Every April, National Fair Housing Month marks the anniversary of the signing into law of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA). The legislation was passed in response to the civil rights movement and the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and it aimed to eliminate discrimination in housing, ensuring that all people have access to safe and affordable homes, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability.
In 2025, Fair Housing Month remains as important as ever. While progress has been made in fighting housing discrimination, the work to ensure equal housing opportunities for all continues.
1. What Does Housing Discrimination Look Like?
Despite decades of effort to address housing inequality, discrimination is still rampant in many areas. Studies from organizations like the National Fair Housing Alliance show that people of color, individuals with disabilities, and those from marginalized communities face significantly higher barriers when it comes to accessing housing.
Housing discrimination can take many forms, including:
- Redlining: When banks and insurance companies deny services or investments to certain neighborhoods, often based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability (“protected characteristics”).
- Steering: When real estate agents guide homebuyers or renters towards or away from certain neighborhoods based on their protected characteristics.
- Unfair eviction practices: When landlords or property managers use discriminatory tactics to evict tenants, particularly those from marginalized communities.
- Discriminatory lending: When banks or mortgage lenders deny loans or offer unfavorable terms to borrowers based on an applicant’s protected characteristics.
2. Fair Housing Includes Access to Affordable Housing & Vouchers
The lack of affordable housing across the nation has reached crisis level. With the cost of living and job insecurity on the rise, particularly in urban areas, many individuals and families are struggling to find housing they can afford.
This housing crisis disproportionately affects communities of color, thereby limiting access to good schools and more diverse cultural experiences and perpetuating racial segregation.
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 70% of all extremely low income families spend more than half their income on rent while only 1 in 4 extremely low income families who need assistance receive it.
NLIHC, in partnership with the National Women’s Law Center, also found that 74% of households that use federal rental assistance programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers, are headed by women. In 2023, federal housing assistance lifted the incomes of 364,000 Black, non-Hispanic women, 333,000 Latinas, 930,000 Asian women out of poverty.
Fair Housing Month serves as a reminder of the importance of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which provides rental assistance to eligible families and individuals.
What Do Housing Vouchers Cover?
Housing vouchers, such as those provided through HUD, typically cover a portion of a tenant’s rent, based on income and family size, as well as market rates. The tenant is responsible for paying the difference between the voucher amount and the total rent.
- Landlord’s Obligations: Landlords who accept housing vouchers must comply with local housing quality standards. They are responsible for maintaining the property and ensuring it meets safety and health standards. They also must work with the local authority to submit payment requests and report any issues.
- Local Housing Authority’s Obligations: Local housing authorities administer voucher programs locally, providing families in need with housing assistance, and helping facilitate the lease and payments to the landlord or property manager. They also work to ensure landlords and property managers comply with federal and state fair housing and voucher guidelines.
In some jurisdictions, it is also unlawful for housing providers to discriminate based on “source-of-income,” such as the use of a housing voucher. See a list of the states and localities where such discrimination is unlawful.
Unfortunately, even in those jurisdictions with statutes protecting against “source-of-income” discrimination, voucher discrimination by some landlords, property management companies, and real estate agents persist, necessitating investigations by local housing authorities and often litigation.
3. Fair Housing Means the Right to Safe, Habitable Living Conditions
Another objective of Fair Housing Month is to remind the public about the scope of their rights. In addition to access to housing, everyone has the right to a safe, healthy, and secure living environment. A place to call home. For adults and children, this is a crucial right and essential for maintaining dignity and quality of life.
What Does Safe, Habitable Living Conditions Mean?
“Safe, habitable living conditions” refers to an environment or space where individuals can live without the risk of harm to their health, safety, or well-being. It encompasses several key factors that ensure a place is suitable for long-term living.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s State and Local Innovation recently published the Code Enforcement and Habitability Standards Toolkit, which provides a comprehensive overview on habitability standards, laws, and policies.
4. Fair Housing Resources States and local communities play an important role in enforcing fair housing laws. For instance, these laws are enforced by state human rights commissions, local housing authorities, and fair housing organizations. These entities ensure compliance with the FHA and state-specific laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, along with other protected characteristics like “source of income” (use of a housing voucher) in certain jurisdictions.
A national investigative nonprofit on Monday lodged discrimination complaints against more than 200 California landlords and their representatives — including major real estate brokerages — alleging they illegally refused to rent to Section 8 voucher holders.
The Housing Rights Initiative filed the complaints, based upon an undercover investigation, with the California Civil Rights Department.
The nonprofit organization is asking the agency to look into penalties against the 203 companies and individuals, saying they violated a state law that makes it illegal to deny tenants solely because they’d pay with a voucher. It’s also lobbying for more state funding to adequately enforce the law, which the group and other advocates contend hasn’t been done since the rules took effect in 2020.
“There’s nothing more tragic than when a family gets … an opportunity to get a home and they can’t because real estate isn’t following the law,” said Aaron Carr, executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative. “It’s time for California to get tough.”
The Section 8 program, named after a section of the federal Housing Act, is one of the U.S. government’s most powerful tools to keep rental housing affordable and to fight overcrowding and homelessness.
Generally, tenants pay the equivalent of about 30% of their income on rent with the voucher covering the rest. Unlike public housing, the subsidy can move with tenants so that they can find housing with private landlords. But that’s easier said than done.
Households can spend years on waiting lists just to receive a voucher. When they get one, advocates say, landlords often refuse to rent to them under the disproven belief they’re more likely to be bad tenants, which can reflect negative stereotypes of poor people, as well as people of color, who make up a majority of Section 8 participants.
Amid a long-running housing crisis, California tried to stop those denials when it joined a handful of other states and passed a “source-of-income” law that makes it illegal to discriminate against tenants who pay with Section 8 and other subsidies. Types of discrimination include refusing to rent to such tenants at all or treating them differently in other ways, such as charging them higher security deposits.
. . .
“If people who receive Section 8 … can’t get legitimate rental units, then they’re going to be unhoused,” said Smith, whose organization, along with the law firms Cohen Milstein and Handley Farah & Anderson, is representing the Housing Rights Initiative in its state filings.
The Settlement Ends The Lawsuit Against Major Long Island Housing Providers Which Alleged Race, Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Against Prospective Tenants
BOHEMIA, NY –Long Island Housing Services (LIHS), Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO), and two Long Island residents reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit brought against five companies that own and manage a range of residential complexes across Long Island. The lawsuit was against NPS Property Corp., NPS Holiday Square LLC, Northwood Village, Inc., Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, and South Shore Gardens, LLC (collectively, “NPS”). The complaint alleged NPS told prospective African American tenants no upcoming units were available for rent, while informing prospective white tenants that there were multiple upcoming units available and separately, refused to accept applicants using housing vouchers, including SILO’s clients using vouchers designed for those with disabilities. The plaintiffs were represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
In 2016, through systemic testing and investigations, LIHS discovered discrepancies in what NPS was allegedly telling prospective African American tenants and prospective white tenants about the availability of housing. This investigation also revealed that NPS was alleged to be discriminating against prospective tenants who use housing vouchers designed for those who have disabilities, NPS allegedly turned away SILO’s clients who sought units for rent.
“Long Island Housing Services has found that apartment complex owners, regardless of how large they are, need to have requirements for adopting fair housing policies and conducting fair housing training,” said Ian Wilder, Executive Director of Long Island Housing Services, Inc. “No matter how many complaints we bring, the market continues to fail to get property owners to do this on their own. Towns and Villages, as the only entities with regulatory power of property rental, must step up to require mandatory fair housing policies and fair housing training as part of the rental permit policy. It is way past time for municipalities to require landlords to professionalize their operations across the board. In fact, for municipalities that receive HUD funding they are required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing which would include requiring every entity that they deal with take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they obey fair housing laws. In addition, it would be in the interest of insurance companies to require residential property owners adopt fair housing policies and conduct annual fair housing training to reduce their likelihood of having to pay out for a violation of the law.”
