CFPB Files Lawsuit to Stop Illegal Kickback Scheme to Steer Borrowers to Rocket Mortgage

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has sued Rocket Homes  to stop them from providing incentives to real estate brokers and agents in exchange for steering homebuyers to Rocket Mortgage, LLC for loans. The CFPB also sued Jason Mitchell, his real estate brokerage firm, JMG Holding Partners LLC, which does business as The Jason Mitchell Group, and the individual real estate brokerage companies in the 41 states and the District of Columbia where it does business (The Mitchell Group), for their role in the unlawful scheme. Rocket Homes pressured real estate brokers and agents not to share valuable information with their clients about products not offered by Rocket Mortgage, such as the availability of down payment assistance programs which often save homebuyers money. The CFPB is suing Rocket Homes, The Mitchell Group, and Jason Mitchell to stop the kickback scheme, provide consumer redress, and obtain a civil penalty which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Rocket Homes Real Estate, LLC is incorporated in Michigan and is an affiliate of Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT), which also operates Rocket Mortgage, one of the largest mortgage lenders. Rocket Homes’ main office and principal place of business is in Detroit, Michigan. Rocket Homes operates a referral network throughout the country that matches consumers with real estate brokerages. The Jason Mitchell Group is primarily located in Scottsdale, Arizona and has 45 affiliated real estate brokerages in 41 states and the District of Columbia.

The CFPB’s investigation found that Rocket Homes gave referrals and other incentives to real estate brokerages under an agreement/understanding that the real estate brokers and agents would refer real estate settlement business to Rocket Mortgage and a separate Rocket affiliate called Amrock, which handles title, closing, and escrow services. The investigation also found that The Mitchell Group referred thousands of clients to Rocket Mortgage and Amrock. Jason Mitchell offered “Dog Bone” awards of $250 gift cards to Mitchell Group agents who made the most referrals to The Mitchell Group’s favored partners, including Rocket Mortgage and Amrock.

Specifically, the CFPB alleges that Rocket Homes violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by:

(1) Providing kickbacks in exchange for referrals: Rocket Homes gave incentives, such as home-buyer referrals and priority for future homebuyer referrals from the network, in exchange for brokers’ and agents’ mortgage lending and settlement service referrals.

(2) Requiring brokers and agents to steer consumers toward Rocket Mortgage: Rocket Homes required that the brokers and agents receiving its referrals “preserve and protect” the relationship between the consumer and Rocket Mortgage by steering clients from other competing lenders and preventing brokers and agents from sharing valuable information with their clients concerning products not offered by Rocket Mortgage, including the availability of programs that provide assistance for a borrower’s down payment; and

(3) The Mitchell Group and Jason Mitchell allegedly participated in Rocket’s illegal kickback and steering scheme. The Mitchell Group encouraged its network of real estate brokers and agents to engage in coercive tactics to get consumers to use Rocket Mortgage for their home loans. Agents were trained to suggest that house settlements could fall through if the homebuyer wanted to comparison shop with Rocket Mortgage’s competitors.

The CFPB’s lawsuit against Rocket Homes, The Mitchell Group, and Jason Mitchell seeks to stop alleged unlawful conduct, redress for harmed borrowers, and the imposition of a civil money penalty, which would be paid into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Read the CFPB complaint against Rocket Homes, The Mitchell Group, and Jason Mitchell.

Read the December 23, 2024 CFPB press release.

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

Justice Department Sues Six Large Landlords for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Over-Charged Millions of American Renters

 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), together with its 10 state co-plaintiffs, has filed an amended complaint in its antitrust lawsuit against RealPage, to sue six of the nation’s largest landlords for participating in algorithmic pricing schemes that harmed renters. The amended complaint alleges the landlords - Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC (Greystar); Blackstone’s LivCor LLC (LivCor); Camden Property Trust (Camden); Cushman & Wakefield Inc and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC (Cushman); Willow Bridge Property Company LLC (Willow Bridge); and Cortland Management LLC (Cortland) - participated in an unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing, harming millions of American renters. These landlords operate over 1.3 million units in 43 states and the District of Columbia. 

The Attorneys General of Illinois and Massachusetts joined the amended complaint as co-plaintiffs, increasing the total number of State and Commonwealth co-plaintiffs to 10 (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington). DOJ simultaneously filed a proposed consent decree with Cortland that requires it to cooperate with the government, stop using its competitors’ sensitive data to set rents, and stop using the same algorithm as its competitors without a corporate monitor.

The amended complaint alleges that the six landlords participated in a scheme to set their rents using each other’s competitively sensitive information through common pricing algorithms.  Along with using RealPage’s anticompetitive pricing algorithms, these landlords coordinated through a variety of means, including:

• Directly communicating with competitors’ senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics. For example, Greystar supplied Camden with information not only about very recent renewal rates, but also its approach to pricing for the upcoming quarter, its acceptance of RealPage’s pricing recommendations, use of concessions and competitively sensitive information about occupancy. Similarly, executives at Camden and LivCor communicated over the course of months about their pricing strategies, including plans for certain price increases.
• Regularly conducting “call arounds.” During these discussions, referred to as “market surveys,” property managers called or emailed competitors to share, and sometimes discuss, competitively sensitive information about rents, occupancy, pricing strategies, and discounts.
• Participating in “user groups” hosted by RealPage. For instance, landlords discussed via user groups how to modify the software’s pricing methodology, as well as their own pricing strategies. For example, LivCor and Willow Bridge executives participated in a user group discussion of plans for renewal increases, concessions, and acceptance rates of RealPage rent recommendations.
• Sharing information with competitors about parameters in RealPage’s software. As an example, at the request of Willow Bridge’s director of revenue management, Greystar’s director of revenue management supplied its standard auto-accept parameters for RealPage’s software, including the daily and weekly limits and the days of the week for which Greystar used “auto-accept.”

DOJ also announced a proposed consent decree that, if approved by the court, would resolve its claims against Cortland, a landlord that manages over 80,000 rental units in 13 states. Under the proposed consent decree, Cortland would cooperate in the DOJ investigation and litigation and be barred from, among other things: (1) Using competitors’ competitively sensitive data to train or run any pricing model; (2) Using third-party software or algorithms to price apartments without the supervision of a court-appointed monitor; and (3) Soliciting, disclosing, or using any competitively sensitive information with any other property manager as part of setting rental prices or generating rental pricing recommendations.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. The 1974 Act, also known as the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, requires federal courts to review certain DOJ decisions.

Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed consent decree during a 60-day comment period to Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8600, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the end of the comment period, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina may enter the final judgment upon finding it is in the public interest.

Proposed Final Judgment - US et al. v. RealPage Inc.pdf

Amended Complaint - U.S. et al. v. RealPage Inc..pdf

Read the January 7, 2025 DOJ press release.

Senator Smith (D-MN) Introduces “Mapping Housing Discrimination Act”

Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) has introduced the “Mapping Housing Discrimination Act” (S.5534) in the U.S. Senate last week. The bill would support efforts to map and digitize data on racially restrictive covenants in property records and establish a grant program to enable educational institutions to collect and analyze racial covenants and racially or ethnically restrictive language in local governments’ property records. The legislation would also help local governments digitize deeds and would create a publicly accessible database administered by HUD to gather together information about historic housing discrimination patterns in property records.  

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) has endorsed the legislation and will work with Senator Smith’s office to support efforts to document the impacts of racial covenants and other tools of discrimination used to keep Black families and other households of color from moving into certain neighborhoods. While such racial covenants were made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, documenting such records is crucial to tracking the history of housing discrimination, along with the impacts of housing segregation that persist today.  

Senator Smith also introduced a similar bill in July, 2021, that would examine the connection between historical racial discrimination and current racial disparities in housing. The bill would have created "a grant program for academic institutions to study the history of racially restrictive covenants - which were used as tools of discrimination to keep Black families and other households of color from moving into all-white neighborhoods - to better understand their scope and legacy. The bill would create a national, public database at HUD of historical housing discrimination patterns in property records and support local governments’ efforts to digitize local property records."

Read the 2024 bill text here. 

Read more about the history of fair housing in “Lofty Rhetoric, Prejudiced Policy: The Story of How the Federal Government Promised— and Undermined—Fair Housing” in NLIHC’s 2024 Advocates’ Guide.  

CFPB Files Order to Stop Townstone Financial’s Unlawful Redlining

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a proposed order to resolve its case against Townstone Financial for discriminatory lending practices and redlining African American neighborhoods in Chicago. If entered by the court, the proposed order would prohibit Townstone from taking any actions that violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and require it to pay a $105,000 penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund. The action follows lengthy contested litigation and a unanimous July 2024 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the ECOA prohibits lenders from discouraging prospective applicants on a prohibited basis from applying for loans.

Townstone was a nonbank retail-mortgage creditor and broker based in Chicago through 2018. Some 90% of Townstone’s mortgage lending was in the Chicago metro. From 2014-2017, Townstone was in the top 10% of lenders in applications from the Chicago metro, receiving an average of 740 mortgage loan applications annually. Townstone ended mortgage lending in 2018 during the CFPB’s investigation, and is now solely a mortgage broker. 

In 2020, the CFPB sued Townstone for discouraging potential applicants because of their race or the racial composition of where they lived or sought to live. Townstone’s advertising, marketing, and business practices discouraged African Americans from applying for credit and actively avoided the credit needs of African American applicants and African American neighborhoods in the Chicago metro.

Townstone drew only five or six applications a year for properties in neighborhoods that were more than 80% African American, despite those neighborhoods being nearly 14% of census tracts in the Chicago metro, and over half of the applications it did draw were from white applicants. From 2014-2017, barely 2% of Townstone’s mortgage-loan applications were for properties in majority African American neighborhoods, even though they make up nearly 19% of the Chicago metro’s census tracts.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer-financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. If entered by the court, the proposed order would require Townstone to pay a $105,000 penalty, which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund. If Townstone violates the ECOA again, it could find itself in contempt of the court order and face further sanctions.

Read the proposed order.

Read the November 1, 2024 CFPB press release.

CFPB and Justice Department Charge Fairway for Redlining Black Neighborhoods in Birmingham, Alabama

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took action to end Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation’s illegal mortgage lending discrimination against majority-Black neighborhoods in the greater Birmingham, Alabama area. The CFPB and DOJ allege that Fairway illegally redlined Black neighborhoods, including through its marketing and sales actions. Fairway’s actions discouraged people from applying for mortgage loans in the Birmingham metropolitan area’s Black neighborhoods. If entered by the court, the settlement would require Fairway to pay a $1.9 million civil penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund. Fairway would also be required to provide $7 million for a loan subsidy program to offer affordable home purchase, refinance, and home improvement loans in majority-Black neighborhoods. Redlining is the illegal practice of denying the same access to credit to certain neighborhoods based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. 

Fairway is a non-depository mortgage company based in Madison, Wisconsin, and operates in the Birmingham area under the trade name MortgageBanc. In 2023, Fairway was the third largest mortgage lender, receiving over 100,000 applications and originating over $24 billion in loans. In this closely held company, Steve Jacobson is the majority owner.

The complaint describes how Fairway redlined majority-Black neighborhoods in the Birmingham Metropolitan Statistical Area (Birmingham MSA). During the period covered by the complaint, the Birmingham MSA included six counties in north central Alabama with a population of about 1.1 million. While Fairway claimed to serve the entire metropolitan area, it concentrated all its retail loan offices in majority-white areas, directed less than 3% of its direct mail advertising to consumers in majority-Black areas during 2018-2020, and discouraged homeownership in majority-Black areas by generating loan applications at a rate far below its peer institutions.

The CFPB and DOJ allege that Fairway violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the government alleges problematic conduct by Fairway including:

• Failing to address known signs of discrimination: Fairway's own data showed that it was failing to serve majority-Black neighborhoods in the Birmingham area. Before October 2022, it took no steps to address redlining risk other than telling loan officers not to discriminate. Only 3.7% of Fairway’s applications during 2018-2022 were for properties in majority-Black areas, compared to 12.2% for similar lenders. This disparity was higher in neighborhoods with 80% or more Black residents, where it made loans at less than 1/8 the rate of its peer lenders. Fairway did not adopt any written plan for marketing or growth to address the concern.

• Redlining Black neighborhoods: From 2015 through 2022, Fairway operated three retail loan offices and three loan production desks in real estate offices in the Birmingham metropolitan area, all in majority-white areas. Fairway also relied on referrals from real estate professionals and others to generate applications, and the vast majority of Fairway’s referral sources and referred consumers were located in majority-white areas. Fairway predominantly directed its marketing to majority-white areas. By doing this, Fairway unlawfully discouraged mortgage loan applications for properties in majority-Black neighborhoods.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), the CFPB has the authority to take enforcement action against institutions that violate federal consumer financial protection laws, including violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. The DOJ agreed with CFPB’s claim that Fairway violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation, and separately alleges that Fairway violated the Fair Housing Act.

The proposed order filed by CFPB and DOJ would require Fairway to:

• Pay a $1.9 million penalty: The penalty against Fairway would be paid into the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund, also referred to as the victims relief fund.
• Provide $7 million for a loan subsidy program: The order would require Fairway to offer home purchase, refinance, and home improvement loans on a more affordable basis than otherwise available in majority-Black neighborhoods in the Birmingham metropolitan area.
• Pay at least $1 million to serve neighborhoods it redlined to address some of the gap in credit access caused by its discriminatory activities. Fairway would be required to open or acquire a new loan production office or full-service retail office in a majority-Black neighborhood in the Birmingham metropolitan area, and will pay (2) at least $500,000 for advertising and outreach, (3) at least $250,000 on consumer financial education, and (4) at least $250,000 on partnerships with community-based or governmental organizations to serve neighborhoods previously redlined by the company.

Read the proposed order.

Consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their company has violated federal consumer financial protection laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov. To learn more about reporting potential industry misconduct, visit the CFPB’s website.

HUD Charges New Hampshire Property Managers and Landlord with Discrimination for a Retaliatory Eviction

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Greenview Associates L.P., Palmer Asset Management, LLC, and John Martin, property managers and landlord in Manchester, New Hampshire, with violating the Fair Housing Act by retaliating, threatening, or interfering with a tenant’s fair housing rights. HUD’s Charge alleges that, following the tenant’s filing of a Fair Housing complaint with HUD, the landlord and property manager did a background check on the tenant, not their usual practice of not running background checks, and then sought eviction of the tenant based on a long-past event that the background check revealed. Read HUD’s Charge.

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, they may award damages to the individuals for their losses as a result of the discrimination, injunctive relief, other equitable relief, and payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the complainant.

For more information on potentially discriminatory evictions, please refer to this HUD Fact Sheet.

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 and www.justice.gov. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English proficiency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the Department using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Read the October 11, 2024 HUD press release.

Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership Analyzes Source of Income Discrimination Law Effectiveness

 

During HUD's Quarterly Update event on July 25, 2024, panelists explored the emerging research on source of income discrimination laws and the enforcement strategies employed by municipalities in Maryland and New York. Some 50 years ago, Congress enacted the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program to promote housing stability, health, and economic mobility by allowing households to choose where to use their rental subsidy. Many voucher holders, however, remain in high-poverty areas because area landlords practice source of income discrimination (SOID) by refusing to accept vouchers outright. To address this behavior, states and localities began enacting SOID laws in the 1970s; however, even in areas where SOID laws are in place, landlords sometimes find indirect ways to deny housing to voucher holders. 

On July 25, 2024, HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) hosted a PD&R Quarterly Update featuring two panel discussions examining the implementation of these laws and the latest research on their effectiveness. Adria Crutchfield, executive director of the Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership (BRHP) participated in the discussions and analysis.

Prevalence, Evolution, and Effectiveness of SOID Protections

As of February 2024, HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing reports that 17 states, 21 counties, and over 85 cities have passed laws regarding SOID. According to Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) data, the number of state and local SOID laws has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Alongside the rise in SOID laws, the National Fair Housing Alliance reports a corresponding increase in complaints that local fair housing organizations have filed concerning landlord offenses. Lawyers previously needed to challenge laws that did not explicitly include federal housing assistance as a protected source of income (SOI) or address minimum income requirements and landlord objections to inspections. Policymakers have changed the language of recent ordinances to more effectively address SOID issues, eliminating outdated defenses and strengthening enforcement. At the same time, institutions are prioritizing making information about SOID laws more accessible. Earlier in 2024, the Office of Public and Indian Housing launched a website detailing SOID laws. In addition, PRRAC maintains and regularly updates a compilation of state, local, and federal laws prohibiting SOID.

To understand the effect of SOID laws on voucher utilization and movement to low-poverty neighborhoods, the Urban Institute did a study that analyzed 43 SOID laws passed between 2001 and 2017. They noted that before these laws were enacted, only one in four families with vouchers lived in low-poverty neighborhoods, and the concentration of voucher holders in high-poverty areas was growing. After SOID laws were passed, access to lower-poverty neighborhoods improved, although "with a 3- to 4-year lag" for laws to take into effect.

Despite the rise in SOID laws enacted nationwide and the positive mobility outcomes for voucher holders they have supported, it was asserted that "too few households reach low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods, and too many households are unable to find housing with their vouchers." A paired-testing study HUD conducted in partnership with the Urban Institute between 2016 and 2017 evidenced the pervasiveness of landlord discrimination as an explanation for the "stubborn and persistent challenges" that families with housing choice vouchers face.

Lessons From State and Local Implementation of SOID

The second panel discussion presented insights from practitioners in Baltimore and New York. The panelists discussed the specifics of SOID laws in their respective jurisdictions, enforcement mechanisms, and strategies for engaging landlords to enhance housing access. Since 2019, New York state law has protected SOI under human rights legislation and prohibited discrimination against legal sources of income in housing advertisements. The law covers numerous SOI categories, including various forms of public assistance, and incorporates provisions for individuals to pursue legal action through state courts or the Division of Human Rights. 

BRHP's Crutchfield explained that Maryland's 2020 Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act, which expanded SOI protections statewide, addressed negative provisions in earlier city-level SOI laws. For example, in Baltimore, the act ended the practice of allowing landlords with a certain percentage of HCV tenants to reject future voucher applicants.

Despite these advances, both the New York representative and Crutchfield noted that landlords' efforts to evade enforcement present ongoing challenges for HCV holders. Crutchfield shared anecdotes from clients of BRHP's housing counseling team that faced discriminatory screening practices and neighborhood resistance. For example, tenants have reported that some landlords impose stringent credit score requirements or income multipliers, and homeowners associations sometimes amend their bylaws to introduce additional screening criteria related to criminal records. 

Incentivizing Landlord Participation in Antidiscrimination

Speakers on both panels agreed that strategies to incentivize landlord participation can make SOID protection more effective. Crutchfield described BRHP's proactive marketing to landlords, including conducting social media campaigns to promote the benefits of renting to voucher holders. BRHP also produces webinars to educate landlords about the involved legal requirements.

Still, all agreed these efforts are just the beginning. "There's more work to be done around educating landlords, and there's more work to be done around understanding what might change landlord behavior, but this is an encouraging time to [be gaining] more evidence about the value that these laws bring to voucher holders and their outcomes." New York's office is currently partnering with a behavioral insights team to understand and address landlords' awareness and perceptions of SOID.

Read the October 1, 2024 PD&R article.

Housing Discrimination Complaints in 2023 Continue to Increase Nationally

The national number of fair housing complaints rose to record numbers for the third year in a row. There were 34,150 fair housing complaints received in 2023, compared to 33,007 complaints in 2022, according to findings in the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA)'s 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report. There also was a sharp increase in the number of harassment complaints which jumped by 470.5% based on color and 114.9% on race.

The source of the data were 86 NFHA member organizations, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s 10 regional offices, and 77 state and local government agencies in HUD’s FHAP program. Information also was obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Most of the millions of housing discrimination incidents each year go unreported because they are difficult to identify or document. All complaints also are not made because individuals might fear facing retaliation or eviction if they file a complaint. Therefore, the total number should be considered an undercount.

Private nonprofit fair housing organizations (FHOs) processed 75.5% of complaints, a 5.6% increase from 2022. These FHOs investigate fair housing complaints, collect data, provide fair housing counseling and education to consumers, and help clients file complaints. Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies processed 19.2% of complaints, HUD 5.1% of complaints, and the DOJ  0.1% of complaints. 

As in the previous year, discrimination based on disability accounted for the majority (52.6%) of complaints filed with FHOs, HUD, and FHAP agencies. There were 1,521 complaints of harassment reported, an increase of 66.2%. This is the highest number of harassment complaints reported since NFHA began reporting harassment-specific data in 2006.

Read the July 10, 2024 NFHA article.

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 Approves Settlement with California Housing Providers Resolving Claim of Disability Discrimination

The HUD-brokered Conciliation Agreement between Burbank Housing Management Corporation, Burbank Housing Development Corporation, BHDC Parkwood Apartments, LLC, Oak Ridge Apartments Associates LP, and James Perez, requires the respondents to pay $41,500 in compensation to the complainant. The Agreement resolves allegations that the respondents were in noncompliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and also violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with disabilities. Read the Agreement here.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) forbids the exclusion or discrimination of qualified individuals based on disability in any program receiving federal financial assistance, including those from HUD.

The matter 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 recipients of HUD and United States 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 in this matter.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the housing providers will pay $41,500 to the complainant. The housing providers 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. 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 release.

Zillow’s New Free AI tool aims to Promote Equality in Housing

 

The open-source tool, which is available for free, addresses bias in large language models. Zillow's open-source tool, the Fair Housing Classifier, is part of the company’s efforts to “promote responsible and unbiased behavior in real estate conversations powered by large language model (LLM) technology.“ Zillow explained that artificial intelligence (AI) tools often fail to account for the myriad requirements of fair housing laws. These tools, when deployed, “can perpetuate bias and undermine the progress achieved in advocating for fair housing.“ 

The Fair Housing Classifier (FHC) is designed to act as a protective measure against steering, or the act of influencing a person’s choice of home based upon protected characteristics. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, gender, disability, familial status or national origin. The FHC is equipped to detect questions “that could lead to discriminatory responses about legally protected groups in real estate experiences, such as search or chatbots.“ The AI technology can identify cases of noncompliance with equal housing laws when it is given a question or answer. System developers have the ability to intervene in these cases.

In a recent survey of over 12,000 Americans, Zillow found that 57% reported some type of housing discrimination during their life. This was 79% for LGBTQ+ respondents, 69% for Blacks, and 64% for Hispanics and Latinos.

“In today’s rapidly evolving AI landscape, promoting safe, secure and trustworthy AI practices in housing and lending is becoming increasingly important to protect consumers against algorithmic harms,“ Michael Akinwumi, chief responsible AI officer for the National Fair Housing Alliance, said in a statement. “Zillow’s open-source approach sets an admirable precedent for responsible innovation. We encourage other organizations and coalition groups to actively participate, test, and enhance the model and share their findings with the public.”

Companies and individuals that want to use the Fair Housing Classifier can access its code and comprehensive framework on its page on GitHub. Anyone wanting to provide feedback and/or improve the tool can connect with the email alias on the GitHub page.

Read the May 21, 2024 HousingWire article..

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.

HUD Charges Grapevine, Texas Housing Authority with Disability Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged the Grapevine Housing Authority (“GHA”); Jane Everett, Executive Director of GHA; and Bonnie McHugh, Vice-Chair of the GHA Housing Commission, with discriminating against, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for a tenant with a disability. Read the charge.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on disability. This includes prohibiting housing providers from making housing unavailable to persons based on disability. The Act also requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodation when necessary for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their homes.

Grapevine is located in northeast Tarrant County in the Mid-Cities suburban region between Dallas and Fort Worth and includes a larger portion of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport than other cities. The population was 50,631 (2020).

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Grapevine Housing Authority, Ms. Everett, and Ms. McHugh terminated the lease of a tenant with diabetes following a medical episode caused by his blood sugar levels. They subsequently denied his reasonable accommodation request and continued eviction proceedings against him even after his doctor had provided evidence that his symptoms were managed following a change in medication and purchase of a medical alert bracelet.

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 a judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, they may award damages to the complainant for his losses as a result of the discrimination. The judge may also order injunctive relief and other equitable relief, to deter further discrimination, as well as payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the complainant.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY) or file a complaint here: www.hud.gov/fairhousing/fileacomplaint.

Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications for individuals with disabilities here. More information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing.

*****

Read the March 25, 2024 HUD release.

HUD Charges Luxury Condominium in Puerto Rico with Violating the Accessibility Requirements of the Fair Housing Act

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged the architectural firm, the general contractor, and the owners for failing to design and construct Quantum Metrocenter Condominiums (“QMC”) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act (“Act”) based upon a complaint started by HUD. HUD has also charged some of them with failing to approve a reasonable accommodation request made by two residents due to the inaccessible design and construction features of QMC. Read the Charge. The Act requires multifamily housing built after March 1991 to have accessible features for people with disabilities. The Act also prohibits discrimination because of disability, including refusing to allow reasonable accommodations that would otherwise permit homeowners with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the charged failed to include accessible building entrances on accessible routes, accessible and usable public and common use areas, usable doors in units, accessible routes in units, accessible thermostats, reinforced walls for grab bars in bathrooms, and usable kitchens and bathrooms for persons with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, in the 80-residential unit two-tower buildings. The Charge also alleges they failed to approve a reasonable accommodation request for an accessible parking space, which would have allowed persons with disabilities to have better use of their units and the common area features of QMC, even while continuing to have to endure other inaccessible design and construction features. A US Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party elects to have the case heard in Federal district court. If the Administrative Law Judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the resident for his losses as a result 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 resident. To assist residential unit owners and professionals, HUD began its Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST (FIRST) initiative to promote compliance with the Fair Housing Act design and construction requirements. The program offers comprehensive and detailed instruction programs, useful online web resources, and a toll-free information line for technical guidance and support. Housing providers can learn more about the FIRST program here.  Anyone who believes they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY). Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities here and about accessibility requirements for multifamily housing here. Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing. ***** Source: Read the April 5, 2024 HUD press release.

 

The HUD Fair Housing Month 2024 Opening Ceremony

The Opening Ceremony

HUD's Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity (FHEO) will host the Fair Housing Month Opening Ceremony on April 11. The Opening Ceremony features:

• Demetria L. McCain, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
• Melody C. Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Legislative Initiatives & Outreach | Executive Director of PAVE.
• Damon T. Hewitt, Keynote Speaker | President and CEO of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
• José R. Ballesteros, Poet and Professor of International Languages and Cultures at St. Mary's College of Maryland.

FHEO Table Talk Series

The FHEO Talk Talks Series provides the Agency with the opportunity to strengthen its partnerships with leading community stakeholders and inform HUD’s mission to ensure fair housing for all.

The series was developed in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government. It covers topics related to fair housing and racial equity and includes discussions with experts, practitioners, leaders, and social justice activists engaged in work relevant to fair housing opportunities.

To learn more or view previously recorded episodes of the FHEO Table Talks Series, please visit HUD’s YouTube channel.

PAVE website

On June 1, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Marcia Fudge to lead “…a first-of-its-kind interagency initiative to address inequity in home appraisals...”

In response to President Biden’s directive, Secretary Fudge, along with Domestic Policy Council (DPC) Director Susan Rice (and now Co-Chair), established the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE). Visit the PAVE website.

