Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit

The Fair Housing Center Welcomes Lisa Franklin as a New Board Member

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 18:25:08 GMT

Lisa Joins the Center's Board After a Distinguished Career Advocating for the Rights of Disabled Persons

Lisa joined the Center after nearly 30 years of experience as a wheelchair user and close to 17 years advocating for the rights of people with disabilities.

In 2008, Lisa founded Warriors on Wheels of Metropolitan Detroit (“WOW”) and currently serves as its Executive Director and CEO. Through WOW, Lisa focuses on disability rights, accessibility, and community engagement. In these efforts, Lisa not only seeks to meet the critical needs for civic access and passageways, affordable housing units, and safe, reliable transportation, but strives to transform these accessibility points into cohesive design visions that impact communities for a better tomorrow. As Lisa puts it, she “makes it a priority to impact the urban communities in the cities of Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, and Dearborn on compliance with the ADA and other laws, not just technically, but addressing human spirit, morals, and values.”

Lisa’s civic involvement and service are broad and varied, ranging from her service on the State of Michigan’s Barrier Free Design Board for Accessibility to her services on the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan and the City of Detroit’s Human Rights Commission.

In recent years, 50-60% or more of the Center’s complaints involve claims of discrimination against persons with disabilities. The Center has assisted and initiated numerous enforcement actions involving disability discrimination. The Center’s Board and Staff welcome the valuable perspective and expertise that Lisa will bring as a new Board member.

Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors, Chili, & Fair Housing

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:29:18 GMT

Please Join Us at 11 am on Wednesday, October 15, 2025 for a Chili Cookoff & Fair Housing Event

Our friends at the Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors (GPBR) have invited everyone to join them at a chili cookoff event on October 15, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., at The Rivers of Grosse Pointe, 900 Cook Rd, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 . The GPBR has asked the Center to take a few minutes to explain why fair housing remains so important today.

The competition will be fierce. The chili promises to be insanely good.

This should be a lot of fun. Please take a short lunch break from your busy schedule to join us.

Homelessness & Fair Housing

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 01:48:32 GMT

Our lack of understanding impacts our ability to address the problem of homelessness

The common image of a homeless person is someone sleeping on the street. This image in no way captures the entire population that fits within the definition of homeless or at risk of being homeless. Another image of a homeless person is someone who is dangerous. The reality is that those who are homeless are at greater of being a victim than a perpetrator.

There are various definitions for persons who are "literally homeless", facing an "imminent risk of homelessness", "at risk of homelessness", and "chronic homelessness". Imminent risk of homeless has been defined to include an individual or family whose residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance, has not identified or obtained a subsequent residence, and lacks the resources or support network needed to obtain permanent housing. A definition of "at risk of homelessness" includes the often "hidden" homeless individuals or families who have an annual income below 30 percent of median family income (MFI) for the area. "Chronic homelessness" includes an individual or family that has been homeless or living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter for at least 12 months.

Homelessness also includes individuals or families who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, without any alternative permanent residence or the resources or support network to obtain alternative permanent housing.

In short, those who do not work directly with the homeless population often do not recognize the many individuals and families that fall withing these definitions. On the other hand, those who are homeless or work directly with the homeless population are often unaware of the fair housing violations committed against homeless individuals and families.

While fair housing is not the cure for homelessness, recognizing fair housing issues and potential violations that impact homeless individuals and families can certainly aid in reducing homelessness. To this end, the Center has prepared a detailed, 66-page PowerPoint to explore the characteristics of homeless population and suggest ways the homeless population and those who serve them can use the fair housing laws to mitigate and reduce homelessness.

How Familiar Are You With American Sign Language (ASL) Requirements in Housing?

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:35:23 GMT

The Center has developed new resources to aid in understanding ASL requirements in assisted living facilities and nursing homes

Question No. 1: As of 2021, what percent of the U.S. population are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing?

1.6%

2.6%

3.6%

4.6%

5.6%

Question No. 2: How many deaf people live in the U.S. as of 2021?

3 million

5 million

7 million

9 million

11 million

Question No. 3: Which of the following statements are false?

A. Deaf persons do not want to speak or cannot speak.

B. Every Deaf person knows ASL.

C. ASL is English translated into signs.

D. ASL is universal.

E. ASL interpreters merely translate words.

F. ASL is inferior to spoken language.

G. Lip reading is a reliable or effective form of communication.

H. ASL interpreters are unnecessary if a Deaf individual may write back and forth.

Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services?

Are you aware of the requirement of a written ASL policy and, if so, what a compliant policy looks like?

If these questions are difficult, please review our PowerPoint: American Sign Language (ASL) & Fair Housing Requirements and the

Sample ASL Nondiscrimination Policies (in Word format) available out our Services & Resources page.

________________________________

Answers:

Question No. 1: 3.6%

Question No. 2: 11 million

Question No. 3: All of the statements are false.

Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services? Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as the Affordable Care Act or “ACA”); Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; and many state civil rights statutes .

Motion to Dismiss Denied in Racial Harassment Case

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:33:31 GMT

Allegations Support Claim for Racial Harassment

A prior post summarized the allegations in a federal court case that was filed after numerous incidents of alleged racial harassment that drove a Black family their Grosse Point Park home. Black Woman and Her Daughter Sue Former White Neighbor for KKK Flag Display and Other Threats .

On March 21, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker, after carefully reviewing the allegations in the complaint and applicable law, entered an Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Judge Parker found that the complaint sufficiently alleged racial animus in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

The facts are deplorable, as those who read the decision will no doubt notice, and embarrassing to our community.

Congratulations to the students attorneys from the U of M Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI) handling the litigation, under the fine leadership of long-time fair housing attorney and now U of M Law School Professor Mike Steinberg .

Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Dinges v. Wilde, No. 23-12885 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2025)

Detroit School Integration Timeline - History of School Integration and Segregation in Detroit

Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:58:36 GMT

Great Resource for Understanding Race Discrimination, School Desegregation, and Housing Law

University of Michigan Law School Professor Michelle Adams ’ research interests include race discrimination, school desegregation, affirmative action, and housing law. Two of Professor Adams’ students, Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri (pictured above) from Professor Adams’ Race, Law, and History course, developed a “ Detroit School Integration Timeline ”.

The timeline traces the history from Detroit’s establishment of its first “colored school”, to the Dred Scott decision, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Great Migration, racially restrictive covenants, redlining, the Birwood (Eight Mile) Wall, white flight, the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, the Milliken v. Bradley decision and efforts to desegregate Detroit schools, through the recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

The timeline is informative, user-friendly and includes many helpful videos.

Congratulations to Michelle and Victoria for creating this amazing resource.

Detroit School Integration Timeline
Legal History Project: Detroit, Michigan (Law students Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri briefly introduce themselves and thank viewers for checking out their timeline project)

Livonia Housing Commission's Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List Opening

Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:05:20 GMT

Waitlist Is Open from 8 am Monday, January 13, 2025 through 5 pm Tuesday, January 14, 2025

The Livonia Housing Commission has announced the opening of its Housing Choice Voucher (HVC) waiting list. To apply successfully, you need to provide the Commission with the following information:

The first and last names of all members of your household
The Social security numbers and birthdates of all members of your household.
Total gross annual income of everyone in your household. This includes wages, child support, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), General Assistance and Unemployment Income.
A valid mailing address and email address.

Only one application is permitted per household. Accurate information must be submitted in order to contact applicants if they are selected in the lottery.

How to Apply

Use this link to start the application process. At the bottom of the page, click Get Started .

Persons with disabilities who require accommodations with the online waitlist application, may call the Livonia Housing Commission at (734) 634-0294 or send an email to kwesley@livonia.gov . (If you do not have the social security numbers, please contact the Fair Housing Center by phone at 313-579-3247 or by email to info@fairhousingdetroit.org.)

The Center’s Down Payment Assistance Program Has Concluded Successfully

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:11:56 GMT

11 Families Now Have New Homes

Our down payment program has been a great success. A total of 11 families are now owners of new homes:

1. Nen Detroit $1,545

2. Shi'Toya Detroit $5,268

3. Alma Detroit $2,056

4. Danielle Detroit $4,494

5. Demetrius Detroit $5,048

6. Danyelle Warren $9,845

7. Crystal Detroit $10,000

8. Michael Detroit $4,293

9. Demario & Lavontae Detroit $9,136

10. Sharmika Detroit $8,380

11. Crystal Detroit $5,400

Center's Down Payment Assistance Program Is Aiding New Home Buyers

Sat, 21 Sep 2024 19:07:21 GMT

Congratulations to 7 New Home Buyers!

We are very pleased to have helped these new home buyers:

Nen Detroit $1,545

Shi'Toya Detroit $5,268

Alma Detroit $2,056

Danielle Detroit $4,494

Demetrius Detroit $5,049

Danyelle Warren $9,845

Crystal Detroit $10,000

Funds are limited. If you need assistance, please contact us or have your lender contact us right away.

May a Landlord Do a Criminal Record Check?

Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:18:10 GMT

Yes, but the policy must be carefully reviewed.

Overbroad criminal record policies (“blanket bans”) disproportionately exclude Black or African American applicants from housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

As of 2021, the Michigan prison rate is 1,205 for every 100,000 Black or African American residents, compared to 185 per 100,000 White residents. Black or African American residents are thus over 6 times more likely to be imprisoned and released with a criminal record.

Disparities are also present in arrest rates. As of 2022 the Black or African American population comprises 13% of Michigan’s population, while the White population comprises 73%. The most recent arrest rate in Michigan is 36.9% for Black or African American persons and 58.5% for White persons.

To illustrate at the local level, Pontiac is located in Oakland County, Michigan. In Oakland County, as of 2022 the Black or African American population is 12.8%, while the White population is 69.7% As of June 2024, the Black or African American population comprises 48% of the jail population in Oakland County, while the White population comprises 50% of the jail population.

To avoid an unlawful discriminatory impact, the policy should distinguish between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not. The criminal record policy should also have a reasonable lookback period. Any lookback period longer than 5 years is likely not acceptable. Finally, the policy should require the consideration of mitigating information and list what types of mitigating information can be provided by a housing applicant.

Please reach out to our office if you have specific questions or believe that your rights may have been violated.

Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit's Down Payment Assistance Program

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:00:29 GMT

Making Home Ownership a Reality for Many Families

The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit is pleased to announce that it has received an "Opportunity Fund" amount to be used for down payment assistance. The down payment assistance funds are available under the following conditions:

The funds will be used for down payment assistance of up to $10,000 for new homebuyers.
Although a preference will be given to new homebuyers or homeowners seeking to purchase or refinance a home for $100,000 or less, down payment assistance is available for purchases above $100,000.
As a condition of the down payment assistance, the homebuyers and homeowners will be required to provide copies of their purchase agreement, appraisal(s), and the requested loan amount. The homebuyers or homeowners participating in this program will be required to execute any necessary release for the disclosure of such records and information.

The program is available on a statewide basis. So far, 6 families have been aided by the program and closed on their purchase of a new home. Congratulations to Nen, Shi'Toya, Alma, Danielle, and Demetrius for their new homes in Detroit and to Danyelle for her new home in Warren.

Funds are limited to please do not hesitate to contact our office--or have your lending institution contact our office--via email or on our website .

Congress Authorizes Fair Housing Enforcement Organizations as a Critical Component of the Fair Housing Enforcement System

Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:06:54 GMT

Congress’ Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) - 42 U.S .C. § 3616a

Congress established 4 main mechanisms for fair housing enforcement:

HUD ( 42 U.S.C. § 3610 ) (and the U.S. Attorney General through the DOJ in “election cases” after HUD issues a charge of discrimination ( id. § 3612(a) );
U.S. Attorney General through the DOJ in “pattern and practice” cases ( 42 U.S.C. § 3614 );
State and local governmental agencies (commonly referred to as “FHAP agencies”) whose fair housing laws and enforcement procedures and remedies HUD finds to be “substantially equivalent” to the FHA ( 42 U.S.C. § 3610(f) ; 24 C.F.R., Part 115, Certification and Funding of State and Local Fair Housing Enforcement Agencies ); and
Private non-profit fair housing enforcement organizations ( Section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 106-550, 106 Stat. 3868-3872 (Oct. 28, 1992) , codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3616a ; see also 24 C.F.R., Part 125—Fair Housing Initiatives Program ).

Fair housing enforcement also occurs through “private persons” ( 42 U.S.C. § 3602(d) (broadly defining “person”), who may file directly in state or federal court ( 42 U.S.C. § 3613 ). Private persons may also file an administrative complaint with HUD ( 42 U.S.C. § 3610 ) or a “substantially equivalent” FHAP agency ( 42 U.S.C. § 3610(f) ).

This post summarizes (4) above, outlining how Congress established private non-profit fair housing enforcement organizations as a critical component of the fair housing enforcement system.

Fair H ousing Initiatives Program (FHIP)

In brief, Congress, in Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-242, 101 Stat. 1942-1944 (Feb. 5, 1988) , established the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (“FHIP program”) as a temporary program.

In 1992, Congress made FHIP program permanent. Section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3868-3872 (Oct. 28, 1992) . After noting “the proven efficacy of private nonprofit fair housing enforcement organizations and community-based efforts makes support for these organizations a necessary component of the fair housing enforcement system”, and Congress found that the FHIP program needed to be “revised and expanded” ( Section 905(a)(7) & (9), 106 Stat. 3869 ).

Structure of the FHIP Program

The FHIP program defines "qualified fair housing enforcement organization" or “QFHEO” as any organization that “is organized as a private, tax-exempt, nonprofit, charitable organization” and “has at least 2 years experience in complaint intake, complaint investigation, testing for fair housing violations and enforcement of meritorious claims. ” ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(h)(1) ). A "fair housing enforcement organization" or "FHEO" is similarly defined, except that such an organization has at least 1 year of experience. ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(h)(2) ).

Currently, there are three separate components of the FHIP program involving QFHEO and FHEO organizations: (1) the Private Enforcement Initiative (“PEI”), which provides funds for private fair housing enforcement organizations to investigate violations of the federal FHA and substantially similar state and local laws and to commence enforcement actions to remedy violations ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(b) ); (2) the Education and Outreach Initiative (“EOI”), which funds private nonprofit organizations and others for national, regional, local, and community-based education and outreach programs to increase fair housing awareness ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(d) ); and (3) the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (“FHOI”), which provides funding for qualified QFHOs to build their capacity to provide fair housing enforcement ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(c) ).

The discussion below addresses the PEI enforcement mechanism of the FHIP program.

Congress’ FHIP Program Enforcement Framework

FHIP is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3616a . Under the FHIP program, HUD enters into “contracts with private fair housing enforcement organizations” to “carry out testing and other investigative activities”, “discover and remedy discrimination in the . . . private real estate markets”, and fund “the costs and expenses of litigation” ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(b)(1) & (2)(a)-(e) ). Congress’ FHIP statute and HUD implementing regulations require QFHEO and FHEO organizations to initiate enforcement actions, including litigation, based on its testing ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(b)(2)(a)-(e) (“such enforcement activities as appropriate”)); 24 C.F.R. §§ 125.103 & 125.401 ).

Program guidelines and standards for FHIP grant testing and enforcement are set forth in HUD’s FHIP Application and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (Sept. 2017) (AAPP). The AAPP, consistent with 42 U.S.C. § 3616a , requires grant recipients to seek reimbursement in litigation, including demand for “damages” and “appropriate remedies”; reimbursements for “diversion of resources” and “legal expenses”; and “reimbursement of revolving funds where funds have supported successful litigation”) ( AAPP, at 195-196 ).

These provisions, of course, only apply to enforcement proceedings in which the QFHEO and FHEO organizations are plaintiffs (court proceedings) or complainants (administrative proceedings). Individuals the QHFEO and FHEO organizations assist through complaint intake, investigation, testing, and in enforcement proceedings in court or administrative proceedings are not required to reimburse the QFHEO, FHEO, or HUD for program expenditures.

The results of their testing and enforcement activities by the QFHEO and FHEO organizations are reported to HUD ( 24 C.F.R. § 125.104(e) ). HUD, in turn, reports such data to Congress ( 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e)(6) ).

According to OMB regulations and HUD grant requirements, proceeds from settlements, conciliations, and other sources are “program income” that must be reported to and administered by HUD as an agency of the Federal Government ( 2 C.F.R. § 200.307 ; AAPP, at 86 & 114-115 ). Failure to report program income can subject FHIP grant recipients to a wide range of sanctions, including withholding of grant funds, grant termination, and debarment ( 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.339 & 200.344(i) ). The program income amounts, as recovered through QFHEO and FHEO enforcement efforts, can be offset against Congress’ FHIP funding ( 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.304 , 200.307 & 200.407(c) ).*

Successful fair housing enforcement helps redress the direct financial injury not only to the QFHEO and FHEO organizations but also to help reimburse HUD and the Federal Government for program expenditures (grant funds) used in enforcement proceedings.

The Federal Government and courts have repeatedly recognized the important fair housing enforcement role Congress by statute delegated to QFHEO and FHEO organizations. Amicus Brief of the U.S. , Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer , at 16, No. 22-429 (U.S. June 12, 2023)(“Congress has thus specifically embraced tester suits by providing funding to nonprofit organizations to ‘carry out testing and other investigative activities’ and to bring ‘litigation’ to remedy the violations those activities uncover’. 42 U.S.C. 3616a(b)(2)(A) and (E) .”); Amicus Brief of the U.S. , Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, at 6, No. 00-15925 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2001)(“Congress has thus specifically embraced tester suits by providing funding to nonprofit organizations to ‘carry out testing and other investigative activities’ and to bring ‘litigation’ to remedy the violations those activities uncover’. 42 U.S.C. 3616a(b)(2)(A) and (E) .”); see also Indiana Protection & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Correction , 642 F. Supp. 2d 872, 876-877 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (“In many fields, Congress has empowered other third parties, including state and federal agencies, to protect the rights of individuals disadvantaged for other reasons. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(a)(1) (authorizing fair housing organizations to ‘obtain enforcement of the rights granted by title VIII [of the Fair Housing Act] . . . through such appropriate judicial or administrative proceedings . . . as are available’)”); Fair Hous. Advocates Assn., Inc. v. Chance , 2008 Ohio 2603, Slip Op. at 6 (Ohio App. June 2, 2008)(after denying standing under the Ohio fair housing law, the court noted that the FHA, in contrast, “expressly provides for private enforcement by 'private fair housing enforcement organizations.’”)(quoting 42 U.S.C. 3616a(c)(2) ); Disability Rights N.Y. v. State , No. 17-6965, Slip Op. at 17 (E.D. N.Y. Dec 28, 2023)(“[Plaintiff] offers examples of legislation in which Congress has created a right of action and granted standing to specific parties: . . . the Fair Housing Act, which authorizes public or private nonprofit organizations or institutions to enforce the right granted by Act though appropriate judicial or administrative proceedings, 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(a)(1) ”).

Common Questions Concerning the FHIP Enforcement Framework

The following are brief answers to common questions concerning the FHIP program and enforcement actions.

Why did you test us? The Center, and other QFHEO and FHEO organizations, are doing that which Congress and HUD require them do to. Congress in the PEI component of the FHIP requires HUD to enter into “contracts with private nonprofit fair housing enforcement organizations [for] a wide range investigative and enforcement activities designed to-- . . . “discover and remedy discrimination in the public and private real estate markets and real estate-related transactions” ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(b)(2)(B) ). This includes “testing” for fair housing violations ( 42 U.S.C. § 3616a(b)(2)(A) ).

Testing is used to investigate a fair housing complaint (complaint-based testing) or to assess fair housing compliance in the public and private real estate markets (systemic testing). Testing is not always effective. For example, testing may not be effective as to certain type of complaints, such as an allegation of a discriminatory eviction. In other situations, testing is critically important in situations where the home seekers and residents are unaware of fair housing requirements and not likely to file complaints, such as compliance with the FHA’s design and construction requirements and other disability rights protections. At other times, research may show that fair housing violations have been found in other areas of the U.S. and testing is needed to determine fair housing compliance on such issues in the QFHEO or FHEO's service area.

No specific entity is targeted by the Center. If testing is limited to a specific entity, it is only because an individual first made a fair housing complaint regarding the entity, and testing is determined to be necessary to investigate that compliant. All systemic testing, on the other hand, examines a cross section of institutions or housing providers in that industry regarding the fair housing issue being examined.

Is testing entrapment? No. Testing is not entrapment. All that a tester does is offer “a favorable opportunity” for a violation to occur. Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc ., 308 F. Supp. 407, 415 (S.D. Ohio 1968) ; see also New York v. Adomo , 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9868 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 1987)(granting summary judgment precluding defendants’ affirmative defenses of entrapment and granting motion in limine barring defendants from referring in any way at trial to the defense of entrapment); Zuch v. Hussey , 394 F. Supp. 1028 (E.D. Mich. 1975) (rejecting entrapment defense).

Further, it is reversable error to discredit the testimony of a tester because the tester, posing as a prospective tenant, may have given false information to a housing provider. Richardson v. Howard , 712 F.2d 319, 321-311 (7th Cir. 1992) (“It is surely regrettable that testers must mislead commercial landlords and homeowners as to their real intentions to rent or buy housing. Nonetheless, we have long recognized that this requirement of deception was a relatively small price to pay to defeat racial discrimination.”).

The reality is that testing is just as likely, if not more likely, to dispel rather than support the allegations in a discrimination complaint. The same is true as to systemic testing. Systemic testing often demonstrates—and should demonstrate—fair housing compliance by housing providers. Property owners, management companies, landlords, and others who comply with fair housing requirements should have no concerns about testing.

Why can a fair housing organization bring an enforcement action if it did not incur a financial injury, i.e., it only used grant funds? Receipt of grant funds has never been held as a reason to halt an QFHO's enforcement action. Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Village of Olde St. Andrews , 210 F. App’x 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2006) ; Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Corelogic Rental Prop. Solutions, LLC , 478 F. Supp. 3d 259, 317 (D. Conn. 2020) . Congress expressly intended that QFHEO and FHEO organizations use grant funds to engage in fair housing enforcement and, following successful enforcement, to treat all net funds recovered as program income, i.e., reimbursement to HUD and the Federal Government for grant expenditures.

Does the Center serve only tenants and residents? The Center’s mission is to ensure equal access to housing without discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), familial status, disability, and all other protected class categories under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. The Center strives to fulfill its mission by providing assistance to individuals pursuing legal rights and remedies related to fair housing; offering housing assistance and counseling; providing community outreach, education, and fair housing training; and performing research in the area of housing.

This mission is not limited to tenants, residents, or home seekers. Instead, the Center serves its entire service area and beyond, including property owners, management companies, landlords, real estate agents and brokers, municipalities, lenders and all others needing guidance on fair housing compliance and best practices. The Center’s Board likewise reflects a broad cross-section of our community including members from the real estate community. Accordingly, many property owners, management companies, landlords, and others with questions about fair housing requirements often contact the Center and request fair housing training.

__________________

*The "program income" requirements, as mandated by regulation and contract in the FHIP program, are not exclusive to the FHIP program. Other governmental programs have similar program income requirements. For example, a sub-CDBG contract will incorporate OMB and HUD regulations governing program income.

Save the Date - Just Economy Detroit Conference

Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:04:15 GMT

Join the Detroit Reinvestment Coalition, Community Development Advocates of Detroit (CDAD) and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) on September 24, 2024 for Just Economy: Detroit!

What will it take to make a Just Economy a local reality in Detroit? The legacy of redlining continues to reverberate throughout the city through uneven investment in community development, inequitable impacts of climate change and a shortage of housing within reach of the average Detroiter.

Join local and national leaders to explore opportunities to change the flow of capital in the city. Register today!

2024 Civil Rights Summit on Fair Housing

Thu, 09 May 2024 01:50:37 GMT

Save the Date: June 12, 2024

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is hosting a 2024 Civil Rights Summit on June 12, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The theme for the conference is “Build Inclusive Communities: Eliminate Housing Discrimination”. The summit will assemble professionals from a wide variety of backgrounds to create a series of policy recommendations for Michigan. Your input is also needed.

Plenary and workshop topics include:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Housing Equity
Environmental Justice
Rental and Homeownership
Fair Housing Legal Updates
Disparate Impact Investigations
Exclusionary Zoning
Best Practices for Increasing Equity
Disability Accommodations in Housing, including Assistance Animals

The summit will take place at the Icon in Detroit.

Attendance is free. To reserve your place at the summit, please register using the button below.

Welcome, Renae Johnson!

Tue, 02 Apr 2024 19:58:57 GMT

The Fair Housing Center Welcomes Renae Johnson as a New Board Member

The Fair Housing Center’s Board of Directors and members, at their annual meeting on March 27, 2024, were pleased to appoint Renae Johnson as a new board member for a 3-year term.

Renae has 20 years of experience as a realtor, associate broker, and broker. Renae is broker/owner of Mature Real Estate Services, located in Detroit, MI. Renae also serves as a HUD Certified Housing Counselor with NID Housing Counseling Agency.

Renae presently holds positions on several fair housing and fair lending committees, including the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee for the Greater Metropolitan Association of Realtors (GMAR); the Housing Opportunities Committee for the National Association of Realtors (NAR); and the Fair Housing Committee for the Michigan Realtors (where she currently serves as co-chair). Additionally, Renea is actively involved in the Governmental Affairs committees of both the Detroit Association of Realtors (DAR) and the Greater Detroit Realtist Association (GDRA).

In all of her numerous activities, Renae is unwavering in her dedication to serving Detroit and the Metropolitan Detroit community and furthering home ownership.

The Center’s Board and Staff have enjoyed working with Renae over the last couple of years and are looking forward to working further with Renea in her new capacity as a Board member.

Tenant Repair Program

Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:30:59 GMT

Approval of a Grant to the Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n to Help Tenants Get Needed Repairs at no Charge

The Legal Aid and Defender Association, Inc. (LADA) has been approved for a grant to help tenants get repairs made to their rental homes or to help tenants negotiate time to move out without ending up with an eviction case or judgment.

According to LADA, this funding recognizes that tenants often live with conditions that need to be fixed and have difficulty working on their own with landlords to have needed repairs completed. Tenants often live in properties that they can afford, but need repairs. LADA's program is a free service to help tenants get repairs made.

For further information, or to apply for this free home repair program, please use the QR code above.

Pontiac Adopts Broad Source of Income and Other Fair Housing Protections

Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:38:52 GMT

Pontiac’s Private Right of Action Provision

a Model for Other Jurisdictions

The Pontiac City Council, on March 12, 2023, adopted a broad source of income (SOI) and fair housing ordinance proposed by Councilmember Mikal Goodman , amending Chapter 78 – Human Relations, Article III, Divisions 1 & 2, of the Pontiac Municipal Code .

The ordinance prohibits discrimination against the following 16 protected classes: actual or perceived color, race, religion or creed, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, genotype, age, marital status, familial status, medical condition, disability, height, weight, or source of lawful income.

Section 78-57(33) of the ordinance defines “Source of Lawful Income” to include “[a]any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly on behalf of an individual or family”, including Housing Choice Vouchers, emergency rental assistance, and public assistance. The SOI definition also includes VA and FHA loans.

Section 78-59(3) addresses discrimination against housing applicants based on criminal record:

“Conviction Record. History of criminal conviction may be considered in housing decisions, although arrest with no conviction may not be considered. An outright ban on prospective tenants with a criminal background is prohibited. Landlords must carefully consider, on a case-by-case basis, the nature and severity of the crime, the age of the individual at the time of the crime, whether there have been repeat offenses, whether the individual maintained a good tenant history before or after the conviction, evidence of rehabilitation efforts, and whether the crime for which the individual was convicted may pose a demonstrable risk to the health, safety or welfare of other residents or persons (which would include manufacturing or distributing illegal drugs) or to property.”

Two items stand out in this ordinance. First, Pontiac’s City Council adopted a private right of action provision that confers standing on victims of housing discrimination to obtain injunctive relief and compensatory damages. Cities are permitted to create private right of actions under Michigan law in the field of civil rights. J.F. Cavanaugh & Co. v. City of Detroit, 126 Mich. App. 627, 635-37; 337 NW2d 605 (1983) (“No express provision for pre-emption of the field appears in the Elliott-Larsen act. . . . We conclude that municipalities are not pre-empted from enacting laws in the field of civil rights.”). The private right of action provision was adopted as an alternative to an earlier, less cost- and resource-effective enforcement approach that would have imposed on the City Attorney the responsibility for receiving SOI complaints, investigating allegations, and taking enforcement action ($500 civil fines). This provision was removed and replaced with the following private right of action provision, adopted from New York City's Local Law No. 40 of 2016 , that permits victims of housing discrimination victims, as well as the Fair Housing Center, to commence enforcement proceedings to remedy violations:

"78-65 Right to Private Action.

. . .

"(2) To the extent allowed by law, an individual who is the victim of discriminatory action in violation of this ordinance may bring a civil action for appropriate injunctive relief or damages or both against the person(s) who acted in violation of this chapter.

"(3) 'Person aggrieved' includes a person whose right created, granted or protected by Article III, Division 2, Chapter 78, is violated by a covered entity directly or through conduct of the covered entity to which the person’s agent or employee is subjected while the agent or employee was acting, or as a result of the agent or employee having acted, within the scope of the agency or employment relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, an agent or employee's protected status is imputed to that person's principal or employer when the agent or employee acts within the scope of the agency or employment relationship. It is irrelevant whether or not the covered entity knows of the agency or employment relationship.

"(4) A person is aggrieved even if that person's only injury is the deprivation of a right granted or protected by Article III, Division 2, Chapter 78.

"(5) As used in subsection (2), 'damages' means damages for injury or loss caused by each violation of this chapter, including reasonable attorney fees."

Second, a proposed amendment to the ordinance—drawn from pending SOI legislation in the Michigan legislature—would have restricted coverage to owners more than 5 dwellings in Pontiac: "Exemptions . . . The sale or rental of any dwelling by an owner, provided the following condition is met, the person owning the dwelling does not own or have any interest in more than five (5) dwellings within the City at that time." This novel 5-dwelling exemption is not found in the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2503 (excluding from coverage "[t]he rental of a housing accommodation in a building that contains housing accommodations for not more than 2 families living independently of each other if the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family resides in 1 of the housing accommodations, or to the rental of a room or rooms in a single family dwelling by a person if the lessor or a member of the lessor's immediate family resides in the dwelling"). Nor is such an exemption found in the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.1503 (same).

The Center, in a prior post , explained why such exemptions exclude the majority of rental properties from SOI coverage. Further, these exemptions are archaic, originating prior to the holding in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. , 392 U.S. 409 (1968) —in which the Supreme Court held that the nation's first fair housing statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1982 , reached purely private housing transactions without any exemptions. Id . at 415 (“§ 1982 contains none of the exemptions that Congress included in the [Fair Housing Act].”). Including such exemptions in state civil rights statutes and local fair housing ordinances give landlords the false understanding that discriminatory conduct is exempt from fair housing coverage.

From a practical standpoint, the number of dwellings exemption--even if less that 5--is unworkable. As Council President Michael McGuinness and Councilmember Mikal Goodman explained at the council meeting ( YouTube: Pontiac City Council 3-12-24, at 3:43:32 to 3:55:32 ) title to rental properties due to investment, tax, and liability purposes are commonly held by separate limited liability companies or other business entities, making it difficult to show that the owners of Pontiac rental properties will reach the more than 5 rental threshold for SOI coverage. Others may place title into separate entities to avoid SOI coverage. The Center, in turn, noted that establishing common ownership across numerous rental properties is the kind of issue that would breed protracted litigation, further impairing SOI coverage.

The Pontiac City Council, by a 6-0 vote, appropriately removed this exemption. As a result, SOI and other fair housing protections in Pontiac apply to all properties regardless of the number of properties a respondent owns. The result of Pontiac City Council's actions will be to increase housing opportunities--and reduce eviction rates--for low-income families with vouchers. Hopefully, Pontiac’s SOI/fair housing ordinance will be a model and springboard for the adoption of not only other fair housing ordinances in Michigan, but a model for the Michigan legislature’s pending SOI bills.

Notably, this is just the most recent in a series of important housing related actions by Councilmember Goodman, along with Councilmembers Mike McGuinness, William A. Carrington, Melanie Rutherford, Brett Nicholson, Kathlee James, and William Parker, Jr ., along with Mayor Tim Greimel . These efforts include the adoption of an ordinance requiring owners of rental properties to obtain a valid certificate of compliance. The ordinance permits tenants of non-complaint owners to pay their rent into an escrow account with the City of Pontiac until the owner obtains a certificate of compliance and/or properly registers the rental property. Should an owner fail in 30 days to obtain a certificate of compliance and/or register the rental property, the rent in the escrow account shall be paid to the tenant. Pontiac Municipal Code, Chapter 22, Building and Regulations, Article VI Housing Code, § 22-806 .

The Center participated with the City of Pontiac in three town halls related to the rental registration ordinance. Oakland County Times, Escrow Ordinance and Renters Rights a Focus in Uplifting Pontiac ; Click on Detroit, City of Pontiac educates tenants about their rights . As a result of this ordinance, the number of unregistered rental properties in approximately one year has reduced from approximately 7,000 to 1,000, with actions being undertaken as to the remaining unregistered rental properties.

Additionally, with the assistance of Congresswoman Haley Stevens , Pontiac has obtained over $4 million in federal funding for Pontiac’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Bridge replacement. This is the largest federal grant amount awarded.

Further efforts are planned. For example, Pontiac City Council and Mayor Greimel have contracted with McKenna Associates, Inc. for a Housing Study and Needs Assessment.

The Center looks forward to serving Pontiac with respect to its SOI/fair housing ordinance and the City’s other significant housing related efforts.

Royal Welcome of the Jackson House to its Resting Place in Michigan

Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:42:36 GMT

Challenging Relocation of the Jackson House from Selma, Alabama, to Michigan

Before this year's Black History Month slips away . . .

“Now known as the Jackson Museum, this simple structure in Selma is a unique time capsule documenting one of the most momentous movements in U.S. history: the Selma to Montgomery marches, a sustained effort to ensure that all Americans would have the civil rights and voting rights promised to them.

“The house and its contents are a remarkable fusion of the ordinary and the epic: A maple dining table—around which civil rights leaders, U.S. congressmen, and two Nobel Peace Prize winners broke bread and shared dreams. An upholstered armchair facing a black-and-white television— the chair where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sat as he watched President Lyndon Johnson pledge to pass voting rights legislation. A bed with a pair of pajamas atop the covers—the bed and pajamas in which King spent many nights during the Selma to Montgomery marches.

“The Jackson House, now more than 100 years old, needs constant stewardship and upkeep. And its inspiring stories—of people and history converging at the intersection of family life and momentous events—richly deserve to be collected, curated, and shared with new generations, including the many millions of young people born in the decades since 1965.

“That's why the home's owner, Jawana Jackson—who, aged four in 1965, called the family's frequent, famous guest ‘Uncle Martin’—has reached out to The Henry Ford with an ambitious, audacious dream.”

. . .

“In This House

“Here, behind a humble façade, world-changing ideas, plans, and actions charged the air with hope:

In this house Dr. Sullivan Jackson and his wife Richie Jean provided a safe haven for the nation's leading civil rights activists to strategize and plan.
In this house the ‘Selma Movement’ and the momentous Selma-to-Montgomery marches of 1965 were largely planned.
In this house Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., worked and slept and strategized, along with key allies, for months before the Montgomery march.
In this house King frequently spoke by phone with President Lyndon Johnson about the need to expand and protect Black voting rights through national legislation.
In this house King and others watched, electrified, as President Johnson made a nationally televised address to Congress introducing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, proclaiming ‘We shall overcome.’”

The picture at the top of this blog shows a picture from Jet Magazine of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holding a strategy meeting in the back bedroom of the Jackson Home before one of the marches.

We hope that everyone will at some point have an opportunity to visit the Jackson Home in Greenfield Village and experience this important civil rights history.

Analysis of Impediments for Clinton Township

Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:29:49 GMT

We welcome your review and comments!

The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit has completed its research and drafting of an “ Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ” or “ AI ” for Clinton Township. The AI will assist the Township in developing or improving fair housing strategies and efforts to overcome impediments that prevent or restrict Clinton Township residents from housing opportunities and choices.

On December 18, 2023, the AI was reviewed and approved at a public meeting by the Clinton Township Board of Trustees . Prior to submitting the AI to HUD, the Township and Trustees are providing an additional 30-day period for public comments concerning the AI . We welcome your comments and suggestions concerning the analysis, recommendations, and time deadlines contained in the AI .

Please feel free to contact the Center if you have any questions or if you need additional information concerning this AI or other matters.

Finding of Unlawful Discrimination in Detroit Based on Public Benefit Status

Mon, 04 Dec 2023 19:42:52 GMT

Discrimination Claims Found to be Meritorious by the City of Detroit Civil Rights, Inclusion and Opportunity Department

In August of 2022, the Center filed complaints with the City of Detroit Civil Rights, Inclusion and Opportunity Department (CRIO) on behalf of a Detroit resident against and on its own behalf against a management company and the apartment complex. The complaints alleged violation of Detroit’s Municipal Code, Article VI, Section 23-6-1 (Selling or leasing real estate—Unlawful practices), which prohibit discrimination on grounds of “public benefit status”. The “public benefit status” protected class category provides similar, if not broader coverage, than is provided under the source of income (SOI) protected class category.

The complaints were summarized in a prior post . On November 6, 2023 , CRIO, after completing a thorough investigation, found that the management company and the apartment complex engaged in discrimination in violation of Section 23-6-1:

"[I]it appears that Respondents misrepresented or misled you as to the actual income requirements needed to qualify for rent approval. Specifically, you were told you needed income three times the rental rate (or $1,195), which would be a monthly income of at least $3,585, instead of three times your portion of rent ($371) –an amount of rent minus the subsidy.

"Although Respondent denied these allegations, the anonymous testing completed by Fair Housing of Metropolitan Detroit supports your allegations in that all testers who inquired about rent requirements for someone with a voucher were misinformed as to income requirements. Moreover, Respondent Modli Management stated that that they didn’t have tenants with vouchers at Lindley Apartments because “those people cannot afford the rents”.

"We believe Respondent Modli Management misled you as to income requirements to discourage your application because you have a voucher. This practice is considered illegal and discriminatory under Detroit Code 23. Our finding is that Respondents illegally discriminated against you in violation of Detroit’s laws against discrimination in housing."

Unfortunately, testing conducted by the Center in other areas of our Metropolitan Detroit community has shown widespread violations of SOI requirements.

Nor is this limited to the Metropolitan Detroit community. For example, a recent report showed widespread violations of SOI protections in Memphis, Tennessee : “Our report finds that there is significant discrimination based on source of income in both Memphis and Shelby County. For instance, out of the 32 tests conducted in Phase Two, 84.4% of tests, or 27 out of 32 test parts, documented discrimination based on the tester’s source of income. In Memphis, 75% of tests (12 of 16) showed evidence of source of income discrimination. In Shelby County, a total of 93.8% of tests (15 of 16) revealed evidence of source of income discrimination.” As to the types of violations, the Memphis report “identified the following policies and practices as barriers to finding safe, affordable housing for HCV recipients: ‘No Section 8’ policies; HCV Tenant Quotas; Steering or restricting access to housing; Employment requirements; Minimum Income Requirements; [and] Payment Requirements.”

The Memphis report also found a racial component to the SOI violations: “In addition to the policy and procedural obstacles, Black testers faced added barriers to finding housing due to race. For example, out of 16 matched-pair tests between Black and White female testers, six tests, or 37.5%, showed evidence of discrimination based on race.”

All such violations are avoidable. The New York State Division of Human Rights has issued helpful guidance . The Center provides training on SOI protections and is always available to answer questions that landlords, housing providers, tenants, and others may have concerning SOI protections.

The Center is hopeful that through training and guidance, such violations of SOI protections in Michigan will become infrequent, and that voucher holders will obtain the housing to which they are entitled.

The Center’s Fair Lending Presentation at the Detroit Association of Realtors Homearama held on November 11, 2023

Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:15:36 GMT

Lending Disparities Persist in the Detroit Market

At a recent Detroit Association of Realtors® recent homearama event, the Center prepared a PowerPoint that addressed three topics:

I. Importance of Home Ownership & Disparities in Home Ownership Rates

II. Fair Housing & Buyer “Love Letters”

III. Proving Lending Discrimination: Testing & Comparable Loan Files

Notable findings include:

The Black/White disparities in homeownership rates were greater in 2022 than in 1970, despite passage of the federal Fair Housing Act in 1968.

Current HMDA data shows that racial disparities in lending continue in the Detroit market. The loan origination rate for Black applicants in Detroit was just 40% in 2022. Subprime indicators were 20.63% in Detroit for Black applicants, in comparison to 5.36% for White applicants.

There are stunning disparities in loan origination rates among lenders. The top performing lenders originated loans in Detroit at rates of 100% (88 applications), 75.97% (154 applications), and 70.71% (140 applications). At the bottom end, lenders originated loans at 0% (208 applications), 1.99% (151 applications), and 4.05% (247 applications).

Appraisals in Detroit appear to be receiving close scrutiny, with the appraised value of homes in Detroit more often listed as a reason for denial of a loan application than in other communities.

The Center welcomes careful consideration of its PowerPoint presentation for those interested in addressing disparities in the Detroit lending market.

Fair Lending - Detroit Association of Realtors Homearama (Nov. 11, 2023)

Black Woman and Her Daughter Sue Former White Neighbor for KKK Flag Display and Other Threats

Tue, 14 Nov 2023 20:13:48 GMT

Federal Case Filed Against Grosse Pointe Park Resident for Racial Intimidation and Harassment

All housing discrimination complaints received by the Fair Housing Center are concerning. This is especially true as to the complaint of Je Donna Dinges and her family.

Ms. Dinges, a hardworking, small business owner, lived in her Grosse Pointe Park home since 2011. In 2017, defendant Ryan Wilde moved next door to Ms. Dinges. A narrow, 5-feet walkway separates the two homes.

From approximately December 2017 until April 2021, Mr. Wilde engaged in or permitted the following acts of racial intimidation against Ms. Dinges and her family:

Hanging a “Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire” flag in a window visible only to Ms. Dinges and her family;
Placing a full gas can in the Dinges' recycling bin;
Discharging a gun on multiple occasions in the middle of the night from his back porch;
Preventing Ms. Dinges from entering the shared walkway between his home and hers and staring at her in an intimidating fashion; and
Throwing garbage in front of the Dinges’ home.

Ultimately, these incidents forced Ms. Dinges and her family in December 2021 to move out of their Grosse Pointe Farms home.

After completing an investigation and analysis of the complaint, the Fair Housing Center made a referral to the Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School (CRLI) . A federal court complaint has now been filed on behalf of Ms. Dinges, and her daughter, India, by CRLI Student Attorneys Sarah Hall and Anna Silk, and Professor Michael Steinberg, Director of CRLI.

The facts, which are more troubling than the brief summary above, are set forth in greater detail in the federal court complaint.

As to the legal theories of liability, the complaint alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Count I). This statute was originally enacted as part of Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1868 . It sets forth the bedrock fair housing anti-discrimination mandate: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.” As held by numerous courts, this law prohibits racial harassment that prevents a citizen from continuing to lease or "hold" occupancy in their residence. It is sad that after more than 150 years claims still need to be brought under this bedrock civil rights provision.

The complaint also include a claim under Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act, M.C.L. § 750.147b(3) (Count II), which provides a right to bring a private cause of action and recover treble (or triple) damages. Additional claims in the complaint are for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and negligence (Count V).

