Avoiding Liability When Selecting Tenants

By Randall A. Pentiuk, Esq.

The federal government recently amplified its pledge to reduce discriminatory practices that limit opportunities for minority groups. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a new rule on March 5, 2012 that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in HUD assisted programs.

In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a bulletin reinforcing prior commitments to strict enforcement and compliance with equal credit opportunity laws. HUD’s proposed rule reiterates its promise to forbid housing business practices that have an unequal impact on protected classifications. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended prohibits the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. HUD has long interpreted the Fair Housing Act to prohibit housing practices with a discriminatory effect, even where there has been no intent to discriminate.

Landlords, private lenders, and others should assess “credit” and “housing” application practices, approval criteria, and discretionary pricing policies for unequal impact based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, sexual orientation, or handicap. Businesses should also appraise practices for prejudiced impact based on classifications that the state and local units of government guard. For example:

· The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial or marital status.

· The Ann Arbor and Detroit Municipal Codes prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status, or expression of a person’s friends, cohabitants, or associates.

· The Lansing Municipal Code prohibits discrimination based on student status, veteran status, political affiliation or belief, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical limitation.

Practices designed to achieve a genuine business function, but that have a discriminatory outcome based on a protected classification, should be replaced if a different practice achieves the same purpose, but has less of a discriminatory impact.


  1. As a Shareholder and Member of a Cooperative in Boston, MA, I can appreciate this article. We have practices in place to make sure we adhere to the practice of compliance with this law. However, I take exception with the word “Tenant”. Where I live we are “owners” not tenants. This is within the concept of what it means to live in a cooperative. The language should be universal when referring to Cooperative Membership.

    1. Nadine –
      Thank you for your response. You are absolutely correct and we have changed the title of the blog to reflect the same.

      Should you every have any questions or suggestions for us, please do not hesitate to contact us.

      Randall Pentiuk
      Pentiuk, Couvreur & Kobiljak, P.C.
      National Cooperative Law Center

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: