individuals and organizations craft strong, equity-focused comments, including: strategies for advancing equity in public comments, An overview of the federal rulemaking and public comment process, a step-by-step guide to writing and submitting effective feedback, key data sources to strengthen your comment, Sample language tailored for organizations across sectors 

PolicyLink Comment on 2023 Proposed AFFH Rule

PolicyLink Full Comment Guide for the 2023 proposed AFFH Rule

Despite this shift at the federal level, states and local jurisdictions can continue to implement their own policies and planning efforts to promote inclusive communities. 

Explore more about AFFH and access additional advocacy tools:

Alliance for Housing Justice: Understanding AFFH - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | AHJ 

National Fair Housing Alliance: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing - NFHA 

National Housing Law Project: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | NHLP 

National Low Income Housing Coalition: Racial Equity and Fair Housing: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) 

PRRAC: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)   

Read the March 3, 2025 PolicyLink article.

Civil and Human Rights Organizations Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders Banning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility and Erasing Transgender People

The Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Lambda Legal have filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago challenging three anti-equity executive orders from President Trump related to diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and transgender people. LDF and Lambda Legal claim these orders will severely limit the organizations’ ability to provide critical social and health services such as HIV treatment, fair housing, equal employment opportunities, affordable credit, civil rights protections, and many others. This would harm countless people across the US, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, people with disabilities, and people living with HIV. The lawsuit claims that the administration is violating the organizations’ rights to free speech and due process and is engaging in intentional discrimination by issuing and enforcing the anti-equity orders.

The three executive orders being challenged would end equity-related grants and forbid federally-funded entities from engaging in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, and from recognizing the existence of transgender people. These orders reverse decades of civil rights progress and pose an existential threat to the organizations that advocate for the civil rights of transgender people, and provide them shelter, services, and support.

“Fair housing is a national policy of the U.S. Our nation’s fair housing principles are embedded in the Constitution and civil rights statutes secured by the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of millions of people who fought to make our Declaration of Independence and Constitution real for everyone in this country. The Constitution and our civil rights laws are centered on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The President cannot undo the Constitution or take away our rights by affixing a signature to an executive order,” said Lisa Rice, President and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “The administration’s Executive Orders and OMB funding freeze memorandum have caused chaos, fear, insecurity, dysfunction, and loss of rights. The Administration’s illegal actions put all people in harm’s way, driving up the cost of housing and leaving millions exposed to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with no structure for protection. ‘Out of Many, One’ is our national motto -– any effort to divide, stoke fear and treat people unfairly is not in line with our nation’s founding principles. America is best when united and relentlessly pursuing a country where everyone, regardless of their background, has a fair chance at reaching the American Dream.”

“Beyond spreading inaccurate, dehumanizing, and divisive rhetoric, President Trump’s executive orders seek to tie the hands of organizations, like our clients, providing critical services to people who need them most,” said Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of LDF. “The three orders we are challenging today perpetuate false and longstanding stereotypes that Black people and other underrepresented groups lack skills, talent, and merit - willfully ignoring the discriminatory barriers that prevent a true meritocracy from flourishing. We proudly stand with our clients and Lambda Legal against these unconstitutional orders and hope the court will act quickly so the arduous work of advancing and sustaining our multiracial democracy can continue without unlawful interference from the Trump administration.”

“These policies drip with contempt for transgender people, and pose a significant threat to critical health and HIV services that support marginalized communities, putting lives at risk,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project Director. “These orders pose an existential threat to transgender people and the organizations that provide them with shelter and support. The orders defund organizations providing critical health and HIV services, and punish organizations for striving to improve the lives of Black people, people of color, and members of other marginalized communities. They are patently unconstitutional. Lambda Legal and LDF teamed up because the fights to end racism, the HIV epidemic, and anti-transgender bias are inseparable. For organizations like our plaintiffs providing these services, addressing these compounding barriers is essential to HIV prevention and care, and this policy would impede the work to eradicate and address the HIV epidemic.”

The lawsuit, National Urban League v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that the executive orders violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to free speech by censoring and chilling their views on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The plaintiffs also claim that the executive orders are so vague that the organizations do not know what is and is not prohibited, in violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights. Also, the executive orders discriminate against people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ people, with particular animus towards Black people and transgender individuals, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

You can read the full complaint here.

Read the February 19, 2025 NFHA article.

Support Needed for Fair Housing Bill HB1239 in the Current Maryland Session!