The federal court case has been assigned to the Hon. Linda V. Parker, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Ms. Dinges initially contacted the Region V of HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) . HUD’s Region V FHEO office serves the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. HUD’s Region V FHEO office, in turn, referred Ms. Dinges to the Fair Housing Center. The Center appreciates HUD’s referral and the critically important Congressional funding that makes possible the investigation and enforcement of these types of violations.

2023 Michigan Fair Housing Priorities: 17th Annual Lakeshore Breakfast Presentation

Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:20:08 GMT

What would consider to be our current fair housing priorities?

The Center spoke at the 17th Annual Lakeshore Friends of Fair Housing Event on October 18, 2023 in Hud sonville, MI. The talk addressed three main fair housing priorities:

I. Racial and Ethnic Disparities Home Ownership Rates & Lending Discrimination

II. The Need for Fully Effective Source of Income Protection

III. Deficiencies in Fair Housing Administrative Process

The PowerPoint of the presentation, which also includes answers to several questions posed by the program participants, such as concerns with rent-to-own arrangements, may be downloaded using the link below.

PowerPoint - 17th Annual Lakeshore Fair Housing Breakfast - State of Fair Housing in MI in 2023

Source of Income Legislation Passes Michigan Senate – But Bill’s Effectiveness Is Highly Limited By Exemption

Thu, 12 Oct 2023 19:19:05 GMT

The Michigan Senate Exempts Landlords Holding 4 of Fewer Rental Units - Making Fewer Rental Properties Available to Voucher Holders

The Michigan Senate, by a narrow 20-18 vote, passed Senate Bills 205 , 206 , and 207 to bring long awaited source of income protection to Michigan.*

Senate Bill 207 will amend the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include source of income protection. The bill broadly defines source of income to include “benefits or subsidy programs 21 including housing assistance, housing choice vouchers provided 22 under 42 USC 1437f, public assistance, veterans' benefits, Social 23 Security, supplemental security income or other retirement 24 programs, and other programs administered by any federal, state, 25 local, or nonprofit entity.” As the Senate Fiscal Agency’s Bill Analysis points out, “[t]he Housing Choice Program is a Federal Program meant to assist very low-income families, elderly, and disabled individuals in affording housing.”

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 207 exempts landlords who own fewer than 5 rental units. For several reasons, this exemption will nullify the effectiveness of source of income protections, thus failing to serve the needs of low-income families, our elderly population, and persons with disabilities.

The problem with the less than 5 rental properties exemption is shown by the data contained in a recent report by Detroit Future City, entitled “Understanding the Rental Landscape: A Profile Analysis of the Detroit Landlords to Inform Lead-Safe Housing Policy (August 2022) (“Detroit Rental Landscape”).

Page 17 of the Detroit Rental Landscape report estimates the total rental properties and units, along with an estimates of landlords owning 1-2 rental units, 3-4 rental units, and 5 or more rental units. The Detroit Rental Landscape data for Detroit* shows the following:

141,616 total rental units
95,032 rental units held by landlords with 1-4 rental units. This represents 67.11% (95,032 / 141,616) of the Detroit rental market.
46,584 rental units held by landlords with 5 or more rental units. This represents 32.89% (46,584) of the Detroit rental market.

Approximately 2/3rds of Detroit rental units will be exempt from source of income coverage. There is no reason to believe that the percentages would be significantly different in other Michigan communities. As such, the 5 or more rental unit requirement means that the majority of rental units in Michigan will be exempt from source of income protections.

Sadly, as to Detroit, source of income coverage will probably not even be available for the 32.89% of the rental units involve landlords with 5 or rental units.** This will likely be the result in other Michigan communities. For a variety of reasons (typically, for investment and tax purposes), property owners often hold title to rental housing in limited liability companies (LLCs), partnerships, or other corporate entities. Rental property owners could easily evade source of income coverage by setting up additional corporate entities and deeding the title to rental properties into those entities.

The 5 or more rental units exemption will increase litigation and investigation time and expense by the Michigan Departments of Civil Rights (MDCR) to resolve threshold concerning the ownership of properties to determine source of income coverage. To illustrate the necessity of detailed investigation and litigation, the bill requires the MDCR or private litigants to examine whether "person", defined as "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability company, or any other legal entity", is a "related entity", defined as "a person that, directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another person."

Further, the remaining units owned by landlords who chose to retain title to 5 or more rental units may still be unavailable if the rental rates for the units exceed the Fair Market Rent rate established by HUD.

Finally, to examine the number of rental units exemption in its historical context, Congress included the no more than 3 single family home exemption into the Fair Housing Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1) ) upon its enactment in April 1968. The congressional record (and text of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 ) is replete with Congress’ concern as to the constitutionality of the FHA. Congress believed restricting the number of homes subject to the FHA would increase the likelihood of the FHC being found constitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) —holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1982 reached purely private housing transactions—was not issued until June 1968. Section 1982 has none of the exemptions found in the FHA. Id. at 415 (“§ 1982 contains none of the exemptions that Congress included in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 [FHA]”). Had Jones been issued earlier, there would have been no Congressional concerns as to the FHA’s constitutionality and, therefore, likely no such 3 single family exemption.

Unfortunately, the unnecessary pre- Jones exemptions continue. HUD aided the continuation of these exceptions, acquiescing in the inclusion of the pre- Jones FHA exemptions in state statutes and local agencies seeking substantial equivalency status ( 24 C.F.R. § 115.204(a)(4)) well after the Jones decision. So now 55 years later we must deal with an outdated exemption approach that will severely undercut the beneficial effects of source of income protections. Our marginalized, low-income Section 8 recipients—many of whom are elderly and persons with disabilities—deserve better.

Let’s hope the Michigan House of Representatives, upon consideration of Senate's bills, will fully consider actual effects of the exemption on the number and percentages of rental units in Michigan communities available to voucher holders and remove this exemption its entirety.

*Currently, at least 14 cities in Michigan provide source of income protections: Ann Arbor; East Lansing; Ferndale; Grand Rapids (not enforced as to vouchers); Holland; Jackson; Kalamazoo; Kentwood; Lansing; Oak Park; Royal Oak; Royal Oak Township, Saginaw, and Wyoming. Additionally, Detroit provides similar, if not broader, coverage for “public benefit status”.

**As noted above, Detroit prohibits discrimination based on “public benefit status” under Article IV, Section 27-4-1 (Selling or leasing real estate—Unlawful practices). Few Detroit residents and applicants for Detroit housing, however, are aware that "public benefit status" affords the same protections as source of income provides.

Settlement of an Egregious Race Discrimination Complaint

Tue, 25 Jul 2023 20:17:58 GMT

Ray and Au tumn Harris Successfully Represented by Nina Gerdes and Will Ellis, student attorneys, and Professor Michael J. Steinberg , from the University of Michigan's Civ il Rights Litigation Initiative

The Center is pleased to report the settlement of a race discrimination case. The case is a troubling instance of racial discrimination--the type of case that we all would have hoped would not occur today.

The facts are egregious. To summarize, the sellers, a married couple, owned two homes in a predominantly white community (over 75% White). The homes were next door to each other. To aid in the sale of their home, the sellers retained the services of a real estate agent. The husband (hereinafter “the seller”) was principally involved in meetings with prospective purchasers.

Ray and Autumn Harris, with their two children, sought to purchase the home. They lived in a cooperative unit, which they planned to sell and to move into a new home. They were prequalified for a loan, with conventional financing. To aid in their home search, the Harrises retained the services of a real estate agent.

In late January 2021, the Harrises, with their children, went to view the home. The Harrises’ realtor arrived at the house early and spoke with the seller before the Harrises arrived. He made derogatory comments to the Harrises’ agent about a Black prospective buyer who recently came to look at the house. He claimed that the prospective Black buyer’s car looked like it was from “the hood” and that he was surprised that it did not have bullet holes in it. He said that he would not sell the home to such a person. The Harrises’ agent warned the seller that he was crossing a line with his comments. In response, he confessed to the Harrises’ agent that his own agent, who was not present, had warned him to be careful making statements like that to prospective buyers.

When the Harrises arrived with their children, the Harrises’ agent prompted Ray Harris to discuss his employment and education with the seller because, given his previous racially charged comments, she was afraid that he would deny them a house based on stereotypes about Black people. Autumn Harris told the seller that she has a master’s degree in social work and that she enjoys maintaining the exterior of their residence by taking care of the lawn and planting flowers.

As the Harrises toured the house, the seller followed them from room to room. He then followed Ray Harris out the back door of the home when he went to look at the yard. The seller then told Ray and Autumn Harris, in front of their children, that the home had been in his family for a long time, that he lived next door, and that he wanted to choose his neighbors. He asked Autumn Harris to pull down her mask, which she wore to protect herself and others from contracting COVID-19. The seller then wrote down a physical description of the Harrises. The seller told the Harrises’ agent that he routinely writes down descriptions of potential buyers to know who is making an offer and puts a star down next to the names of the buyers he likes.

Despite the racial hostility they experienced during the viewing, the Harrises wanted to purchase the home because it was perfect for them in every way: it was a 10-15 minute drive from their daughters’ school; it was ready for them to move into right away; it would not require any additional repairs or renovations; it had a large yard for their children to play; it had a second floor and two bedrooms upstairs for their daughters, which was important; and the house was located in a safe and well-kept neighborhood. Ray Harris made a full price offer with $2,000 in concessions on the home.

The seller denied the Harrises’ offer soon after in an email to the Harrises’ agent. The seller gave no reason for the denial. Nor did the seller make a counteroffer or provide the Harrises with the opportunity to negotiate. Ray Harris’ mortgage preapproval, financing options, and assets positioned him to negotiate above the asking price and/or to make an offer without concessions and he would have done so if the seller had asked him to do so.

After Ray Harris placed an offer on the home, the sellers modified the listing and indicated that he would not accept concessions. These modifications were not communicated to the Harrises.

Disturbed and upset by the sellers’ behavior and actions, the Harrises’ agent filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit to report the incident. This complaint was the only fair housing complaint the Harrises’ agent had ever filed, and she has not filed any others since. The sellers ultimately sold the home to a White woman.

The Harrises and their family were injured because of these incidents. The Harrises felt judged because of their race, which has led to feelings of insecurity. After the incidents, the Harrises’ ten-year-old daughter repeatedly asked if the seller liked them, sensing something was amiss about what he was telling her parents. Autumn Harris has since struggled to think about how to speak with her daughters about racism and the fact that they may not have equal opportunities in life due to their race.

Added to this, the housing cooperative had already sold the unit the Harrises were living in, giving them little time to find a new home. The Harrises wanted to live in the community where the home was located, but after their experience with the sellers, they felt that purchasing a home in that community was an unattainable dream. They ended up purchasing a smaller home that needed repairs. The home they purchased is located 30 minutes from their daughters’ school, doubling their communing time. The home is located in a predominantly minority community (over 70% Black), contributing to our region's segregated housing.

The case was filed in federal court. The Harrises were represented by Nina Gerdes and Will Ellis, outstanding student attorneys for the for the Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School , under the direction and leadership of Professor Michael J. Steinberg. After three settlement conferences, the case was settled for a non-disclosed amount.

The Center has been existence since 1977, over 45 years. These kinds of cases used to be commonplace. They should not be occurring today. No one today, or at any time, should have to endure what the Harrises and their family endured. The Center appreciates the decision of the Harrises’ agent to report this incident and aid the Harrises in seeking the justice they deserved.

Why It's Important to Protect Sources of Income in Michigan

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 28 Jun 2023 21:18:08 GMT

If the source is lawful, should it matter where the rent payment comes from?

Led by the Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness , the Fair Housing Center and other members of the Coalition for Expanding Housing Access/Source of Income has issued source of income (SOI) factsheets. The SOI factsheets are helpful in urging adoption of pending SOI legislation in Michigan.

Please feel free to download and share!

Michigan's Crown Act Signed Into Law

Fri, 16 Jun 2023 15:13:58 GMT

“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair" or "CROWN Act" Prohibits Discrimination Due to Natural Hair and Texture

As noted in a prior post , the Michigan legislature was considering legislation to add Michigan to the growing number of states that have adopted CROWN legislation.

On June 15, 2023, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the CROWN Act into law. The Act is immediately effective.

The law adds the definition of "race", which was previously not defined. Under the Act, "race" is defined as in Section 103(j) of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2103 (Definitions) as follows:

"'Race' is inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles. For purposes of this definition, “protective hairstyles” includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists."

The Act also adds the following definition of "sexual orientation": "'Sexual orientation' means having an orientation for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality or having a history of such an orientation or being identified with such an orientation."

The definitions of "race" and "sexual orientation" apply to all articles in the ELCRA, including housing, employment, public accommodation, and education.

As previously noted, helpful guidance on discrimination that may occur in the context of hair and grooming standards has been provided by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYC Commission). The EEOC's guidance, which dates back to 1989, explains how grooming standards could give rise to discrimination claims based on race, national origin, race, sex, and religion. There was not widespread approval of these claims, however, at the time of the EEOC’s guidance. The NYC Commission’s more recent guidance discusses how adverse actions based on hair styles can constitute race discrimination.

Michigan's “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” or “CROWN” Legislation

Tue, 23 May 2023 21:18:04 GMT

Michigan May Soon Be Joining Numerous Other States in Passing a CROWN Act

As explained in a previous post , on March 16, 2023, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law Act 6 of the Public Acts of 2023, which added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” to the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). With this amendment, Michigan now has 11 protected class categories: 10 in the ELCRA (religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, or marital status) and 1 (disability) in the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA).

It may be surprising to learn that most protected class categories are not defined. Only 4 of the 11 protected class categories are currently listed in the “Definitions” sections of the ELCRA and the PWDCRA: age, familial status, national origin, and disability.

This may soon be changing as to race. On May 23, 2023, by a vote of 33 to 5 , the Michigan Senate passed Michigan Senate Bill 90, that defines race to include hair textures and protective hairstyles:

"(i) 'Race' is inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles. For purposes of this definition, 'protective hairstyles' includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists."

The definition of "race" would apply to all articles in the ELCRA, prohibiting discrimination on such grounds in housing, employment, public accommodation, and education.

Michigan Senate Bill 90, introduced by Michigan Senator Sarah Anthony, is modeled after “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” or “CROWN” legislation that has been enacted in numerous states, including Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.

At the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives on March 18, 2023 passed the H.R. 2116 ("Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022" or "CROWN Act of 2022"), which would bar such discrimination nationwide. The legislation is currently pending in the U.S. Senate.

The Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYC Commission) have issued helpful guidance on discrimination that may occur in the context of hair and grooming standards. The EEOC's guidance, which dates back to 1989, explains how grooming standards could give rise to discrimination claims based on race, national origin, race, sex, and religion. There was not widespread approval of these claims, however, at the time of the EEOC’s guidance. The NYC Commission’s more recent guidance discusses how adverse actions based on hair styles can constitute race discrimination.

Great Time at this Year’s Fair Housing Bikeathon

Mon, 01 May 2023 18:27:56 GMT

The bikeathon route took bikers to the locations of significant historical landmarks in the fight for racial justice and equality.

Led by Karlynne Tucker-Scaggs, Chair of the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit’s Board of Directors, we all had a great time on Saturday at our Second Annual Fair Housing Bikeathon. The bikeathon route included several important civil rights locations.

The first stop on this year’s route was the Dr. Ossian Sweet House , where the bikers heard a brief, inspiring talk by Daniel A. Baxter. (As many know, Daniel serves as Director of Elections for the City of Detroit and as an Elder at Triumph Church in Detroit.)

From there, the bikers traveled to WGPR Radio Station Headquarters , the nation's first Black-owned radio station and later the nation's first Black-owned television station . The bikers then rode to the Gateway to Freedom: International Memorial to the Underground Railroad .

At the Gateway to Freedom Memorial, the bikers heard from Kimberly Simmons, the Founder/President of the Detroit River Project . Kimberly explained the history and importance of the ten-by-twelve-foot sculpture, which shows 8 escaping slaves with their railroad conductor. The conductor points the slaves across the Detroit River to freedom in Canada. The Memorial is located at the narrowest stretch of the Detroit River, which likely made it the final station along the railroad. As Kimberly pointed out, a second and lessor known monument on the Windsor side honors the slaves who made it across the river to freedom and safety in Canada. (Kimberly’s 18-minute talk is on YouTube .)

From the Memorial, the riders traveled to the Black Bottom Historic Site and then to a portion of the Mural Project (South Wall) at Beniteau Street and Kercheval Avenue.

These historical landmarks are significant in the fight for racial justice and equality.

The Fair Housing Center appreciates all the bikers who attended this year’s fair housing bikeathon, as well as the generous sponsors and the Fair Housing Center’s Board members and staff who made it possible.

Please mark your calendar for next year’s fair housing bikeathon, which will take place on April 27, 2024 (the last Saturday in April).

Gold Sponsors

Dennis J. Varian

Trek Bicycle Detroit Midtown

Pitt · McGehee · Palmer · Bonanni · Rivers

Silver Sponsors

Ethos Development Partners (Transformative Housing, Commercial and Community Development Initiatives)

Noel J. Saleh, Esq.

Bronze Sponsors

Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Inc. (Architects & Planners)

The Associated Management Company

Karlynne Tucker-Scaggs

Gayle S. McGregor, Esq.

Sharon L. Rhodes

Patron Sponsors

Detroit River Project (Tourism + Culture + Heritage = Sustainable Economies)

Developing K.I.D.S. (Kingdoms in Different Stages)

Full Housing Marketing Staffing & Training

Urban Aging News

Steve Tomkowiak, Esq.

Lucy H. Maddox

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act Expanded to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity or Expression as Protected Class Categories

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sat, 18 Mar 2023 15:56:47 GMT

Expanded Protections in the Areas of Housing, Employment, Public Accommodations, and Education

For decades, the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status. The Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act provides separate protection for persons with disabilities.

Questions have arisen in recent years regarding the application of civil rights laws to discrimination claims involving sexual orientation and gender identity. In Michigan, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, in May 2018, issued Interpretative Statement 2018-1 declaring that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity falls under the definition of "discrimination because of . . . sex" under the ELCRA. On July 20, 2018, the Michigan Attorney General, however, issued Opinion No. 7305 declaring that the Commission’s interpretative statement was invalid because it conflicted with the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the language of the ELCRA and as interpreted by courts in Michigan.

Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court issued decisions contrary to the Michigan Attorney General’s opinion. In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. , 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), held that the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against employment discrimination based on “sex”, encompasses discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. Two years later, in July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court in Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights , No. 162482 (July 28, 2022), consistent with Bostock’s interpretation of Title VII, held that “the prohibition of discrimination ‘because of . . . sex” in the ELCRA “encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

On March 16, 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law Act 6 of the Public Acts of 2023, to amend the ELCRA to expressly prohibit discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression”. The amendments apply to all articles of the ELCRA: employment (Article 2); public accommodation (Article 3); education (Article 4); and housing (Article 5). The Act defines "sexual orientation" as “having an orientation for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality or having a history of such an orientation or being identified with such an orientation.” “Gender identity or expression”, in turn, is defined as “having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.” The Act 6 amendments to the ELCRA are effective 90 days from March 16, 2023.

Act 6 of the Michigan Public Acts of 2023 removes any question as to whether discrimination claims involving sexual orientation and gender identity (or expression) are included in the ELCRA. Act 6, however, does not contain express exemptions or guidance for religious organizations or expression. These questions were left undecided in Bostock , 140 S. Ct. 1753-54, and Rouch World, LLC, Slip Op. at 97-98 (Viviano, J., dissenting), and remain unaddressed in Act 6. Further, these questions were raised but not fully addressed by the Michigan Supreme Court in the earlier fair housing case of McCready v. Hoffius, 459 Mich. 1235; 593 N.W.2d 545 (1999), v acating and remanding , 459 Mich. 131; 586 N.W.2d 723 (1998).

(Note: As discussed in a prior post , housing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identify has already been foun d to be unlawful at the federal level under the federal Fair Housing Act. This is shown in court decisions, e.g., Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018), and federal guidance. See Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation (Jan. 20, 2021) and HUD's Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity, I mplementation of Executive Order 13988 on the Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (Feb. 11, 2021) .)

Familial Status Case - Summary Judgment as to Liability Entered Based on Discriminatory Statements in Emails

Thu, 16 Mar 2023 16:13:30 GMT

Summary Judgment Granted in Federal Court Case as to Liability Under Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act

Summary judgment has been granted as to liability in a familial status case. The case arose after the following email exchange:

[Czerwinski:] Okay. Please let me know when you will be around. We are looking to move around the week of the 20th. We are currently renting a house already on Rosslyn and have been here for almost two years. Our daughter is almost 2 years old. We are going to need to find a new place because the house will be sold in a foreclosure auction soon.

[Gallagher:] I can show you the property. Looking for tenants with no children.

[Czerwinski:] That seems prejudice to me. Why? I’m pretty sure that’s discrimination and you could be sued for that! You might want to watch what you say In an e-mail. Now I definitely don’t want to rent from you. How rude!

[Gallagher:] Thanks for the heads up but this is an empty nesters property only. Good luck

[Czerwinski:] Oh well good luck to you too because I reported you to Michigan fair housing authority! You might want to look into landlord tenant rental laws before you so rudely descriminate! [sic] What is your problem with children anyhow? Rude!!

[Gallagher:] What a waste of time. I’m not a company and the laws don’t apply to individuals.

Ms. Czerwinski is represented by attorney Carron L. Pinkins, of Pinkins & Pinkins, PLLC, in Detroit, MI. The ruling was made by United States District Judge Paul D. Borman, of the Eastern District of Michigan.

The case will now proceed to a determination of damages incurred by Ms. Czerwinski, as well as any punitive damages that may be awarded by the jury in the case.

· Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Czerwinski v. Gallagher , No. 20-12091 (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2023) .

Justice Department Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Rental Property Owner

Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:16:54 GMT

The Federal Court Complaint is Part of the DOJ’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative

The defendant, Mohamad Hussein, owned and/or managed 26 residential properties in Dearborn Heights.

According to the DOJ's federal court complaint, from approximately 2017-2020, the defendant is accused of “[m]aking unwelcome sexual comments and sexual advances”; “[d]emanding prospective female tenants engage in sex acts with him or send him sexually explicit images of themselves to obtain housing”; “[o]ffering to grant tangible housing benefits – such as paying utility bills, lowering rent, or lowering security deposits – in exchange for sex acts or sexually explicit images”; and “[s]ending sexually explicit images of himself to prospective tenants.”

The complaint is part of the DOJ’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative, launched in October 2017.

First Time Home Buyer Savings Account Program

Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:20:46 GMT

Take the first step towards homeownership under Michigan's First-Time Home Buyer Savings Program

Michigan Public Act 6 of 2022 grants the opportunity to open a first-time home buyer savings account to be used toward the purchase of a single-family home, including a manufactured home, used as principal residence. Eligible costs include the down payment and other allowable closing costs.

A qualified beneficiary under the program can be the account holder or another Michigan resident so long as the beneficiary has not owned or purchased a single-family residence during the prior three years.

The maximum account balance for an account is $50,000, which should be sufficient to cover the down payment and closing costs for most purchases.

This is certainly a program worth considering!

Michigan REALTORS® First-Time Homebuyers Savings Account flyer

Michigan Department of Treasury Notice First Time Home Buyer Savings Account Program

Save the Date - Saturday, April 29, 2023 - Second Annual Fair Housing Bikeathon

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 09 Jan 2023 19:05:49 GMT

Join Us This Year for Fun and Fair Housing Awareness

We are planning our Second Annual Fair Housing Bikeathon for 10 am Saturday, April 29, 2023. If you joined us last year--and many did because the turnout was great--or didn't and would like to join us this year, please save the date!

This is a great opportunity to support fair housing awareness and make new friends.

We will post further details, and a registration link, in the coming weeks. Sponsorship opportunities are also available.

The Center Mourns the Passing of Ben Davis

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 06 Jan 2023 00:31:57 GMT

Ben Served the Center for 39 Years as a Member of the Advisory Committee and Board of Directors

The Fair Housing Center mourns the passing of Benjamin Huey Davis, III (“Ben”). Ben began his career of caring for communities and people impacted by recession of disenfranchisement while working for the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). In 1966, Ben was named Executive Director of the Benton Harbor Model Cities program. In that capacity Ben initiated a minority contractor program and helped establish a credit union to increase African American participation in construction.

In 1971, Ben began working for New Detroit, Inc., focusing on neighborhood revitalization. He later pursued a master's degree in public administration from Nova University.

In 1982, Ben began serving as Executive Director of the Flint Urban Coalition. He served there until his retirement. "We got to be optimistic to bring about change," Ben explained during an interview with the local press. Ben drew his optimism from years of battling urban decay, all the while firmly believing challenges could be solved by people working together, examining problems, and seeking resources necessary to solve them.

Throughout his career, Ben sought to improve the lives of all, especially those of color and those impoverished. Ben retired in 1995. This did not stop his public service. During “retirement”, Ben served on several local boards that addressed voting rights and housing discrimination.

Ben received numerous awards for his tireless work in the communities of Benton Harbor, Flint, and Detroit. Ben was recognized in 2008 by the ACLU of Michigan for his passionate commitment to social justice and by the Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association Board of Governors for his long service from 1984 to 2009. Most recently, in 2021, the Board of the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit recognized Ben for an amazing 39 years of service: 15 years on the Center’s Advisory Committee (1980 - 1995) and 24 years as a Board member (1995 - 2019).

Looking back, Ben described his career as a community organizer or urbanist. Ben ended his relationship with the Center, stating that it was time for him to make way for a new generation of committed civil rights activists. Our desire is to see others follow and be inspired by Ben’s legacy for civil rights, social justice, and community service

Michigan Supreme Court Holds that Expert Witness Testimony Is Not Required for a Reasonable Accommodation

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Thu, 01 Dec 2022 18:16:17 GMT

The Fair Housing Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Do Not Require Expert Witness Testimony

As a follow up to earlier posts on the Riverbrook v. Fabode case, the Michigan Supreme Court, in an order dated November 29, 2022, held that expert witness testimony is not required in all cases in which a person with a disability seeks a reasonable accommodation under Section 804(f)(3)(B) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), or Section 506a of the Michig an Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), M.C.L. § 37.1506a(1)(b).

The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent that it could be read as requiring expert witness testimony. According to the Court, "the [FHA and PWDCRA] contain no such requirement."

This is a great result. As previously noted , persons with disabilities, especially tenants with disabilities who are unable except in rare instances to afford counsel, cannot afford the added expense of retaining a qualified expert witness to provide a disability certification. The Riverbrook v. Fabode case originated in a mobile home park in New Haven, Michigan. (A Google Earth photo of a portion of the mobile home park is shown at the top.) The case made its way through 4 Michigan courts (42-2 District Court, Macomb County Circuit Court, Michigan Court of Appeals, and Michigan Supreme Court). The mobile home part, Riverbrook, had legal representation in all four courts. In contrast, Abimbola Fabode and her brother, Antony Fabode, did not have legal representation until after the Court of Appeals' published decision. The Fair Housing Center represented the Fabodes without charge in filing a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals and in all proceedings before the Michigan Supreme Court. The Center also filed with the 42-2 District Court a successful motion to vacate an order of eviction.

The Supreme Court did not expressly address the Fair Housing Center's request that the Court order lower courts on remand to give deference to HUD's assistance animal guidance. FHEO-2020-1, Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act (Jan. 28, 2020) ("HUD's 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance"). The Supreme Court, however, cited the federal court of appeals' unpublished decision in Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer , 415 Fed. App'x 617 (6th Cir. 2011) . In Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc . , the Sixth Circuit quoted from the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, R easonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) ("HUD/DOJ Joint Statement"). 415 Fed. App'x at 8-9 & n.3. As such, it would appear consistent with Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. for the lower courts on remand--and Michigan courts generally--in evaluating disability certifications to consider the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement, as well as HUD's 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance issued after the Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. decision.

While further proceedings will take place on remand, the Michigan Supreme Court's order is very good news for Michigan residents with disabilities who need reasonable accommodations as to their housing.

The Fabodes and the Center appreciate the outstanding amici briefs filed by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (authored by Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicited General, and Tonya Celeste Jeter and Ron D. Robinson, Assistant Attorney Generals) and the amici briefs filed by the Fair Housing Centers of Southeast and Mid-Michigan, West Michigan, and Southwest Michigan (authored by Beth M. Rivers and Robin B. Wagner, of Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers).

At Least for Now Post-Acquisition Reasonable Modification Requests are Permitted Under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Act

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 31 Oct 2022 14:54:21 GMT

Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals' Decision in the Estate of Romig v. Boulder Bluffs Condominium Case

In the Estate of Romig v. Boulder Bluff Condominiums Units 73-123, 125-146, Inc ., 334 Mich. App. 188, 964 N.W.2d 133 (2020) , the Michigan Court of Appeals held that reasonable modification (“RM”) requests under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”) must be made at the onset of ownership or occupancy, not at a later point in time.

As previously mentioned, this is one of the two fair housing cases before the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022 . In June 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court in vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as to whether the federal court’s summary judgment as plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) claims for denial of a RM should be given collateral estoppel effect and thus bar plaintiffs’ claims under the PWDCRA. Kooman v. Boulder Bluff Condos Units 73-123, 125-146 (Mich. S. Ct. June 15, 2022) .