The settlement was reached after a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding that NPS had violated the Suffolk County fair housing laws by denying applicants because of their use of housing vouchers. NPS agreed to settle with LIHS for $105,000.00 in monetary damages, separate from attorneys’ fees and costs, and as part of the agreement, LIHS will monitor NPS Properties for three years at an additional cost of $25,000 per year. The settlement also stipulates NPS must adopt critical policy changes to safeguard against future discrimination, including adopting a minimum income requirement that for voucher holders considers only the portion of the rent for which the applicant is responsible, thus taking into account the structure and purpose for which vouchers exist. NPS will also implement a non-discriminatory fair housing policy, display an equal housing opportunity logo, and provide fair housing training to their employees and agents.
“The damage that housing discrimination can do to communities is not trivial – it is deep and lasting.” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “Today’s settlement creates meaningful safeguards to ensure the fair housing laws continue to protect people of color, those with disabilities, and those using housing vouchers from intentional discrimination and unlawful policies that reinforce segregation.”
“SILO’s intent is to ensure our society is totally accessible to people with disabilities. Total accessibility means people with disabilities must be afforded the same opportunities as everyone in our community. Disability or an individual’s source of income should not impede a disabled person in attaining a place to live. At SILO we are committed to preventing housing and source of income discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” said Joseph M. Delgado, Chief Executive Officer of Suffolk Independent Living Organization.
“Source of income discrimination disproportionately harms Black families and persons with disabilities, and landlords must not be allowed to skirt prohibitions on such discrimination through income policies that do not reflect the realities of rental assistance programs,” said Thomas Silverstein, Associate Director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “Income policies like the one NPS is modifying as a result of this settlement also undermine the efficacy of our shared affordable housing investments and exacerbate segregation.”
As part of LIHS’ mission to end segregation, it monitors housing industry practices for race, disability, and source of income discrimination. In this investigation, LIHS’ testers posed as ordinary home seekers to document the treatment they experienced for LIHS to determine compliance with fair housing laws.
Race Discrimination Investigation
In 2016, systemic testing and investigation by LIHS allegedly revealed that NPS was discriminating against African Americans. Several of LIHS’ African American testers were allegedly informed by NPS that there were no available apartment units for rent. However, LIHS’ White Testers allegedly were told that there were several upcoming available rental units.
Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Investigation
Also in 2016, SILO reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination to LIHS against NPS after they allegedly refused to accept SILO’s clients as tenants. Additionally, two individual complainants reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination against NPS, after being denied housing. Source of income discrimination occurs when a housing provider refuses to accept a lawful source of income, including, but not limited to, Supplemental Social Income (SSI), Social Security Disability (SSD), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD) Housing Subsidy, Olmstead Housing Subsidy (OHS), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Medicaid Waiver program, or child support.
LIHS’ testing and investigation revealed evidence that testers posing as persons having a disability and Housing Voucher were allegedly told that they were not accepted because NPS had attained its quota of tenants with disabilities and Housing Vouchers. Testers posing as individuals with Housing Vouchers for individuals with disabilities were not told about available apartments and were not able to view them. Furthermore, a tester depicted as having a Department of Social Services One-Shot Deal was allegedly told that One-Shot Deal was not accepted. The One-Shot deal program provides financial assistance to low-income individuals in need of funds to cover the security deposit. In comparison, the evidence demonstrated that testers without disabilities and an alternative source of income were allegedly told about available apartments and were invited to view the available apartments. A difference in treatment based on the protected class of disability and source of income is illegal housing discrimination protected under fair housing and human rights laws.
NPS Property Corp. owns multiple apartment complexes in Suffolk County. Northwood Village, Inc., is the owner of Northwood Village, a residential rental building with 65 units located at 167 Weeks Road, North Babylon, New York. Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., is the owner of Brightwaters Gardens, a residential rental building with 24 units located at 9-15 Hiawatha Drive, Brightwaters, New York. NPS Holiday Square LLC owns a residential rental building with 144 units located at 10 Muncy Avenue, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, is the owner of Lakeside Garden Apartments, a residential rental building with 55 units located at 25 Cedar Court, Copiague, New York. South Shore Gardens, LLC is the owner of South Shore Gardens, also known as South Shore Commons, a residential rental building located at 204 Farmingdale Road, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com
About Long Island Housing Services
Founded in 1969, Long Island Housing Services mission is the elimination of unlawful discrimination and promotion of decent and affordable housing through advocacy and education. LIHS is a private, nonprofit HUD-qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization and a federally certified, approved Housing Counseling agency. (www.LIFairHousing.org)
About Suffolk Independent Living Organization
Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, consumer-controlled, non-residential, civil rights, mentoring, and educational organization which has been providing programs and services to people with disabilities in Suffolk County since 1985.
About the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to mobilize the nation’s leading lawyers as agents for change in the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the Lawyers’ Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve racial justice, fighting inside and outside the courts to ensure that Black people and other people of color have the voice, opportunity, and power to make the promises of our democracy real. For more information, please visit https://lawyerscommittee.org.
Disclaimer
The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government.
Press Contacts: Ian Wilder, Ian@LIFairHousing.org; Lacy Crawford, lcrawford@lawyerscommittee.org, press@lawyerscommittee.org
A Massachusetts federal judge ruled this week that the company behind a tenant screening algorithm that caught the U.S. government’s eye is subject to the Fair Housing Act, rebuffing an attempt by the screening firm and a Boston landlord to duck potential tenants’ racial bias claims.
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley on Wednesday largely denied bids by SafeRent Solutions LLC and Metropolitan Management Group LLC to escape a proposed class action leveled by housing applicants Mary Louis and Monica Douglas. The pair say the screening company’s so-called “SafeRent Scores,” which are partly based on individuals’ credit history, disproportionately lock Black and Hispanic renters out of housing opportunities.
Siding with the applicants and an amicus brief filed by the federal government, Judge Kelley ruled that the screening firm is subject to the FHA’s ban on racial discrimination in housing. Even though SafeRent itself is not a landlord, Louis and Douglas adequately alleged that property owners relied solely on the company’s decisions to deny prospective renters’ applications, effectively granting it authority to make housing decisions, the judge found.
“While SafeRent delivers ‘an accept/declined/conditional decision’ based on the housing provider’s ‘predetermined decision points,’ those housing providers ‘cannot change the screening algorithm’ and do not know how the SafeRent Score is calculated before selecting its minimum score for applicant approval,” Judge Kelley said in an order. “SafeRent ‘effectively controls the decision to approve or reject a rental application,’ and it ‘has sole control over how scores are calculated.'”
Louis and Douglas filed suit against SafeRent and Metropolitan Management in May 2022. Louis says the landlord denied her application on the sole basis of her SafeRent Score, and later refused to consider her appeal. Douglas argues that a non-party landlord similarly rejected her application using a SafeRent Score, though it later reversed course after she appealed with the help of co-defendant Community Action Agency of Somerville Inc., court filings show.
The algorithmic screening score produced by the company for tenant applications relies in part on renters’ credit scores. But this reliance on credit scores, which includes debts unrelated to prior tenancies, disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic renters who are more likely to have subprime credit scores, the two women told the court.
After determining that SafeRent is subject to the FHA, Judge Kelley concluded that Louis and Douglas’ case adequately alleges that the use of the screening score has a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic renters.
. . .
The renters are represented by Todd S. Kaplan and Nadine Cohen of Greater Boston Legal Services, Christine E. Webber and Samantha N. Gerleman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Stuart T. Rossman, Charles M. Delbaum and Ariel C. Nelson of the National Consumer Law Center.
Read Judge Says Tenant Screening Co. Subject To Fair Housing Act.