 

The Fair Housing and Housing Discrimination - Regulations, Intent, and Discriminatory Effect Bill is sponsored by Delegates Deni Taveras (D-47B), Mary A. Lehman (D-21), Joe Vogel (D-17), Nick Allen (D-8), Julian Ivey (D-47A), Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk (D-21), and Jamila J. Woods (D-26). Go to https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB1239?ys=2025RS to read the Official Document.

The bill was originally assigned to the House Environment and Transportation Committee. Its effective date would be October 1, 2025. It currently is in the House of Delegates, and a House Environment and Transportation Committee hearing about the bill is scheduled for February 28th at 1:00 p.m.

HB1239 authorizes the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt certain regulations related to affirmatively furthering fair housing; providing that certain discriminatory housing practices may be committed without intent; prohibiting a person from acting in a certain manner that has a discriminatory effect against a person related to the sale or rental of a dwelling; and providing that certain conduct does not constitute a certain violation.

This bill enhances fair housing protections in the state of Maryland by expanding the Department of Housing and Community Development's responsibilities and clarifying housing discrimination regulations. The bill requires the Department to administer housing programs in a way that "affirmatively furthers fair housing" and to collaborate with nonprofit and governmental entities committed to fair housing goals. Most importantly, the legislation introduces a new legal standard that allows claims of housing discrimination to be proven even without demonstrating intentional discrimination, meaning that practices with a discriminatory effect can be challenged regardless of the actor's intent. This statement refers to the legal concept of "disparate impact" in housing discrimination.

Disparate impact theory is a key legal principle in fair housing enforcement, ensuring  that policies or practices that disproportionately harm protected groups - regardless of intent - can be challenged under the law. Unlike cases of overt discrimination, disparate impact cases address systemic inequities that come from seemingly neutral policies. This doctrine is crucial for addressing racial disparities in housing, zoning laws that disproportionately exclude certain populations, and lending practices that result in unequal mortgage approvals. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of disparate impact claims in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015), affirming that policies with discriminatory effects can violate the Fair Housing Act, even in the absence of intentional discrimination. California, New York, and Illinois have state-level disparate impact protections similar to what this bill proposes.

The bill specifically prohibits various discriminatory practices in housing, such as refusing to rent or sell, making discriminatory statements, or providing unequal services based on characteristics like race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, source of income, or military status. 

The bill also provides a defense for actions that meet three conditions: the action was without discriminatory intent, was justified by legitimate business necessity, and could not have been accomplished through less discriminatory means. 

The legislation empowers aggrieved persons to file civil actions and allows for remedies including damages and injunctive relief, with the Attorney General granted broad investigative and prosecutorial powers to address civil rights violations in housing.

Read the BillTrack50 summary.

Read the proposed bill.

Strengthen Fair Housing in Maryland: Urge Your Senator to Support SB107!

 

In 39 states, fair housing testers use a  recording device to accurately capture the conversation with a housing provider which can later be used as evidence if the provider violates civil rights law. In Maryland, testers cannot record  conversations in the same way. 

Restricting this ability to effectively test and capture evidence of discrimination weakens enforcement of fair housing in our state. Other states are using recording to enforce the law. In New York, fair housing organizations and New York City won a $2.2 million settlement for source of income discrimination. New Jersey won a $40,000 settlement for source of income discrimination. Virginia also won a recent settlement for source of income discrimination. Maryland, despite finding cases of source of income housing discrimination, has not been able to reach a settlement because we can’t record in the same way that provides strong enough proof to lead to a settlement. 

In the current Annapolis Session, SB107 allows qualified fair housing organizations to use recording devices for testing purposes. There are several benefits to this, including:

(1) Strengthening Fair Housing Enforcement & Justice. The ability to document test experiences through audio recordings provides incontrovertible evidence of illegal housing discrimination

(2) Protecting Testers and Housing Providers. Having an exact account of a conversation protects testers from any credibility or bias as well as protects housing providers from false allegations, misunderstandings, or faulty memories of testers. 

(3) Resulting in More Efficient Allocation of Resources. Saves fair housing organizations money because they can reduce the number of testers, saving using city, county, state, and using federal funds more efficiently and effectively. The use of recorders also allows organizations to maintain the highest investigative standards. 

Urge your senator on the Judicial Proceedings Committee to vote YES on SB107.

Go to Economic Action Maryland

HUD Approves $115,000 Settlement with the City and County of Denver, Colorado, Resolving Claim of Disability Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement / Conciliation Agreement with HUD grantees, the City and County of Denver, Denver’s Office of Community Planning and Development, and Denver’s Board of Adjustments. This Agreement resolves findings related to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the remaining allegations of violations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the Fair Housing Act. Read the Agreement, the Letter of Findings of Noncompliance, and the Revised Formal Determination of Noncompliance.