On October 27, 2022, the Court of Appeals, on remand, held that the federal district court’s findings as to the plaintiff’s RM claims under the FHA collaterally estopped plaintiffs from proceeding with their RM claim under the PWDCRA. Kooman v. Boulder Bluff Condos Units 73-123, 125-146 (Mich. App. Oct. 27, 2022) .

While the Supreme Court's order vacating the Court of Appeals' decision is good news, the statutory question involving the interpretation of the PWDCRA remains a problem. The Court of Appeals made it clear that it fully adheres to its prior opinion that the Supreme Court vacated. In publishing its October 27, 2022 decision, the Court of Appeals reflagged the issue, essentially urging housing providers to reraise the issue: “As we explained in our previous opinion, the merits of plaintiffs’ PWDCRA claims are dubious because plaintiffs must be able to show that the alleged discrimination occurred in the context of a ‘real estate transaction.’” See MCL 37.1502. We need not again reach that issue, however, because we conclude that plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from asserting such claims.”

As this issue is likely to resurface, it merits further discussion. In its vacated decision, the Court of Appeals construed the PWDCRA’s definition of a "real estate transaction” in Section 501(d) of the PWDCRA: “’Real estate transaction’ means the sale, exchange, rental, or lease of real property, or an interest therein.” M.C.L. § 37.1501(d). According to the Court of Appeals, PWDCRA coverage under this definition is limited to the initial sale, rental, lease, etc. of property. The PWDCRA does not apply to post-acquisition RM submitted at some point after the initial sale, rental, lease, etc. of property.

The Court of Appeals’ analysis is problematic for several reasons. First, the plain text of Section 506a(1)(a) of the PWDCRA, M.C.L. § 37.1506a(1)(a), permits RM requests to be made for “existing premises occupied or to be occupied”. It is clear that “existing premises occupied” encompasses post-acquisition RM requests. i.e., premises being resided in by an existing occupant. The Court of Appeals’ interpretation renders “occupied” a surplusage or nugatory. Likewise, other words and phrases in the PWDCRA are rendered as a surplusage or nugatory, such as “maintain” in Section 103(d)(i)(D) of the PWDCRA, MCL § 37.1103(d)(i)(D); “maintaining” in Section 103(l)(iv), MCL § 37.1103(l)(iv); and “residing in” and “maintain property” in Section 502(1), MCL § 37.1502(1).

Second, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the PWDCRA sets up a direct conflict with the FHA's unambiguous coverage of post-acquisition RM requests. Section 804(f)(3)(A) of the FHA makes it unlawful to “refus[e] to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises . . .” (emphasis added).

The main legislative history for the disability provisions of the FHA is found in H. R. Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 25, reprinted in 1988 U. S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 2186. The House Report makes it clear that Congress intended to grant existing tenants with disabilities the right to request a RM:

New Subsection 804(f)(3)(A) makes it illegal to refuse to permit tenants with disabilities to make reasonable modifications, at his or her own expense, of existing premises if the modification is necessary for those persons' full enjoyment of the premises. During the hearing process, the Committee learned of instances in which landlords have refused to let tenants with handicaps make minor changes to their apartments, such as the installation of a lever door knob for a person with an artificial hand, or the installation of grab bars in bathrooms, even if the tenant was willing to pay for the modification. A landlord's refusal to allow such modifications operates, at worst, to deny housing to handicapped persons, and, at least, to deny them the opportunity to enjoy their premises safely and fully.

H. Rpt. 100-711, at 24-25 (emphasis added).

In the 1988 amendments to the FHA, Congress directed HUD to promulgate implementing regulations. Pub. L. 100-430, § 13(b), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1636. Thereafter, as directed by Congress, HUD promulgated FHA regulations. Consistent with the 1988 amendments to the FHA, HUD promulgated a regulation providing for rights of disabled persons occupying existing premises to make RM requests:

24 C.F.R. § 100.203 Reasonable modifications of existing premises .

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to permit, at the expense of a handicapped person , reasonable modifications of existing premises , occupied or to be occupied by a handicapped person , if the proposed modifications may be necessary to afford the handicapped person full enjoyment of the premises of a dwelling . (emphasis added) [1]

HUD’s commentary accompanying the promulgation of its final rules implementing the FHA noted that a person may request a reasonable accommodation “at any time”—not just at initial occupancy or rental. This is necessary as a tenant could become disabled at some subsequent point during their tenancy:

A tenant with handicaps may request a landlord’s permission to make modifications at any time. For example, a tenant may become disabled during his or her tenancy and then ask for permission to make modifications. . . .

HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 , 54 Fed. Reg. 3232, 3248 (Jan. 23, 1989)(emphasis added).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the overwhelming percentage of RM requests arise after persons begin to live in a property. At some later point in time—due to the aging process, illness, or other life events—a person may develop a disability and need a RM. The Court of Appeals’ analysis of the PWDCRA, if adopted, will restrict RM requests to instances in which a RM is needed at the time of the initial occupancy.

There is no question that the Court of Appeals plausibly interpretated "real estate transaction” in Section 501(d) of the PWDCRA as restricted to the initial “sale, exchange, rental, or lease of real property, or an interest therein.” M.C.L. § 37.1501(d). Likewise, there is no question that the Court of Appeals also ignored the plain text of Section 506a(1)(a) of the PWDCRA, M.C.L. § 37.1506a(1)(a), which permits RM requests to be made for “existing premises occupied or to be occupied”. As noted above, other provisions of the PWDCRA grant disabled persons post-acquisition rights. The PWDCRA is ambiguous. This ambiguity should be resolved in a fashion that achieves the broad, remedial purposes of the PWDCRA. On the other hand, interpreting the PWDCRA as not covering post-acquisition RM requests will leave housing providers potentially liable under the FHA by relying on the narrow reading of the PWDCRA.

As always, the Center is available to answer questions and provide training regarding RM requirements and compliance, as well as on other fair housing issues.

________________________________

[1] A dditionally, the regulation lists two examples of reasonable modifications. Example 1 refers to a “tenant” needing a reasonable modification, whereas Exhibit 2 refers to an “applicant” needing a reasonable modification. The “tenant” in Example 1 is a current occupant of a dwelling unit.

Oral Arguments Before the Michigan Supreme Court in Case Involving an Emotional Support Animal

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 14 Oct 2022 21:59:12 GMT

Oral Arguments Regarding the Standard for Evaluating a Disability Certification for an Assistance Animal

On October 12, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Riverbrook v. Fabode, Mich. S. Ct. No. 162330. The arguments centered on whether the standard for evaluating disability certifications for emotional support animals under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Michigan Supreme Court posts oral arguments on YouTube. A link to the oral arguments in Riverbrook is provided below.

The background of this case was discussed in greater detail in a prior post . In the published decision in Riverbook v. Fabode, 333 Mich. App. 645 (2020), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the disability certification in the case should be reviewed under Rule 702 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

The Fair Housing Center is representing Defendant-Appellant Abimbola Fabode. The Center is urging the Michigan Supreme Court to give deference to HUD’s 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance as the most appropriate standard for evaluating disability certifications for assistance animals under the FHA. It is unaffordable for the overwhelming percentage of persons with disabilities to cover the high cost of retaining a health care provider who can satisfy the strict expert witness requirement of Rule 702.

There is no time limit as to when the Michigan Supreme Court will issue its decision. In general, decisions are issued in approximately 2-4 months following oral arguments.

YouTube: Michigan Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Riverbrook v. Fabode, Mich. S. Ct. No. 162330

Michigan Court of Appeals’ published opinion, Riverbrook v. Fabode, 333 Mich. App. 645 (2020)

Briefs Filed with the Michigan Supreme Court

HUD's 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance (FHEO-2020-1, Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act (Jan. 28, 2020))

“Just Ask” Foundation's Second Annual Health and Fun Fair - Thursday - October 6

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Tue, 04 Oct 2022 20:41:44 GMT

Join Us Thursday, October 6, 2020, at the "Just Ask" Foundation's Second Annual Health and Fun Fair - Serving the Disabled, Elderly, Caregivers, and General Public

We are pleased and honored to serve again with other community-based organizations for the "Just Ask" Foundation's Second Annual Health and Fun Fair. The fair serves the disabled, elderly, caregivers, and the general public. Like last year, the fair will take place at the Eastern Market .

There are two special announcements: First, free wheelchair cleaning is being provided. Second, there will be drawing for some special "swag bags".

So please join us on Thursday, October 6, 2020, from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm.

Press Release -- October 6, 2022 "Just Ask" Foundation's Second Annual Health and Fun Fair

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sat, 01 Oct 2022 21:27:11 GMT

Clinton Township Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey

Click here to fill out the public survey.

Click here to fill out the stakeholder survey

Clinton Township, as a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is conducting a survey to examine impediments to fair housing choice in the Township. The survey is being provided to a diverse group of persons and organizations involved in housing efforts across the state. The information received will enhance understanding of community concerns and issues, and to define what barriers may still exist.

More specifically, the information will be used for the preparation of the Township’s “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice” or “AI”. The AI is developed every five years by the Township and other HUD recipients as part of the Consolidated Planning process required by HUD. The final document will assist the Township in developing or improving fair housing strategies and efforts to overcome impediments that prevent or restrict Clinton Township residents from housing opportunities and choices.

There are two surveys: One for residents of the Township (public survey) and one for stakeholder people or organizations who work in the fields of housing and community development (stakeholder survey).

Your participation is voluntary but very important to the continued management of the HUD funding the Township receives. All responses are confidential and will only be reported in combination with those of other participants. We encourage you to participate in the survey, and please invite others in your field to participate as well.

At the conclusion of the survey, you will be asked whether you would like to participate in a raffle for a $25 gift card.

Please complete this survey by Thursday, November 10, 2022.

If you have any questions, please contact Nichole Van Blaricum, J.D., Fair Housing Specialist, Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit at 313-579-FAIR x5 or via email to nvanblaricum@fairhousingdetroit.org .

Thank you for your assistance!

Birwood Wall (8 Mile Wall) Historical Marker

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sat, 10 Sep 2022 16:26:50 GMT

Historical Marker Placed at the Birwood Wall (8 Mile Wall)

Last April, our Board, staff, and friends participated in a fair housing bike-a-thon to the Birwood Wall. You can get a feel for the bike-a-thon by watching this short video .

We are pleased to report that the State of Michigan has placed a historical marker at the site of the Birwood Wall. Hopefully, the marker will be a lasting memorial of a never to be forgotten--never to be repeated--historical event.

Detroit CRIO Complaint – Requiring a Section 8 Tenant to Have Monthly Income of 3 Times the Total Rent Amount Rather than 3 Times the Tenant’s Portion of the Rent

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:02:25 GMT

Source of Income (Public Benefit Status) Discrimination Complaint Filed

According to the complaint filed with CRIO, in August 2021 a Detroit resident called a management company to ask if they had any apartments available for him to rent using his housing choice voucher (HCV). He was seeking to rent a unit at a Detroit apartment complex. The rental rate for the 1-bedroom apartment that the complainant sought to rent is $1,100 per month. The agent stated that they had apartments available to rent using his voucher, but that he must make three times the rent to qualify. Three times the rent amount meant that he would have to make a minimum of $3,300 per month, or $39,600 annually.

In general, to qualify for a HCV a family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. 24 C.F.R. § 5.603(b)(defining a “Very low income family” as “A family whose annual income does not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families . . . .)”; 24 C.F.R. §982.201 (b)(1)(i). According to 2021 estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income in Wayne County was $49,359. A HCV holder, based on the 50% of median income eligibility standard, would earn no more than $24,679.50 per year. As such, three times the rent amount meant that no HCV holder would qualify to rent an apartment.

The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, following the intake of the Detroit resident’s complaint, conducted an investigation and found that the apartment complex accepts HCVs and that 3 times the rent amount policy applies to the entire rent amount, not just the portion to be paid by the HCV holder. Further, the management company confirmed that the 3 times the total rent amount policy applied to all of its properties.

In general, tenants receiving HCVs are responsible for paying a percentage based on their income, usually 30 to 40 percent of their monthly income. The complainant receives social security. The Detroit resident was thus able to show that his monthly income at three times the tenant portion of his rent.

The policy of the management company and the apartment complex, requiring three times the rent amount rather than the HVC holders’ portion of the rent amounts, discriminates and excludes the Detroit resident and other HVC holders from renting properties. This policy violates the “public benefit status” provisions of Article VI, Section 23-6-1 (Selling or leasing real estate—Unlawful practices). See CityLimits, Bronx Rental Complex Must Accept Housing Vouchers, Judge Rules (Aug. 1, 2022); Decision and Order, Olivierre v. Parkchester Preservation Company, L.P ., No. 22-452058 (N.Y. Supreme Court July 28, 2022)(violation of source of income provision for landlord to require HVC holders to show monthly income of three times the total rent rather than three times the tenant portion of the rent).

The complaint is currently pending before CRIO.

Thank You to Royal Oak for the Arts, Beats & Eats Event Sponsorship

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:30:45 GMT

Royal Oak Again Sponsors the Center at the Arts, Beats & Eats Festival

Last year, the Fair Housing Center again participated at the 4-day Arts, Beats & Eats (AB&E) event during Labor Day weekend in Royal Oak, MI. It was estimated that over “ 370 thousand attendees from Michigan and points near and far away” attended the event . This year, thousands more will undoubtedly attend.

The Center's Board of Directors and Staff appreciate Royal Oak’s support and sponsorship for this year's event. In fact, the Center interacts with more people during the AB&E event than it reaches through all of its other community-based efforts during the rest of the year.

Royal Oak has demonstrated its commitment to fair housing. Besides the AB&E sponsorship, Royal Oak provides CDBG funding to the Center, showing its commitment to making fair housing a reality for everyone in Royal Oak.

Come see us this year at AB&E. We will be in Booth 606 . While you are there, please make sure to join us in thanking Mayor Michael Fournier, the Royal Oak City Commission, Joseph Murphy, Director of Planning, and the Royal Oak Community Development Department!

Arts, Eats & Beats

National Fair Housing Forums: Conversations on Emerging Issues

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:26:11 GMT

Checkout the National Fair Housing Forums found on HUD Exchange

Following their launch in June 2020, the National Fair Housing Forums on the HUD Exchange website have received a great deal of attention and views. The forums provide timely, well delivered content on emerging fair housing issues.

What topics interest you? Assistance animals? Algorithmic bias in housing? Discriminatory appraisal practices? Strategies for investigating discrimination or harassment against LGBTQI+ or AANHPI communities? Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs)? These topics and many more are found in the National Fair Housing Forum Collection.

If you haven't checked out the National Fair Housing Forums or haven't done so recently, please take a look.