FHEO Technical Assistance

HUD and FHEO are continuously developing technical assistance materials, resources, and trainings to educate housing consumers and providers on their fair housing rights and responsibilities. You can view all HUD training opportunities here. During Fair Housing Month 2024, FHEO is highlighting its efforts to provide fair housing education to our stakeholders. Click the links below to view these recently developed technical assistance resources:

• Assistance Animals and Fair Housing: Navigating Reasonable Accommodations Webinar
• Data and Fair Housing Planning: AFFH-T Video Series
• Fair Housing Act’s Familial Status Protections Webinar
• OHC and FHEO Conference - Fair Housing 2021: What Counselors Need to Know
• Preventing Sexual and Other Discriminatory Harassment in Housing
• Respondent’s Obligations Toolkit
• LGBTQIA+ Fair Housing Toolkit

FHEO Outreach Tools

 

Visit the FHEO Outreach Tools page to view and download fair housing materials and resources, including posters, graphics, and Microsoft Teams backgrounds. These materials can be shared with your stakeholders to raise awareness of fair housing rights, educational opportunities, and resources. 

Visit the Outreach Tools page. 

How to Report Housing Discrimination

 

If you believe your rights may have been violated, we encourage you to report housing discrimination.

Because there are time limits on when an allegation can be filed with HUD after an alleged violation, you should report housing discrimination as soon as possible. When reporting housing discrimination, please provide as much information as possible, including:

• Your name and address
• The name and address of the person(s) or organization your allegation is against
• The address or other identification of the housing or program involved
• A short description of the event(s) that cause you to believe your rights were violated; and
• The date(s) of the alleged violation.

*****

Source: HUD Fair Housing Month page.

HUD Commemorates April as National Fair Housing Month

 

Adrianne Todman, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), released the following statement in commemoration of Fair Housing Month and the signing of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, and familial status. “For more than half a century, the federal government has sought to end discrimination in housing through enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development takes its responsibilities under that law and other civil rights laws very seriously and works diligently to ensure people have full access to housing that meets their needs,” said HUD Acting Secretary Adrianne Todman. “Everyone in this country deserves to live free from discrimination, bias, and danger. This Fair Housing Month, we are recommitting ourselves to the important work of protecting individuals and families across America from harm.” This year’s Fair Housing Month theme, Fair Housing: The ‘Act’ in Action, underscores the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to combating discrimination in housing, protecting fair housing rights for all who call America home, and redressing our nation’s past discriminatory policies and practices. "This April, we reflect on the hard-fought battle for fair housing and recommit efforts to eliminate discrimination and disparities in housing across our country” said Demetria L. McCain, Principal Deputy Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This month and every month, HUD is taking meaningful action to advance housing justice and protect the rights of all people to live free from discrimination in the homes of their choice, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation or gender identity), disability, or familial status.” Each April, HUD recognizes Fair Housing Month alongside communities, fair housing advocates, and fair housing organizations to underscore the significance of the Fair Housing Act, raise public awareness of fair housing rights and responsibilities, highlight fair housing enforcement efforts, and emphasize the importance of creating diverse and inclusive communities. HUD will commemorate Fair Housing Month with an Opening Ceremony on April 11, 2024, at 2:00 P.M. (EDT), that will showcase HUD’s efforts to advance and protect fair housing rights to ensure that all people have the right to obtain the housing of their choice, free from discrimination. Register to attend the Fair Housing Month Opening Ceremony here. There is no cost to register. For a complete listing of HUD Fair Housing Month events and activities, visit: https://www.hud.gov/FHM. Follow the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity on Facebook for additional news and updates. 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). Housing discrimination complaints may also be filed by going to hud.gov/fairhousing. For additional information including educational materials for residents, housing providers and others, visit https://www.hud.gov/fairhousing.

Maryland Fair Housing Forum is on April 18th

 

Join us at our Fair Housing Forum that bring communities together to discuss fair housing issues and antidiscrimination efforts. To register, click on the picture above or click HERE.   Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US