The Agreement resolves allegations that the Respondents violated the Fair Housing Act and were in noncompliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by denying a Denver, Colorado, household a variance to the Denver Zoning Code to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to meet the disability-related needs of a household member. Federal nondiscrimination laws prohibit disability discrimination against homeowners without disabilities who live or are associated with individuals with disabilities.

The agreement stems from a complaint that was filed by a same-sex, mixed race couple who applied to the City of Denver for a variance to the City’s ADU zoning code to construct an ADU with necessary accessibility features - a reasonable accommodation for the disabled mother of one of the Complainants. The complaint also alleged that the City’s reasonable accommodation request denial was based on the Complainants’ race and sexual orientation.

HUD conducted an investigation and issued a Letter of Findings in 2022 which found that the Respondents were in noncompliance with Section 504 and the ADA with respect to the City’s zoning processes. HUD found that the City violated its obligations under Section 504 and the ADA by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the Complainants and by lacking sufficient mechanisms to ensure compliance with its obligations to provide reasonable accommodations, resulting in discrimination against individuals with disabilities under Section 504 and the ADA.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Respondents will: (1) pay $115,000 to the Complainants; and (2) create a reasonable accommodation policy and guidelines within the City of Denver’s Office of Community Planning and Development, including tracking reasonable accommodations requests, and complete training requirements. As a result of the complaint, during the investigation the City revised its Zoning Code, which required a ballot initiative to amend the City of Denver’s Charter to change the Zoning Code to comply with the Fair Housing Act, Section 504, and the ADA.

Read the November 8, 2024 HUD release.

Maryland Attorney General Urges State Supreme Court to Hear Case Protecting Fair Housing Rights Under the HOME Act

Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has filed an amicus brief urging the Maryland Supreme Court to hear Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd., to protect fair housing rights under the HOME Act and prevent discrimination against low-income Marylanders using Housing Choice Vouchers. The brief urges the Court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear the case and protect the fair housing rights of Marylanders. The outcome of this Supreme Court decision could set a significant precedent for how income requirements are applied in housing practices across the State.

Maryland enacted the HOME Act in 2020, joining 22 states and over 40 municipalities in outlawing housing discrimination based on source of income. The legislation was designed to protect marginalized groups such as people of color, families with children, and individuals with disabilities.

This includes participants in the federal Housing Choice Voucher program, which subsidizes rents for nearly 50,000 Maryland low-income families. Eligible families receiving assistance pay 30% of their income toward rent and utilities, with the remaining rent paid by a separate contract with local government agencies.

The case of Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. involves an appeal from Katrina Hare, an elderly, disabled, African-American woman who receives Supplemental Security Income and uses a Housing Choice Voucher to afford housing. Hare was denied housing by David S. Brown, Ltd. because she did not meet its minimum income requirement of $47,700 a year, even though her Housing Choice Voucher would have covered all but $126 of rent. The Baltimore County Circuit Court ruled that this denial was not discrimination and granted summary judgment in favor of David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. Hare appealed that decision to the Maryland Appellate Court and has requested that the State's Supreme Court hear the case (she petitioned for a writ of certiorari) before the Appellate Court issues its opinion.

The Attorney General’s brief supports Hare’s petition to the Maryland Supreme Court, and requests the Court to hear the case and rule that David S. Brown Enterprise, Ltd. applied its minimum income requirements that illegally discriminates against prospective tenants who, like Hare, use Housing Choice Vouchers. The brief also details the legislative history of the HOME Act and emphasizes the intent of the General Assembly to protect Housing Choice Voucher participants from the type of housing discrimination in this case.

Read the September 9, 2024 The Moco Show article.

Read the September 6, 2024 Franklin County Free Press article.

 

On August 5, 2024, the Maryland Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) issued a Fair Housing Memorandum that applies to the full spectrum of housing activities, including, but not limited to, outreach and marketing, qualification and selection of residents, and occupancy. 

The Department has modified their requirements for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans and Tenant Selection Plans to comply with the HUD Guidance. Owners and/or managers of properties that have received LIHTC awards, program funds, or other subsidies from the Department are now required to submit a copy of their tenant selection plan or policy by January 1, 2025, to evidence compliance with the policies.

The Memorandum includes revised and updated policies regarding: 

• Credit History Screening
• Eviction History Screening
• Criminal Record Screening
• Admission Criteria

DHCD will review the tenant selection plan or policy to ensure it complies with DHCD requirements and will reject any plan that isn’t in conformance.

Read DHCD's CDA AFHM Memo.

