HUD Baltimore Field Office to Close, Along with Many Other HUD Field & Regional Offices

 

The Baltimore field office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will soon be permanently closed, along with many other HUD field offices. The downtown Baltimore office, which employs about 90, is to be shut down. All who work there will likely be terminated by order of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency. The closure is part of HUD's reduction of regional and field offices.

Eliminating the Baltimore office and transferring cases to other FHA offices will mean it will take longer to receive approvals and resolve issues between the loan originator and the agency. Boston or New York are already swamped with servicing the loans. HUD construction analysts, appraisers, underwriters, and, most importantly, asset management who know the market here are all going to be eliminated. It is going to make it much more difficult to finance and monitor housing.

The biggest impact will be a severe slowdown in processing Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans for multi-family projects, one of the Baltimore office’s major functions. An observer commented, “It doesn’t make any sense to do this in the name of saving money. They finance anything from affordable- to market-rate projects, and they also asset manage them. They actually make money – billions – for the federal government that gets put back into the general fund.” Created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression under the authority of the National Housing Act of 1934, the FHA is one of the main government agencies that offers low down payment mortgages for qualifying homebuyers.

Other functions of the Baltimore office include Community Planning and Development (CPD), which administers local grants to promote better housing and expanded economic opportunities to low and moderate income persons, and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing-related activities. Another loss from the shutdown of the field office will be oversight of Section 8 and voucher housing and local public housing authorities. Because this office administers the money to public housing authorities and keeps a watch over those funds, there will be more opportunity for fraud.

Responding after publication, the HUD Public Affairs Office said “no decisions have been finalized.”

Read the March 5, 2025 BaltimoreBrew article.

Read the March 5, 2025 Bloomberg article.

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.

CFPB Takes Action Against Draper & Kramer Mortgage for Discriminatory Mortgage Lending Practices Including Redlined Neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has taken action against Draper & Kramer Mortgage Corporation (Draper) for discriminatory mortgage lending activities that discouraged homebuyers from applying to Draper for homes in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the greater Chicago and Boston areas. The CFPB alleges that Draper located all its offices in majority-white neighborhoods, concentrated its marketing in majority-white neighborhoods, and avoided marketing to majority-Black and Hispanic areas. These actions resulted in disproportionately low numbers of mortgage loan applications and mortgage loan originations from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston compared to other lenders. If entered by the court, the proposed order announced today would ban Draper from engaging in residential mortgage lending activities for five years, and require Draper to pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Draper & Kramer Mortgage Corporation is a non-depository mortgage lender based in Downers Grove, Illinois. Draper received applications and originated mortgage loans across the country, including in Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

The CFPB alleges that, from 2019-2021, Draper engaged in redlining majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the greater Chicago and Boston areas, resulting in it significantly underperforming its peers in lending activity to these areas. Draper discouraged mortgage applicants from making or pursuing an application for credit on the basis of race, color, and national origin, violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.

Specifically, the CFPB alleges that Draper violated the law by:

(1) Intentionally focusing mortgage lending activities in majority-white neighborhoods and excluding Black and Hispanic neighborhoods: Draper had no offices, no loan officers, and virtually no marketing or outreach in majority- or high-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston. Draper did not assign any loan officers to solicit applications in majority-Black and Hispanic communities and failed to train or incentivize its loan officers to lend in these communities. Draper’s outreach and marketing specifically targeted majority-white neighborhoods and mostly avoided majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

(2) Discouraging mortgage applicants from pursuing properties in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods: Draper’s business model discouraged borrowers from applying for loans to purchase property located in these neighborhoods. Draper’s peer lenders generated applications for properties in majority-Black and Hispanic areas in the Chicago metro area at over two and-a-half times the rate and in the Boston metro area at three times the rate that Draper generated such applications. Draper also originated disproportionately low amounts of mortgage loans for properties in these neighborhoods, with peers in Chicago and Boston originating two and-a-half times more loans than Draper in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.

If entered by the court, the order would require Draper to:

• Cease residential mortgage lending activities for five years: For that period, Draper cannot perform any residential mortgage lending activities, nor receive any compensation for any residential mortgage lending.
• Pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Read today’s 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.

Read the January 17, 2025 CFPB 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.

Vote YES on SB107/HB392 to Expand Housing Justice in Maryland

 

In 2023, there were 198 fair housing complaints in the Baltimore Metro region. Economic Action MD received many fair housing complaints based on access to reasonable accommodations to assist residents with a disability. Testing is legal in Maryland to help determine if discrimination exists.

To determine whether housing providers are discriminating against Marylanders because of race, gender, ethnicity, how someone pays for their rent, or other legally-protected reasons, fair housing organizations conduct tests to see if discrimination exists. In 39 states including Virginia and the District of Columbia, fair housing testers use an audio recording to accurately capture the conversation with the housing provider, which can later be used as evidence if the provider violates civil rights law. However, in Maryland, taping a conversation to root out discrimination is illegal.

SB107/HB392 sponsored by Sen. Charles Sydnor and Del. Sandy Bartlett gives fair housing organizations and programs in Maryland the tools needed to more accurately document discrimination by allowing audio recordings. These recordings, when used as evidence in a housing discrimination are irrefutable, especially compared to the option of using only the handwritten notes taken by testers, which ultimately comes down to a "he said/she said" debate.

Using  recorded evidence of fair housing testing often leads to early resolution and settlement, rather than protracted litigation. It also helps protect testers and housing providers since there are clear audio recordings which act as quality control. Finally, using audio recordings provides the best evidence in court and is recommended by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Read more about SB107/HB392 here.

Please take 2 minutes to urge your senator and delegates to Vote YES on SB107/HB392 and expand housing justice in Maryland!

D.C. Sues Landlord Alleging Housing Discrimination Against Non-Voucher Holders

In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, the D.C. attorney general’s office has accused the major developer Petra Management Group of skirting rent control by renting only to voucher holders. In a lawsuit filed January 30th in D.C. Superior Court, the office of Attorney General Brian Schwalb contends that Petra is guilty of source-of-income discrimination at three D.C. buildings with over 100 apartments. This is the first time the city has sued a landlord for discrimination against non-voucher holders. At the three buildings cited in the lawsuit - just a portion of Petra’s portfolio - Petra rents exclusively to tenants with vouchers, the suit alleges. Rashid Salem, Petra’s founder and a named defendant in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Petra’s alleged scheme follows a shift in D.C.’s incentives for housing vouchers, under which low-income residents pay 30% of their income toward rent and the government covers the balance. A decade ago, in an effort to deconcentrate poverty, the D.C. Housing Authority began raising the rent limits for homes subsidized with vouchers - allowing many voucher holders to move to neighborhoods with better schools and less crime. But not only was the Housing Authority frequently overpaying for apartments, D.C.’s rent-control law granted an exemption for units rented to voucher holders, so landlords could get out from strict rent caps and collect far more money.

Petra began buying up residential buildings and filling them with as many voucher holders as possible, a Washington Post investigation found. As some of the buildings filled with people struggling with addiction or mental illness, neighbors complained of a lack of case workers and security and drug dealers operated out of the properties. Upscale apartment buildings along Connecticut Avenue NW managed by one property company began filling up with formerly homeless voucher holders, leading some residents (both longtime tenants and new voucher holders) to complain that there was not adequate support or security services.

Rent control in D.C. typically applies to all apartment buildings constructed before 1976. In 2020, the median rent was $1,442 per month in rent-controlled units, compared with $2,554 for units not subject to rent control. That makes these apartments substantially more affordable to residents of moderate means, but it also makes them less profitable for landlords.

A landlord can get an exemption from rent-control caps for voucher holders only after getting city approval, according to the attorney general’s office. But at the three Petra buildings, the suit alleges, Petra advertised the higher, non-rent-controlled rate both to lenders and to prospective tenants, violating the law and making the apartments unaffordable to many people without vouchers. At one of the buildings, the Adams on North Capitol Street NE, one three-bedroom unit would be capped at $1,000.25 under rent control, but Petra advertised and rented it at $3,131 per month, according to the attorney general’s office.

Read the January 30, 2025 Washington Post article.

Book Review: "The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North" by Michelle Adams

 

The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North by Michelle Adams. 528 pages. $35.00 hardcover.

"Splendid . . . Adams’s book explores class as well as race, with a richness and sophistication that recall J. Anthony Lukas’s 1985 masterpiece, Common Ground." - Jeffrey Toobin, New York Times Book Review.

This book relates Detroit's struggle to integrate schools in its suburbs and the associated struggle for desegregation in the North. In The Containment, Michelle Adams, the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, tells the history of the attempts to integrate Detroit schools, and the problems that followed when this effort collided with Nixon-appointed justices committed to a judicial counterrevolution. The book includes brief bios of the activists who tried to help Detroit's students during this period of riots, Black power, and white flight. In 1974, Federal District Judge Stephen Roth ruled that integration was not possible within the city's boundaries and ordered a new plan to include 53 of the 85 surrounding, mostly white, school districts. 

