U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Files Proposed Settlement Agreements Regarding Accessibility Retrofits

 

The settlement agreements were filed on March 25 and 27, 2025, the  at, respectively, The Kendrick, in Needham, Massachusetts, and Emerson at Edge on the Hudson, in Sleepy Hollow, New York. The complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2024, alleges that several Toll-related entities and others violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with the required accessibility features.  The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  The complaint is also based on evidence obtained by the USDOJ's Fair Housing Testing Program.

On June 25, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the U.S. and Defendant Lendlease Construction LMB Inc.  The decree requires Lendlease not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty.  On July 28, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the U.S. and Defendant GreenbergFarrow Architecture, Inc.  The decree requires GreenbergFarrow not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty. 

On January 8, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a second amended complaint.  On March 1, 2025, the court approved a settlement agreement regarding retrofits at Parc at Princeton Junction, in Princeton, New Jersey.  On March 4, 2025, the court approved a proposed settlement agreement regarding retrofits at another property, The Morgan, in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Read the April 2, 2025 USDOJ article.

Missouri GOP Close to Passing Bill Letting Landlords Discriminate Against Section 8 Renters

 

This week, the Missouri Senate passed legislation that if becomes law, the state will prevent municipalities in Missouri from enacting source of income discrimination bans, and will void bans already in place in St. Louis, Webster Groves, Columbia, and Clayton, along with a portion of Kansas City. Kansas City passed a source of income discrimination ban last year, though it was largely paused by the courts in February. Columbia, St. Louis, Webster Groves and Clayton have similar protections on the books. The laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate based solely on the fact of renters’ lawful sources of income, including Section 8, veterans’ benefits and Social Security.

Source of income discrimination bans are designed to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to potential tenants based solely on the kind of income that they have available to them. Many landlords will only consider W-2 wages when evaluating potential tenants, but this helps to prevent many of the poorest from being able to access safe, stable housing. A single mother may have child support payments as her primary source of income, but a landlord is not bound to consider that when she applies for tenancy. A bus driver who has suffered repetitive stress injuries and now receives Social Security Disability Insurance may also struggle to find a landlord who is willing to rent to them. 

The most common form of source of income discrimination is a refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, a federal housing program that has been addressing homelessness in the U.S. since 1974. Despite being chronically underfunded by the federal government, these vouchers have proven to raise people out of poverty, improve mental and physical health outcomes, and decrease homelessness. 75% of HCV holders have extremely low incomes, defined as less than 30% of the federal poverty line (currently $32,150 for a family of four) or less than 30% of the local area median income. The Section 8 program allows these families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the government pays the balance.

The legislation, which has cleared the House and Senate in differing forms, would make it extremely difficult for these low-income renters, the majority of whom have already experienced chronic homelessness, to find housing. A 2018 study showed that over 67% of landlords refused to rent to voucher-holders in cities without source of income anti-discrimination laws. In comparison, less than 31% of landlords refused to rent to voucher holders in cities with source of income discrimination bans in place. This demonstrates that source of income discrimination bans are effective local public policy and should not be preempted by our state government.

This legislation is being framed as a protection for landlords, seeking to prevent them from being “forced” to participate in a federal program. They say that this is government infringement on the property rights of landlords. They say that it’s too hard to comply with government regulations for landlords who participate in the section 8 program. To participate as a landlord, property owners simply have to submit to an annual inspection and ensure that their rental rates are in compliance with federal Fair Market Rent standards, which are typically very generous. Inspection protocols have recently been revised to only consider key health and safety factors rather than cosmetic issues.

A Missouri Independent reporter said that in listening to Missouri legislative committee discussion on this issue over the last two years, it seems like the concerns of landlords are actually centered on a prejudiced belief that poor renters are bad tenants.

Federal data shows that renters using housing vouchers are actually excellent tenants who stay in a unit for an average of 7 to 8 years, despite the fact that landlords are free to evict them for breaking the terms of their rental agreement. This is because of the program’s smooth transitions in employment status of renters, adjusting the amount paid by the government based on fluctuations in the income of the renter. Voucher holders are also typically assigned a case manager that helps renters to understand the terms of their lease and comply with landlord regulations. 

Over 86% of rental units in the country are owned by for-profit entities. If we allow these landlords to opt-out of renting to single parents living on child support, individuals with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time, and seniors and other low-income families utilizing these federal vouchers, where do we envision they will go?