HUD Approves Settlement with California Housing Providers Resolving Claim of Disability Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has entered into a Conciliation Agreement between Burbank Housing Management Corporation, Burbank Housing Development Corporation, BHDC Parkwood Apartments, LLC, Oak Ridge Apartments Associates LP, and James Perez, requiring the respondents to pay $41,500 in compensation to the complainant. The Agreement resolves allegations that the respondents violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with disabilities. Read the Agreement here.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of disability, including refusing to allow reasonable accommodations that would otherwise permit tenants with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) prohibits the exclusion or discrimination of qualified individuals based on disability in any program receiving federal financial assistance, including from HUD.

The Agreement began with a complaint alleging that the Sonoma County, California, based housing providers interfered with the rights of tenants with disabilities to obtain reasonable accommodations, and that the respondents, who are receive HUD and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding, were in noncompliance with Section 504. The Respondents denied the allegations in the Complaint and agreed to settle the matter. The Conciliation Agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt by the Respondents and no determination has been issued by HUD about this.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the housing providers will pay $41,500 to the complainant. They will also ensure their reasonable accommodation policies are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 and that they process reasonable accommodation requests in a timely manner. Both HUD and USDA will monitor the Agreement.

People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 877-8339 (Relay) or at hud.gov/fairhousing.

Read the July 2, 2024 HUD press release. 

HUD Charges Wisconsin Housing Provider with Discriminating Against a Tenant with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on July 19, 2024 charged Tammy and Ramiro Estrada, the owner of a duplex in Appleton, Wisconsin, with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with her assistance animals.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of disability, including the denial of reasonable accommodations. Individuals with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations when necessary for equal access to their home, including the use of assistance animals. Also, individuals are protected from coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference when they assert their fair housing rights or file a complaint with HUD.

HUD’s Charge alleges that the owners denied the tenant’s request by applying unlawful breed restrictions, fines, and fees to the request. They also interfered with the Complainant’s attempt to obtain a service dog and threatened them with eviction, eventually non-renewing their lease and citing the reasonable accommodation requests in the non-renewal notice. The tenants had to rent more expensive housing elsewhere.

A US Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s Charge unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the family for their losses because of the discrimination, injunctive relief and other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, payment of attorney fees, and civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the family.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) 800-927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing. Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities here.

Read the July 19, 2024 HUD press release.

US Department of Justice Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Illinois Landlord for Sexually Harassing Tenants

 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit on July 18, 2024 against Michael J. DeWitte, of Washington, Illinois, for sexually harassing female tenants and housing applicants in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleges that, since at least 2002, DeWitte harassed female tenants and applicants with unwelcome sexual harassment including sexual contact and comments about their physical appearances; offers to strip for female tenants; removing his pants while giving a tour to a female housing applicant; exposing his genitals to female tenants; asking female tenants on dates; requesting sex in exchange for reduced rent or other housing benefits; and evicting female tenants when they did not give in to his sexual advances. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate those harmed by the alleged harassment, civil penalties to vindicate the public interest, and a court order barring future discrimination.

Anyone who believes that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or other types of housing discrimination at rental properties owned or managed by Michael DeWitte, or who have other information that may be relevant to this case, may contact the Justice Department by calling the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois at 309-671-7019 or 833-591-0291, and emailing USAILC.Civil.Rights@usdoj.gov or FairHousing.USAILC@usdoj.gov.

The Justice Department’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative is run by the Civil Rights Division, in coordination with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. The initiative address es and raises awareness about sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, loan officers, and others who have control over housing. Since beginning the initiative in 2017, the department has filed 44 lawsuits alleging sexual harassment in housing and recovered over $17 million for victims of such harassment. The Civil Rights Division is committed to protecting people from sexual misconduct.

Read the July 18, 2024 DOJ release. 

HUD Charges Wisconsin Housing Provider with Discriminating Against a Tenant with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Tammy and Ramiro Estrada, the owner of a duplex in Appleton, Wisconsin, with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with her assistance animals.

Under the Fair Housing Act, individuals with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations when such accommodations are necessary to afford them equal access to their home, including the use of assistance animals. Individuals also are legally protected from coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference when they assert their fair housing rights or file a complaint with HUD.

HUD’s Charge alleges that the owners applied unlawful breed restrictions, fines, and fees to the the Complainant's accommodation request. Respondents also interfered with her attempt to obtain a service dog and threatened eviction, eventually non-renewing their lease. citing the reasonable accommodation requests in the non-renewal notice. As a result, the tenants were forced to rent more expensive housing elsewhere.

