Fair Housing Act Proposal Will Affect Housing Discrimination Cases

David Deem
714-997-3486
Dave@DeemTeam.com


Commentary by Desirée Patno


The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently introduced a proposal that will affect the 2013 Disparate Impact rule, which created uniform standards for the application of disparate impact, referring to policy that has discriminatory effects despite the intention of the policymakers. In brief, the new rule will place the burden of proof onto the plaintiff in housing discrimination cases, which could make such lawsuits more difficult.

Fair Housing Act and Disparate Impact Rule
Initially passed in 1968, the Fair Housing Act intended to promote equality in the housing sector by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status.

An amendment was made in 1974 to include women, and, as a result, a greater share of women have experienced more economic and social benefits due to improved access to housing opportunities. While the act prohibits discrimination and inequality, the realization of the act has been a slow process.

Since its passing, courts interpreted the Fair Housing Act to ban policies that had discriminatory disparate impact, although they had varying opinions about how this should be implemented. According to the current Disparate Impact rule, the party making the accusation (i.e., the plaintiff) has to prove that the policy in question has a discriminatory effect.

The defendant, in turn, must justify the policy by explaining why it is needed for legitimate, nondiscriminatory results. Afterwards, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's interest can be achieved with another policy or practice less likely to have discriminatory results.

The Proposal
HUD introduced a rule that some believe will make it harder to bring housing discrimination cases to court. The aforementioned three-step process would be changed to a five-step process involving just the plaintiff, who would have to prove that the policy:
Is "arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary"
Has a causal link with disparate impact on a protected class
Causes significant adverse effects on members of a protected class
Is linked to the disparate impact claimed in the plaintiff's "alleged injury" 
The proposal also creates new defenses for landlords or lenders that utilize algorithmic models to determine creditworthiness, risk and other factors. If the defendants can show that the inputs of their model are not highly correlated to a protected class or that their algorithm was made by a third party, their disparate impact case will be dismissed.

If the third party tests their algorithm for fairness with positive results, the defendant is shielded from liability in disparate impact cases. 

Fair housing advocates fear that this change is targeting protections set in place to help defend against discriminatory practices in the housing market, diminish segregation and help recipients of rental subsidies.

DRE: #01266522
Location: Orange, CA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Orange County Housing Summary: June 27, 2023

Image
David Deem Broker Associate 714-997-3486 Dave@DeemTeam.com   ·        The active listing inventory in the past couple of weeks increased by 85 homes, up 4%, and now sits at 2,281. Regardless, it is the lowest level for an end to June since tracking began in 2004. In May, 45% fewer homes came on the market compared to the 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019), 1,879 less. Last ye ar, there were 3,491 homes on the market , 1,210 more homes, or 53% higher . The 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019) was 6,633, or 191% more, nearly triple. ·        Demand, the number of pending sales over the prior month, increased by 7 pending sales in the past two weeks, nearly unchanged, and now totals 1,602, the lowest level for an end to June since tracking began in 2004. Last year, there were 1,861 pending sales, 16% more than today . The 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019) was 2,679, or 67% more . ·        With the supply rising, the Expected Market Time, the number of days to sell
Read more

Orange County Housing Summary:May 2, 2023

Image
David Deem 714-997-3486 Dave@DeemTeam.com   ·        The active listing inventory in the past couple of weeks increased by 34 homes, up 1%, and now sits at 2,076, this first substantial rise of the year. Nonetheless, it is the lowest level at the end of April since tracking began in 2004. In April, 49% fewer homes came on the market compared to the 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019), 1,983 less. Last ye ar, there were 2,104 homes on the market, 28 more homes, or 1% higher. The 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019) was 6,002, or 189% more. ·        Demand, the number of pending sales over the prior month, increased by 43 pending sales in the past two weeks, up 3%, and now totals 1,706, the lowest end-of-April reading since 2020 during the COVID lockdown. Last year, there were 2,154 pending sales, 26% more than today. The 3-year average before COVID (2017 to 2019) was 2,780, or 63% more. ·        With the inventory and demand rising at a similar rate, the Expected Market Tim
Read more

Orange County Housing Summary: September 20, 2022

Image
  David Deem 714-997-3486 Dave@DeemTeam.com          ·         The active listing inventory in the past couple of weeks decreased by 304 homes, down 2%, and now sits at 3,638, its lowest level since June. In August, there were 30% fewer homes that came on the market compared to the 3-year average prior to COVID (2017 to 2019), 1,054 less. Last ye ar, there were 2,289 homes on the market , 1,349 fewer homes, or 37% less . The 3-year average prior to COVID (2017 to 2019) was 6,520, or 79% more. ·         Demand, the number of pending sales over the prior month, decreased by 75 pending sales in the past two weeks, down 4%, and now totals 1,756. It is still the lowest reading for mid- September since 2007. Last year, there were 2,623 pending sales, 49% more than today . The 3-year average prior to COVID (2017 to 2019) was 2,363, or 35% more . ·         With demand dropping faster than the supply of homes , the Expected Market Time, the number of days to sell all Orange County listin
Read more