This metropolitan desegregation remedy could have remade the future direction of racial justice. Instead, the US Supreme Court on July 25, 1974 overruled the lower courts in ruling that the federal courts "could not impose a multidistrict, area-wide remedy upon local districts in the absence of any evidence those districts committed acts causing racial discrimination." The decision seriously impeded the struggle for forced desegregation both in Michigan and throughout the North, and limited the scope of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional.

Read the State Bar of Michigan's Michigan Legal Milestones historical article.

Read the full text of the Milliken v. Bradley decision.

Justice Department Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Iowa Landlord for Sexually Harassing Tenants

 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against Kurt Williams and Gearhead Properties LC, of Davenport, Iowa, for sexually harassing female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Williams has managed residential rental properties in Davenport since at least 2010.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleges that, since at least 2010, Williams subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual contact, exposed his genitals to female tenants, made requests for sex in exchange for reduced rent or other housing benefits, and evicted tenants when they did not give in to his sexual advances.

“Landlords who target vulnerable women by repeatedly demanding sex for themselves and their friends and retaliating against those who refuse with eviction actions and refusals to make repairs show an egregious abuse of power,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department remains committed to protecting tenants’ right to live in and access housing free of sexual harassment. We encourage survivors of sexual harassment to speak out so that we can vindicate their fair housing rights.”

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate persons harmed by the alleged harassment, civil penalties to vindicate the public interest, and a court order barring future discrimination. The lawsuit is the result of a joint investigative effort with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG).

The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. It also prohibits sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination. Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or other types of housing discrimination at rental properties owned or managed by Kurt Williams or Gearhead Properties LC, 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 Southern District of Iowa at (515) 473-9300. Individuals may also email the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov or submit a report online. Reports also may be made by contacting HUD at 1-800-669-9777 or by filing a complaint online.

Read the January 17, 2025 DOJ press release.

The Mortgage Firm to Invest $1.75M to Settle DOJ Redlining Housing Discrimination Case

 

The Mortgage Firm, a Florida-based mortgage lender, has agreed to invest $1.75 million to settle a redlining case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the parties announced. The DOJ accused the company of discrimination against predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metropolitan area. The company ‘significantly underperformed’ its peers in generating applications from majority-Black and majority-Hispanic neighborhoods during 2016-2021. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Florida, alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. DOJ opened an investigation into The Mortgage Firm’s lending practices after receiving a referral from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

A spokesperson at The Mortgage Firm told HousingWire that “throughout its 29-year history, the company has been committed to providing equal credit access to all communities within its lending footprint. The complete absence of legal or regulatory violations on The Mortgage Firm’s record speaks for itself.”

The company received 9,375 mortgage applications during 2016-2021, of which 30.4% were from residents of majority-Black and majority-Hispanic neighborhoods. Its peers’ share was 59%. The complaint also pointed out that the company had its offices located predominantly in white neighborhoods and took inadequate steps to market to and develop referral networks within Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

The proposed consent order, which awaits court approval, would require The Mortgage Firm to:

• Conduct a Community Credit Needs Assessment to identify the credit needs of residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Miami MSA and to consider the results in developing future loan programs, marketing campaigns, and outreach efforts.
• Provide $1.75 million for a loan subsidy program to offer affordable home purchase, refinance, and home improvement loans in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Miami MSA. The program may provide lower interest rates, down payment assistance, closing cost assistance, or payment of initial mortgage insurance premiums.
• Conduct a detailed assessment of its fair lending program in the Miami MSA regarding fair lending obligations and lending in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
• Enhance its fair lending training and staffing to ensure equal access to credit is provided across their market area, including by employing a Director of Community Lending.
• Expand its outreach and advertising efforts by having an office location in a majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhood in Miami-Dade County, translating its website into Spanish, and requiring all of its loan officers in the Miami MSA to market to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
• Bolster connections with the community and build referral sources in predominately Black and Hispanic neighborhoods by providing four outreach events annually, six financial education seminars per year, and partnering with at least one community partners to increase access to credit in predominately Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Miami MSA.

A copy of the complaint, proposed consent order, and information about DOJ’s fair lending enforcement work, is at www.justice.gov/fairhousing. Anyone may report lending discrimination by calling DOJ’s housing discrimination tip line at 1-833-591-0291 or submitting a report online.

Read the January 9, 2025 HousingWire article.

Read the January 7, 2025 DOJ press release.

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.