A U.S. Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s Charge unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the family for their losses because of the discrimination. injunctive relief, other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, payment of attorney fees, and civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the family.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) 800-927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing. Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities here. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English proficiency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact HUD using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Read the July 19, 2024 HUD release.

Dr. Michael Eric Dyson to Speak at MCCR's August 24th Fair Housing Gala

 

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS  Maryland Commission on Civil Rights is proud to announce its  Biennial Civil Rights & Fair Housing Gala Celebration Keynote Speaker  Michael Eric Dyson "Celebrating Milestones: Pivotal Moments in History" Saturday, August 24, 2024 6:00 pm until 10:00 pm at the The Hall at Live! Casino 7002 Arundel Mills Circle #7777 Hanover, Maryland 21076 The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights is excited to announce that our Biennial Civil Rights & Fair Housing Gala Celebration will be held on August 24, 2024, from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm at the Maryland Live! Hotel Ballroom in Hanover, Maryland. This year's theme is "Celebrating Milestones: Pivotal Moments in History." In recent years, state and local organizations have achieved crucial milestones through their diversity in leadership. The values of cultural diversity and inclusiveness involve respect for and acceptance of different philosophies and values. By incorporating different cultures, we can inspire innovations and excellence in our lives, workplaces, communities, and the world. We look forward to seeing everyone there! Ticket Prices & Sponsorship Opportunities  Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US

 

Court Finds City of Anaheim Violated the FHA when It Blocked Permits for a Transitional Housing Development.

 

The ruling rebuked the City of Anaheim, California for imposing different standards on a local nonprofit, Grandma's House of Hope, aimed at providing transitional housing for women with mental health disabilities who recently experienced homelessness, an act labeled by the court as discriminatory. Despite the city's insistence on a conditional use permit (CUP) for the nonprofit to house 16 women, the court sided with the state and the nonprofit in a decision that signaled an end to tolerating such exclusions

The California Department of Housing and Community Development brought the case in 2022, after Anaheim officials rejected an application from local service provider Grandma’s House of Hope to open a new 16-unit facility for homeless women suffering from abuse and mental health issues. Although the city’s staff experts had recommended the permits be approved, city planning commission members voted the proposal down following a public meeting where people from the surrounding neighborhood railed against Grandma’s House. This February, a court found in favor of Grandma’s House. The Orange County Superior Court’s decision to overrule Anaheim’s denial and allow Grandma’s House of Hope is celebrated as a significant victory for fair housing in California, signaling that discriminatory practices and NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) attitudes will not be tolerated. Governor Gavin Newsom emphasized the importance of transitional homes in addressing homelessness and appropriately warned that communities refusing to allow housing for all Californians will face consequences.

Its original plan was to host up to 21 women at an 8-bedroom house in a single-family neighborhood on West Street near Anaheim's downtown. They would receive therapy and other services from seven House of Hope staff members, several of whom would be on-call 24/7 to respond to emergencies. The plan would be to move these women into permanent housing within 18 months.

The next steps in the legal process are now anticipated, as discussions venture toward potential remedies beyond the court's order. 

Read the February 3, 2024 Hoodline article.

Maryland Biennial Civil Rights & Fair Housing Gala will be on August 24, 2024

 

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS  Maryland Commission on Civil Rights Biennial Civil Rights & Fair Housing Gala Celebration EARLY BIRD TICKET PRICE EXPIRES MAY 1ST "Celebrating Milestones: Pivotal Moments in History" Please Join Us To Celebrate Our Honorees! ​Governor Wes Moore Lt. Governor Aruna Miller Comptroller of Maryland - Brooke E. Lierman, Esq. Maryland Attorney General - Anthony G. Brown Superintendent MSP - Colonel Roland L. Butler, Jr., President and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance - Lisa Rice Saturday, August 24, 2024 6:00 pm until 10:00 pm at the The Hall at Live! Casino 7002 Arundel Mills Circle #7777 Hanover, Maryland 21076 The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights is excited to announce that our Biennial Civil Rights & Fair Housing Gala Celebration will be held on August 24, 2024, from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm at the Maryland Live! Hotel Ballroom in Hanover, Maryland. This year's theme is "Celebrating Milestones: Pivotal Moments in History." In recent years, state and local organizations have achieved crucial milestones through their diversity in leadership. The values of cultural diversity and inclusiveness involve respect for and acceptance of different philosophies and values. By incorporating different cultures, we can inspire innovations and excellence in our lives, workplaces, communities, and the world. We look forward to seeing everyone there! Ticket Prices & Sponsorship Opportunities  Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US