Read the April 26, 2025 Missouri Independent article.

Read the April 24, 2024 KCUR 89.3 article.

Read the April 24, 2025 NPR article.

White House May Slash Federal Housing Aid to the Poor

 

The White House is considering deep cuts to federal housing programs, including a sweeping overhaul of aid to low-income families, in a reconfiguration that could jeopardize millions of Americans’ continued access to rental assistance funds. The potential changes primarily concern federal housing vouchers, including those more commonly known as Section 8. The aid generally helps the poorest tenants cover the monthly costs of apartments, town homes, and single-family residences.

Administration officials recently discussed cutting or canceling out the vouchers and other rental assistance programs and potentially replacing them with a more limited system of housing grants, perhaps sent to states, according to three people familiar with the matter. The overhaul would be included in Trump’s new budget, which is expected to be sent to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.

The exact design and cost of the retooled program is unclear, and any such change is likely to require approval from Congress, as White House budgets on their own do not carry the force of law. But people familiar with the administration’s thinking said the expected overhaul would probably amount to more than just a technical change, resulting in fewer federal dollars for low-income families on top of additional cuts planned for the rest of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Recently, the Trump administration took the first steps toward potentially selling the agency’s headquarters in Washington.

Federal voucher programs currently provide assistance to 2.3 million low-income families, according to the government’s estimates, who enroll through their local public-housing authorities. The aid is part of a broader universe of rental assistance programs set to exceed $54 billion this fiscal year. But the annual demand for these subsidies is far greater than the available funds, creating a sizable wait list as rents are rising nationally.

“If there were a cut to the voucher program, essentially, you would see a decrease to the number of families that are served by the program,” said Eric Oberdorfer, the director of policy and legislative affairs at the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. At the moment, one in four families eligible for vouchers are able to obtain them because of funding constraints. A federal cut would put public-housing agencies in a position in which “they would need to make difficult decisions” and in some cases stop providing benefits, Oberdorfer said. Rachel Cauley, a spokeswoman for the White House budget office, said in a statement that “no final funding decisions have been made.”

A potential overhaul of the housing agency comes on the heels of a congressional deal to fund the government through September that increased some housing spending yet did not keep pace with rising rents and the growing demand for federal aid. The funding gap could result in about 32,000 voucher recipients soon losing access to federal housing aid, according to Democrats’ estimates, on top of additional cuts once funding runs out in a pandemic-era program that expanded voucher availability.

Read the April 17, 2025 New York Times article.

META Oversight Allows Anti-Trans Hate from Others, But Tells Meta to Remove Its Own

 

GLAAD, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, has responded to a new decision announced by the Oversight Board, the body that makes pseudo-independent rulings about Facebook, Instagram, and Threads content moderation cases. GLAAD’s analysis of the ruling found a clear disagreement among the Oversight Board on the cases - the issued decision permits two posts containing anti-trans content, while notifying Meta that it must also remove anti-trans rhetoric it added to its hate speech policy in January. The Washington Post has reported that top Meta executives told the Oversight Board that the ruling should be “treated carefully” … “given the fraught political debate” about the rights of trans people in the U.S.

The Board ruled that the two harassing posts, one intentionally misgendering a transgender woman and the other intentionally misgendering a transgender girl, should remain (one on Facebook, the other on Instagram). They were both reshared by a prominent anti-LGBTQ account, inviting more visibility and harassment. The ruling expressly notes that the posts “misgender identifiable trans people,” yet asserts that the posts do not “represent bullying and harassment,” instead characterizing them as “public debate.” Although the majority of the Oversight Board supported Meta’s decision to allow the content, a minority expressly noted (in concurrence with GLAAD’s public comment submitted for the Board’s consideration) that the posts violate Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy. The policy prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people, stating: “all private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures are protected from… claims about… gender identity.” Additional background is below, including the company’s caveats about who is protected by the policy and who is not.

Acknowledging Meta’s use of an anti-trans trope in its January 7, 2025 policy changes, and urging the company to remove it, the Oversight Board states: “Finally, the Board is concerned that Meta has incorporated the term ‘transgenderism’ into its revised Hateful Conduct policy. To ensure Meta’s content policies are framed neutrally and in line with international human rights standards, Meta should remove the term “transgenderism” from the Hateful Conduct policy and corresponding implementation guidance.” (“Transgenderism” is a popular right-wing anti-trans trope intended to falsely imply that being trans is an ideology.)

In September 2024, GLAAD submitted an official public comment regarding the two cases (“Gender Identity Debate Videos“), which address anti-transgender hate and harassment content. The Board’s ruling acknowledges Meta’s recent sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct policy, including the removal of many policy protections for transgender people. Among the many rollbacks, the company said it will now allow calls “for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights” (e.g. “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism [sic] and homosexuality [sic]”). GLAAD has spoken out extensively about how this policy language is dehumanizing hate speech in itself which is attempting to normalize anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

While Meta rolled back LGBTQ protection aspects of its Hateful Conduct policy in January, its policy continues to state that it prohibits hate and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Even in Meta’s own logic, and as a minority of the Oversight Board expressly agree, the posts clearly violate Meta’s policy which still prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people (i.e. “claims about gender identity”). While Meta’s updated Hateful Conduct policy still prohibits hate and harassment of people on the basis of protected characteristics including gender identity, the company has stated that it will now primarily rely on user reports to identify “less severe policy violations.”

While there are many interesting and complex aspects to the case, this primary aspect above (Meta’s existing policy protecting people from “claims about … gender identity”) should have made the Oversight Board’s adjudication straightforward. Arcane facets of Meta’s policy enforcement considerations created disagreement amongst the Board: including the question of whether the targeted subjects must self-report the accounts who target them, and whether the subjects should be considered public figures. (The policy only protects: “private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures.”) GLAAD has long advocated for the removal of these distinctions and requirements — everyone should be protected.

Read GLAAD’s full public comment here.

As in GLAAD’s 2024 SMSI report, Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, and Threads are largely failing to mitigate anti-LGBTQ hate and harassment. Meta’s enforcement failures have elicited longtime concern from the Oversight Board, trust and safety experts, human rights advocates, and Meta’s shareholders.

A 2024 GLAAD report found that Meta is failing to moderate extreme anti-trans hate across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. The fourth annual GLAAD Social Media Safety Index & Platform Scorecard (SMSI)was released in June 2024. After reviewing six major platforms on 12 LGBTQ-specific indicators, all received low and failing scores: TikTok: 67%, Instagram: 58%, Facebook: 58%, YouTube: 58%, Threads: 51%, and X: 41%.

Key findings of the 2024 SMSI include:

• Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric on social media translates to real-world offline harms.
• Anti-LGBTQ hate speech and disinformation continues to be an alarming public health and safety issue.
• Platforms are largely failing to mitigate this dangerous hate and disinformation and inadequately enforce their own policies.
• Platforms disproportionately suppress LGBTQ content, including via removal, demonetization, and shadow-banning.
• There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from the platforms.

Read the April 24, 2025 GLAAD article.

Trump's Order Guts Cornerstone of Modern Civil Rights Law Used to Enforce Antidiscrimination Laws

 

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement” of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability, which has long enabled courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability. The order also instructs the U.S. attorney general to repeal key components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bar any program receiving federal financial support from discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.”

Disparate impact claims allow consumers to challenge a variety of discriminatory practices aimed at people of color, people with disabilities, families with young children, and women, among others. These practices would otherwise, even when identified, go unaddressed. Lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims have exposed and remedied longstanding patterns of discrimination and brought relief to thousands of consumers. During the subprime lending boom that led to the Great Recession of 2008, communities of color were targeted for high-risk, high interest rate loans, and they were hit especially hard by the financial crisis. Many lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims were filed in an attempt to alter this toxic reality and bring relief to individual consumers. These lawsuits unmasked widespread discriminatory lending practices. 

Derek Black, who directs the Constitutional Law Center at the University of South Carolina, said the administration was misstating the law. “If it were true that disparate-impact liability creates ‘a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination,’ we might have rid the country of disparities long ago,” he wrote on X. The concept of disparate impact, she said, prevents employers from excluding qualified candidates because of their race, gender or another protected characteristic.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court set precedent when it unanimously ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that the company could not use arbitrary tests or requirements in hiring and promotion if it could not prove they served a genuine business need. The court found that even if the company was not purposefully trying to discriminate based on race, if the policies had a discriminatory effect, they were illegal.

“There’s been an effort to say that with discrimination, the only kind of harm we care about is the egregious, smoking-gun evidence of animus or harassment, or where somebody is bigoted,” Yang said. “But there is often very significant harm to individuals from organizational practices that are discriminatory, yet very difficult to prove.”

While Trump’s executive order does not stop private individuals from suing over workplace and other kinds of discrimination. States and localities are also strengthening their nondiscrimination laws.

Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post article.

<a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/still-life-business-roles-with-various-pawns_24749557.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=4&uuid=1b91fbd8-73b8-430c-92bd-eb1be0796a39&query=one+is+excluded+from+group">Image by freepik</a>.

Obituary: Herbert J. Gans, Poverty & Urban Researcher, 97

Gans, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who became an innovative sociologist in the U.S., explored the myths and misconceptions surrounding poverty, class, urban renewal, and suburban malaise. A longtime professor at Columbia University and former president of the American Sociological Association, Gans was an Ivy League academic, an advocate for liberal causes and a social critic, contributing essays to many publications. He aimed, he said, to connect his research with the lives of ordinary people, and to work toward answering a fundamental question: “What is a good society, and how can sociology help bring it about?” His writing covered Americana from the postwar years into the 2000s, exploring race relations, economic problems, highbrow and popular cultures, nostalgia for the rural past, and an assortment of provocative questions: Why do the poor get poorer and the rich richer? Can Jews and Italians get along in Canarsie? Is landmarks preservation elitist? 

Gans served on the Kerner Commission, which President Lyndon B. Johnson established in 1967 to investigate the cause of riots and unrest that had broken out in cities around the country. He helped draft the commission’s report, an indictment of White racism that warned that “our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal.”

His first book, The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans (New York: Free Press, 1962), was a vivid chronicle of an Italian American enclave that was displaced and leveled by urban renewal. Gans showed how the area was far from the slum that government officials had made it out to be, and argued that a middle-class bias had caused the low-rent neighborhood to be wrongly perceived as derelict and run-down. Gans wrote frequently about the poor and working classes, arguing for new anti-poverty measures in his 1995 book The War Against The Poor: The Underclass And Antipoverty Policy. As he saw it, the country’s least privileged had been stigmatized through terms like “underclass,” which contributed to a sense in which the poor were to be blamed for their condition, and ignored or punished rather than helped. An important article in this vein was his "The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All," (Social Policy, July/August 1971: pp. 20-24).

Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post obituary.

On Behalf of Equal Rights Center, Relman Colfax PLLC Alleges Washington, DC-Based UDR Tenant Screening Policies are Discriminatory

On April 25, 2025, Relman Colfax filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court on behalf of the Equal Rights Center against UDR, Inc. and the owners of The MO apartment building (in northeast D.C.) alleging that The MO’s tenant screening policies discriminate against housing voucher holders and housing applicants with criminal legal histories in violation of the Washington, D.C. Human Rights Act and the D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act of 2016.

The complaint alleges that the defendants openly discriminate based on applicants’ source of income and criminal legal history, even posting some of their illegal policies on The MO’s website. ERC claims that these policies erect yet another barrier to housing for populations for which stable housing is particularly important.

The ERC conducted an investigation using fair housing testers to ascertain whether Defendants were engaging in unlawful discrimination against individuals attempting to rent units at The MO. Through its investigation, the ERC found that Defendants and their agents have a policy or practice of making statements and/or imposing conditions that exclude voucher holders based on illegal criteria, as well as renters with criminal histories from access to rental units at The MO. 

“ERC’s lawsuit employs consumer protection law in a pioneering effort to secure safe and affordable housing for D.C. residents,” stated Mirela Missova, Supervising Counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “Discriminatory policies significantly hinder the ability to safeguard low-income tenants.”

Through its complaint, ERC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that The MO comes into compliance with District requirements for equitable tenant screening policies. This lawsuit represents a critical step toward making equitable housing opportunities a reality in the District. The Relman Colfax litigation team consisted of Zoila Hinson, with paralegal assistance from Miriam Farah. The co-counsel is Mirela Missova of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Unfortunately, discrimination against tenants by rental housing providers for such illegal screening as housing discrimination are too frequent of late. For instance, a complaint was filed in November, 2024 regarding alleged discrimination against two private equity landlords in Indianapolis, Indiana.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Read the April 23, 2025 RC article.

Read the November 21, 2024 NBC TV10 Philadelphia article.