National Fair Housing Forums & National Fair Housing Forum Collection

Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act's Prohibition on Sex Discrimination Covers Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 16:37:08 GMT

Michigan Supreme Court Rules that Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

The Michigan Supreme Court in Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, No. 162482 (July 18, 2022) , interpreted the prohibition in the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) against "sex" discrimination in places of public accommodation (Article 3 of the ELCRA). Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. _ (2020) , the Michigan Supreme Court held that the prohibition against "sex" discrimination in places of public accommodation includes discrimination based on "sexual orientation".

The Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of "sex" discrimination in the ELCRA as to places of public accommodation will be applied to claims of discrimination ELCRA in other contexts, such as claims of housing discrimination (Article 5 of the ELCRA).

At the federal level, instances of housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are already prohibited under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) under Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation (Jan. 20, 2021) and HUD's Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity's Implementation of Executive Order 13988 on the Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (Feb. 11, 2021) . Federal guidance, similar to the Michigan Supreme Court's analysis in Rouch World, LLC , are based on the Bostock decision. Lower federal courts, prior to Bostock and subsequent federal guidance, had already interpreted the FHA to prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Fair Housing Center remains available to answer questions, provide training, and investigate complaints involving sex discrimination and other protected class categories.

Combatting Discriminatory Appraisal Practices Which Cost Homeowners Their Equity (Urban Aging News - Summer 2022)

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 06 Jul 2022 03:58:51 GMT

Appraisal Discrimination Remains a Big Problem: What Can a Homeowner Do?

The following article discusses the problem of appraisal discrimination in the Metropolitan Detroit community and what homeowners and home purchasers can do to avoid being victimized.

Combatting Discriminatory Appraisal Practices Which Cost Homeowners Their Equity (Urban Aging News - Summer 2022)

Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit and Redfin Agree to Settlement Which Expands Access to Real Estate Services for Buyers and Sellers in Communities of Color

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:22:04 GMT

Redfin Agrees to Modify its Minimum Home Price Policy

Detroit, MI. —Today, after a lengthy period of negotiation, the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit (FHCMD) joined the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and eight other fair housing organizations throughout the country in announcing a settlement with Redfin Corporation, one of the nation’s largest real estate services companies, that will expand opportunities for consumers in communities of color in Metropolitan Detroit.

The settlement is significant in that Redfin has agreed to revised its national minimum home price policy, which limited or denied services for homes priced under certain values. In operation, the policy unfairly caused Redfin to disproportionately underserve or fail to serve low-income, predominantly minority communities.

Further details are set forth in the FHCMD's press release. The settlement agreement, in its entirety, along with the original federal court complaint, are available below.

Press Release - Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit - For Immediate Release

Settlement Agreement, NFHA, FHCMD, et al. v. Redfin Corporation (W.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2022)

Complaint, NFHA, FHCMD, et al. v. Redfin Corporation, No. 20-1586 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2020)

Renters of color pay higher security deposits, more application fees

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:25:25 GMT

Higher upfront costs add to the challenge faced by renters of color searching for a new home in today's tight rental market

According to a 2021 Zillow Consumer Housing Trends Report, when seeking a place to rent renters of color overall submit more applications and pay more in application fees and security deposits:

--Higher upfront costs add to the challenge faced by renters of color searching for a new home in today’s tight rental market.

--Renters of color pay security deposits more often than white renters, and the deposits they pay are typically $150 higher.

--Black and Latinx renters report submitting more applications than white and Asian American and Pacific Islander renters. The typical white or Asian American and Pacific Islander renter submits two applications, while the typical Black or Latinx renter submits three.

The following are links to recent Zillow reports.

Fair Lending in Detroit 2022

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 21:13:26 GMT

2021 HMDA data shows significant problems in the Detroit market regarding Black participation in mortgage lending, subprime indicators, and discrimination in appraisal practices

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA), as amended, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., requires lenders to publicly report certain information or data concerning loan approval and denial rates.

Publicly available HMDA data is located on the website of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The FFIEC is an interagency body that sets forth uniform principles, standards, and report forms used to complete examination of financial institutions by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Consumer Federal Protection Bureau.

On March 24, 2022, the FFIEC released its HMDA for 2021. The Fair Housing Center was asked to participate in a Fair Housing Brunch sponsored by the Greater Detroit Realtist Association and the Detroit Association of Realtors. The Center's PowerPoint presentation contains several charts showing problems in the Detroit market in comparison to the surrounding Wayne County, the State of Michigan, and the entire United States.

For example, Blacks comprise 77.1% of the Detroit population but just 46.91% of the mortgage applicants. The HMDA data also shows that inadequate collateral--or the appraisal of a home--is listed as a reason for denial in approximately 20% of the loan denials. The subprime indicator is 23.15% for Black applicants in Detroit, in comparison to a 16.58% rate in Michigan and 9.32% in the United States.

The Center welcomes careful consideration of its PowerPoint presentation for those interested in addressing disparities in the Detroit lending market.

PowerPoint: Fair Lending in Detroit - 2022

Redlining Toolkit (April 2022)

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 20:16:07 GMT

National Fair Housing Alliance's New Redlining Toolkit

Homeownership is one of the most important opportunities for consumers. The National Fair Housing Alliance (“NFHA”) has issued a Redlining Toolkit to help advocates analyze and apply public data to address the problem of redlining. The toolkit will help ensure equitable access to credit.

According to NFHA, "[a]lthough this toolkit is mainly addressed to advocates, it can also serve as a roadmap for lenders and government entities that want to ensure compliance with fair lending laws and promote racial equity."

Redlining Toolkit (National Fair Housing Alliance - April 2022)

Securing housing after incarceration

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:45:46 GMT

Bankrate has offered helpful information for those leaving prison and needing a stable and secure living environment.

The a rticle addresses the following topics:

The article also contains links to helpful r esources .

Borrelli, Lena, Securing Housing After Incarceration (Bankrate, May 11, 2021)

Helpful Guide for Learning What Fair Housing Means for People with Disabilities

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:10:41 GMT

Overview of Fair Housing for People with Disabilities

For many years the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law has provided helpful resources for persons with disabilities.

The Center has published a helpful guide for understanding the fair housing rights for persons with disabilities. It is a must read for anyone wishing to become familiar with basic fair housing rights for persons with disabilities.

What Fair Housing Means for People with Disabilities (Bazelon 2018)

Register for MSHDA Sponsored Fair Housing Trainings

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sun, 06 Feb 2022 03:01:42 GMT

Registration In Now Open for 3 Fair Housing Training Sessions

Through a generous grant from MSHDA, we are able to offer free of charge the following fair housing trainings:

Disparate Impact Discrimination: What It is and Why It Should Matter to Every Tenant and Housing Provider (February 26, 2022)

You Can Protect Yourself – Knowing Tenant Rights (March 26, 2022)

Source of Income Protection – Long Overdue Protections for Voucher Holders and Purchasers with FHA and VA Financing (April 23, 2022)

You may review the course outlines and register on our Events and Trainings page.

Save the Date! April 30, 2022, Fair Housing Bikeathon

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:02:52 GMT

Save the date: Saturday, April 30, 2022, for Our First Bikeathon

Please save the date of Saturday, April 30, 2022, for the Fair Housing Center's first Bikeathon. Enjoy a time with friends and partners as we participate in a bikeathon through some of the notable locations in Detroit's fair housing history. Additional details will be forthcoming. Please make sure to save the date.

We appreciate the support of our sponsors who help to make the Bikeathon possible!

Two Fair Housing Cases Pending Before the Michigan Supreme Court

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Fri, 04 Feb 2022 22:25:25 GMT

The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered further briefing and will hear oral arguments in two fair pending fair housing cases.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered further briefing and will hear oral arguments in the following two fair fair housing cases:

Riverbrook v. Fabode, 333 Mich App 645 (2020) .

In re Estate of Romig, 334 Mich App 188 (2020) .

The Riverbrook case addressed the sufficiency of medical certifications for support animals. The case interprets the federal Fair Housing Act.

The Romig case considers whether reasonable modification requests need to be made at the onset of ownership or occupancy, or whether the requests may be made at later point in time. The Romig case arises under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

Like the U.S. Supreme Court, Michigan Supreme Court’s authority to review fair housing cases is discretionary. As explained on the Michigan Supreme Court’s website: “Each year, the [Michigan] Supreme Court receives over 2,000 applications for leave to appeal from litigants primarily seeking review of decisions by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's authority to hear cases is discretionary. The Court grants leave to those cases of greatest complexity and public import, where additional briefing and oral argument are essential to reaching a just outcome.”

In general, many years pass before a fair housing case is accepted for review by the Michigan Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. The most recent fair housing decision by the Michigan Supreme occurred over 20 years ago in McCready v. Hoffius , 459 Mich. 1235 (1999), vacating and remanding , 459 Mich. 131 (1998). The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in a fair housing case occurred approximately 5 years ago in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami , 137 S. Ct. 1296 (2017).

Against this backdrop, it is notable for the Michigan Supreme Court to be reviewing two fair housing cases.

The Center will report the outcomes in Riverbrook and Romig once the Michigan Supreme Court completes its review and issues decisions in these cases.

Consider Becoming a Tester!

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 20:26:38 GMT

Testers play the role of home buyers and seek to identify any discrimination in the market. If you'd like to become a tester, check out our training dates: https://bit.ly/3z5wCge

Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs)

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 22:44:31 GMT

SPCPs Recommended to Address Disparities in Access to Homeownership

The federal Equal Opportunity Act makes it unlawful for any mortgage lender or creditor to discriminate against an applicant based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a).*

The ECOA states that it shall not constitute discrimination if a creditor refuses to extend credit to an applicant if such refusal occurs under one of the following “special purpose credit programs” or “SPCPs”:

(1) a credit assistance program expressly authorized by law for an economically disadvantaged class of persons;

(2) a credit assistance program administered by a nonprofit organization for its members or an economically disadvantaged class of persons; or

(3) a special purpose credit program offered by a profit-making organization to meet special social needs which meets standards prescribed in regulations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

15 U.S.C. § 1601(c).

The CFPB implements the ECOA through Regulation B. Under Regulation B, a program may qualify as an SPCP “only if it was established and is administered so as not to discriminate against an applicant on any prohibited basis; however, all program participants may be required to share one or more common characteristics (for example, race, national origin, or sex) so long as the program was not established and is not administered with the purpose of evading the requirements of [ECOA] or this part.” 12 C.F.R. § 1002.8(b)(2).

HUD’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) has released issued guidance to clarify that compliant SPCPs satisfying the CFPB’s implementing regulations do not violate the antidiscrimination requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Further, according to the OGC guidance, “qualifying SPCP must be . . . administered so as to not discriminate against an applicant because of a protected characteristic that is not a specifically articulated preference for the SPCP, and it must ensure there is no accompanying restriction of credit available to applicants not in the categories of preferred applicants under the SPCP.” The OGC’s guidance notes that “specific programs that Congress expressly contemplated in the legislative history include government-sponsored housing credit subsidies for low-income individuals and seniors.”

Along with the OGC’s guidance, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) has released a statement encouraging lenders to adopt SPCPs to help remedy long standing disparities in access to homeownership.

*The Consumer Credit Protection Act or "CPPA", 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., is made up of several titles, including the TILA (Title I of the CPPA); the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (Title VI); the ECOA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq . (Title VII); and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (Title VIII).

Grab Bars Permitted as Reasonable Modification Under the Fair Housing Act

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:53:22 GMT

Since 1991, HUD regulations have recognized the right of a tenant with a disability to install grab bars in a bathroom as a reasonable modification. Unfortunately, 30 years later our Center continues to see violations of these and other reasonable modification requirements under the Fair Housing Act.

In July 2019, Donald Davenport applied for an apartment unit in Oakland County. Because of a mobility impairment, Mr. Davenport asked for permission to install drilled-in grab bars in the shower. The grab bars would be installed at Mr. Davenport's own expense. The apartment complex, however, refused this request, insisting that only suction cup grab bars would be permitted. Suction cup grab bars would be dangerous for Mr. Davenport. Our office assisted the Davenport family in gathering evidence of this fair housing violation. We assisted the Davenports in filing a complaint with HUD and, thereafter, referred the complaint to the case to the U of M Law School's Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI).

The CRLI filed a federal court lawsuit, claiming that the apartment complex refused Mr. Davenport's reasonable modification request in violation of the Fair Housing Act and that the suction grab bars were insufficient for his needs. Although the apartment complex denied liability, the parties were able to reach a settlement that includes having the apartment complex place an anti-discrimination policy on the its website, having its staff receive fair housing training, and adding a disability rights notice on apartment complex's rental applications.

We appreciate the efforts of Professor Michael Mike Steinberg and the committed team of Student-Attorneys Erica Becker, Will Brodt, Patrick McDonnell, and Will Walker in filing the federal court complaint and in negotiating the settlement.

[Above is a photograph of Donald Davenport with student attorney Will Brodt.]

Webinar: Impacts of CIVOD-19 on Housing for Michiganders with Disabilities

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:48:23 GMT

November 12 & 15 MDCR Webinar - Fair Housing Barriers faced by Michiganders with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights' Division on Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing is welcoming input from Michigan residents with disabilities as to fair housing challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. You are welcome to join these conversations and share your experiences. The MDCR intends to use these conversations to produce a "Lessons Learned" training video.

The sessions will be conducted via the Zoom Webinar platform. Participants can join via computer audio/video or through telephone audio.

Friday November 12, 2021 from 1-3pm

Zoom Webinar Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86937464057?pwd=NmllNEtUNmkvc21OdWJTMXJ3SWoxQT09 Passcode: 119186

Telephone: 888-808-6929 Conference code: 108652

Monday November 15, 2021 from 5-7pm

Zoom Webinar Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88036672596?pwd=ZjM1VkVWMWU1d1JwczM3Ujg2dG11dz09 Passcode: 884873

Telephone: 888-808-6929 Conference code: 108652

The MDCR will provide ASL interpreters and CART captioning services both sessions. If you need additional accommodations, please email Alayna Laill or call 313-437-7035 .

Report: Demand for homeownership in Detroit is high, but pathways are limited

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Sat, 06 Nov 2021 11:52:52 GMT

Detroiters Continue to Face Difficulties in Obtaining Mortgages

According to analysis from the University of Michigan's Center for Equitable Family and Community Well-Being, Southwest Economic Solutions, and DC Palmer LLC, from 2015 through 2019, just 19% of residential property transfers in Detroit involved a mortgage loan. This evidence suggests that lenders, despite the qualifications of home purchasers, are highly reluctant to provide small dollar loans in the City of Detroit.

Build a Better Financial Future for Detroit

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Wed, 03 Nov 2021 20:52:22 GMT

This webinar will provide guidance in using the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to facilitate investments in under resourced communities.

FEMA Deadline for June 25-26 Flooding Extended to November 12, 2021

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:52:12 GMT

There is still time to apply for FEMA individual assistance if your home was impacted by the June flooding.

FEMA assistance is available to homes located in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw Counties .

The fasted way to apply is through DisasterAssistance.gov . You can also apply by calling 1-800-621-3362 (TTY 1-800-462-7585) or through the FEMA mobile app .

Disability Rights in Housing - Detroit Fair Housing Conference

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:14:41 GMT

October 28, 2021 Fair Housing Webinar - Disability Rights

Join us for our upcoming October 28, 2021 Detroit Fair Housing Conference dealing with disability rights in housing. For further information or to register for this training, please see our Events & Training page .

Fair Housing Tester Training

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Tue, 07 Sep 2021 13:19:11 GMT

Fair Housing Tester Training

Please join us for fair housing tester training. The training will take place on Zoom and in person.

For further information, please contact our office at (313) 579-FAIR (3247).

2021 Arts, Beats & Eats

stomkowiak@fairhousingdetroit.org (Steve Tomkowiak) — Thu, 02 Sep 2021 17:19:48 GMT

Arts, Eats & Beats 2021

Please visit with us at this year's Arts, Beats & Eats. We are at Booth #606. The hours are Friday 9/3/21 - Sunday 9/5/21 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and on Monday 9/6/21 from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

CFPB’s Online Tool to Help Renters and Landlords Obtain Federal Assistance

Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:47:00 GMT

CFPB’s Online Tool to Help Renters and Landlords Obtain Federal Assistance

This is greatly needed. The CFPB has analyzed Census Household Pulse Survey data for the time period from June 23-July 5, 2021. According to the data, 16% of adults living in rental households reported that they are currently behind on their payments. Further, 49% or approximately 3.6 million of these adult tenants report that eviction is somewhat likely or very likely in the next two months.

To get the help you that need, please use the link below to locate state and local organizations that are distributing federal rental assistance.

Find Help with Rent and Utilities

Free Cleaning Supplies for Detroit Residents Dealing With Flooding

Thu, 01 Jul 2021 12:35:00 GMT

The City of Detroit is handing out free cleaning supplies to Detroit residents from 10 am to 2 pm July 1, 2021, and July 2, 2021, to help residents recover from the flooding that occurred last weekend. The cleaning supplies include gloves, masks, buckets, brooms, mops, sponges, and liquid cleaner. The supplies are being passed out via a drive-thru so that residents will not have to leave their vehicles.

There are two locations for picking up the supplies:

The post Free Cleaning Supplies for Detroit Residents Dealing With Flooding appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Legal Tools for Addressing the Looming Eviction Crisis of the Covid-19 Pandemic

Tue, 15 Jun 2021 23:49:00 GMT

On June 16, 2021, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) provided a timely forum entitled “On the Brink: The Looming Eviction Crisis of the COCID-19 Pandemic” . The forum offers a variety of resources and legal tools for aiding tenants facing eviction.

Below are links to the June 16, 2021 forum, the PowerPoint for the June 16, 20-21 forum, and an outline (with case citations) for obtaining injunctive relief. Please contact our office for additional information.

Join Us April 29th: Zoom Conference Renting in Detroit – Know Your Fair Housing Rights

Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:05:00 GMT

The post Join Us April 29th: Zoom Conference Renting in Detroit – Know Your Fair Housing Rights appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Passing of Walter Mondale

Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:54:00 GMT

Former Vice-President and Senator Walter “Fritz” Mondale passed away on April 19, 2021. As a Senator, Mondale was instrumental in the passage of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act).

The link below contains some of the remarks of Senator Mondale in the debates leading up to the passage of the Fair Housing Act. His remarks memorialize the way he rose to the challenge at an important time in our nation’s history.

The post Passing of Walter Mondale appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Fair Housing Rights in Nursing Homes & Assisted Living Facilities

Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:25:00 GMT

American Sign Language or “ASL” is the sixth most common language used in the U.S. Most people assume that ASL is a gestured form of the English language. This is incorrect. Instead, “ASL is visual, three-dimensional, non-linear language, and its grammar and syntax differ from the grammar and syntax of English and other spoken languages. In many cases, there is no one-to-one correspondence between signs in ASL and words in the English language.” appears to be an empty link with target https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/174225/useeoc-v-ups-supply-chain-solutions/ EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions , 620 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted) .

Another misconception is that lip-reading or speech-reading provide an effective means of communication. This, too, is incorrect. A small percentage of spoken words are visible and, as to those words, many appear identical on the lips of a speaker. As a result, lip-reading accuracy for spoken words may be as low as 10-30%.

The federal Fair Housing Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and other senior housing providers to speak with those who are deaf or have other hearing or speech disabilities. These facilities may not refuse to speak or engage with a resident or applicant because the individual communicates through ASL or other auxiliary aid. These facilities are also required to provide necessary interpretation services free of charge when requested.

For additional information, please watch this helpful video: " Fair Housing Rights in Nursing Homes & Assisted Living Facilities " .

Please contact us if you have any questions or need guidance as to ASL and other reasonable accommodation and modification requirements.

The Fair Housing Center Overwhelmingly Serves LMI Individuals and Families

Sat, 20 Mar 2021 18:38:00 GMT

We are often asked for income information concerning the people we serve. For 2020, we received a total of 284 complaints. Over 90% of the complaints we receive come from low-income to moderate-income families:

Total: 284 – 100%
Low-Income (<50% AMI): 223 – 78.5%
Moderate-Income (<80% AMI): 38 – 13.4%
Not Low- or Moderate-Income: 23 – 8.1%

The Center has never charged any complainant or family for fair housing or other housing-related services. Our services are supported by HUD grants, county and local sub-CDBG grants, private grants, and contributions. We greatly appreciate the support we receive to enable us to continue to serve the great needs of our community.

Our joy is seeing on a day-by-day basis the differences we make in the lives of the persons we serve. If you have not done so, please consider making a contribution to support our work.

Reasonable Modification Rights Drastically Restricted in Michigan

Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:26:00 GMT

The Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) permit persons with disabilities to request reasonable modifications to their dwelling units and common areas as necessary to ameliorate the effects of their disabilities. Common reasonable modifications include installing ramps to the entrances of dwelling units and adding grab bars in bathrooms.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in the published decision of In re Romig, Nos. 347653 & 384653 (Oct. 15, 2020) , narrowly

ery

ink with target http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/opinions/final/coa/20201015_c347653_75_347653.opn.pdf

construed the reasonable accommodation provision of the PWDCRA. The case involved a seventy-six-year-old man with limited ability to stand and walk. A reasonable modification request was made to install a railing on the front porch and adjacent stairs at his home. According to the Court of Appeals, a housing provider may be required to grant a reasonable modification request only if the request is submitted at the time of the original sale, exchange, rental, or lease of the dwelling. Should a person after taking possession of housing ( i.e ., post-acquisition) later becomes disabled and in need of a reasonable modification, the request need not be granted. Further, only the individual personally making the sale, exchange, rent, or lease is entitled to any disability-related reasonable modification or protections under the PWDCRA.

The decision ignores the word “occupied” in Section 506a(1)(a) of the PWDCRA , which expressly permits “reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person with a disability if those modifications may be necessary to afford the person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises.” The Michigan legislature enacted Section 506a of the PWDCRA to make sure that Michigan law remains consistent with the FHA , which entitles persons with disabilities to request “reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied” (emphasis added), whenever warranted by medical conditions, irrespective of whether the request is submitted pre- and post-acquisition, or by an owner, tenant, or occupant of a dwelling unit.

This language in FHA and the PWDCRA makes sense, as individuals may develop disabilities as a result of illnesses, injuries, the aging process, and other life events–long after an individual begins dwelling in a housing unit. The Court of Appeals’ decision, unfortunately, deprives disability protections to one of Michigan’s most vulnerable populations.

Plaintiffs in the case have filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, along with the Fair Housing Centers of Southeast & Mid Michigan, Southwest Michigan, and West Michigan, have filed an amicus brief urging the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and statutory construction. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights have also filed an amicus brief in support of the Application for Leave to Appeal.

It may take 4-6 months or more for the Michigan Supreme Court to issue its ruling in the case, given the Court’s heavy docket.

Recent Developments – Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:22:00 GMT

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment. Last June, the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County , 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), held that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 13988, entitled “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation”. Based on the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, the Executive Order directs all federal agencies to fully enforce statutes and agencies to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

On February 11, 2021, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a memorandum directing that all state and local Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies, including the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) organizations, including the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit (Center), interpret sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act to include discrimination claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the memorandum requires that all FHAP agencies and FHIP organizations within thirty days review all legations of discrimination in the past year to identify and notify any persons who alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity that their claims may be timely and jurisdictional for filing.

The Center, prior to Bostock , interpreted the Fair Housing Act as covering housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and transgender status. The Center made this clear in its fair housing training, as well as in the Center’s complaint intake and investigation. Nonetheless, the President’s Executive Order and the HUD’s FHEO memorandum provide needed clarification on an official level that the Fair Housing Act applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and other sex-based classifications.

As a result of these developments, the Center investigates and enforces the following 9 protected class categories under the Fair Housing Act and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and other sex-based classifications), disability, familial status (families with children), age, and marital status.

The Center also investigates and enforces additional protected class categories under various local ordinances.

Remembering the timely words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:41:00 GMT

The post Remembering the timely words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Fair Housing Center’s Complaint Data Featured in New Research Article

Sun, 13 Dec 2020 22:00:00 GMT

The article is the result of a multi-year partnership between the Center and Professor Mehdipanah, who analyzed the Center’s housing discrimination intake data for the ten-year period (2008 to 2017) in order to test a set of questions around the demographics of housing discrimination. Specifically, Professor Mehdipanah’s article found fewer complaints arose from Metropolitan Detroit neighborhoods with larger numbers of non-Hispanic Whites, homeowners, or higher median income levels as compared to neighborhoods with fewer of those characteristics. These findings run counter to some perceptions that more discrimination occurs in areas of gentrification or increasing incomes. The article also points to the fact that low-income renters of color experience the vast majority of housing discrimination.

The Fair Housing Center looks forward to continuing partnerships with researchers like Professor Mehdipanah who bring high levels of data-driven knowledge and analysis to the fair housing movement.

The article can be accessed here:

Roshanak Mehdipanah, Kiana Bess, Steve Tomkowiak, Audrey Richardson, Carmen Stokes, Denise White Perkins, Suzanne Cleage, Barbara A. Israel & Amy J. Schulz, Residential Racial and Socioeconomic Segregation as Predictors of Housing Discrimination in Detroit Metropolitan Area (Sustainability 2020, 12, 10429)

The post Fair Housing Center’s Complaint Data Featured in New Research Article appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Application for Leave to Appeal filed with the Michigan Supreme Court in an Emotional Support Animal Case

Wed, 09 Dec 2020 18:39:00 GMT

On September 7, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in the case of Riverbrook v Fabode, Docket No. 349065 . The case requires lower courts statewide to conduct an expert testimony gatekeeping type process under Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 for medical professionals who provide certifications for emotional support animals. The Riverbrook decision interpreted the federal Fair Housing Act and, by implication, will likely be treated as an interpretation of the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act. As a published decision, the Riverbrook decision becomes a binding precedent throughout the State of Michigan for evaluating requests for emotional support animals.

Defendants contacted the Fair Housing Center after the Court of Appeals issued its decision. On December 8, 2020, the Center, on Defendants’ behalf, filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. The Application asks the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ adoption of a Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 approach to emotional support animal requests. The Application asks that the Michigan Supreme Court adopt HUD’s detailed January 28, 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance concerning requests for service and emotional support animals in housing. Courts in other states have already adopted HUD’s Assistance Animals Guidance.

Defen dants contacted the Fair Housing Center after the Court of Appeals issued its decision. On December 8, 2020, the Center, on Defendants’ behalf, filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. The Application asks the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ adoption of a Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 approach to emotional support animal requests. The Application asks that the Michigan Supreme Court adopt HUD’s detailed January 28, 2020 Assistance Animals Guidance concerning requests for service and emotional support animals in housing. Courts in other states have already adopted HUD’s Assistance Animals Guidance.

Welcome, Leah Brewer!

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:51:00 GMT

Leah has 35 years of experience in multi-family residential housing, a leasing consultant to a national consultant, and speaker on various property management topics, including fair housing. Leah is the owner and president of Full House Marketing in Farmington, Michigan, and is an active member of numerous property management associations. She is a charter member of the Detroit Area Apartment Association (DMAA). Her contributions to fair housing were recognized by the Fair Housing Center in 2002 when the Center honored Leah with a Fair Housing Leadership Award.

The Center’s Board and Staff look forward to Leah’s continued service and contributions to our fair housing mission as a new board member.

The post Welcome, Leah Brewer! appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Fair Housing Center joins in redlining case against Redfin Corporation

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:10:00 GMT

The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit has joined with the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Fair Housing Justice Center, the Fair Housing Rights Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania, the HOPE Fair Housing Center, the Lexington Fair Housing Council, the Long Island Housing Services, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, Open Communities, and the South Suburban Housing Center in a federal court redlining case against Redfin Corporation. Redfin is a national realtor, operating in over 90 markets across the U.S. and Canada. The case has been filed in the Western District of Washington, as Redfin’s principal place of business is located in Seattle, Washington.

The complaint alleges that Redfin offers three tiers of service based on the listing price of the homes: full Redfin service provided by Redfin real estate agents (its own employees) including eligibility for a Redfin commission refund; referral to a Redfin partner with no Redfin refund; and no service. As shown on the following Metropolitan Detroit area maps, Redfin’s three tiers of service–based on the listing price of the homes–has an adverse impact on minority communities.

More detailed information concerning Redfin’s practices, including maps of other communities, are found in the federal court complaint. The federal court complaint may be accessed here:

National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. Redfin Corporation, No. 20-1586 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2020)

Michigan Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium

Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:24:00 GMT

In our prior blog on September 3, 2020, we discussed the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) recent Moratorium Order. That blog contains a helpful link to preparing the CDC declaration letter.

The Michigan Supreme Court has now issued an administrative order (No. 2020-17) guiding Michigan courts in how to handle eviction cases where a CDC declaration letter has been served on the landlord, mortgage company or other housing provider. The order requires each housing provider to verify in the eviction complaint whether a CDC declaration letter has been received. The CDC declaration letter will not stop an eviction case from progressing through court and a judgment of possession may be obtained. The CDC declaration letter, however, will prevent a physical eviction from the housing unit until after December 31, 2020.

The complete and updated Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order can be found at the following: https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/court-rules-admin-matters/Administrative%20Orders/2020-08_2020-10-22_FormattedOrder_AmendtAO2020-17.pdf

The post Michigan Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Examples of Disparate Impact Discrimination

Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:43:00 GMT

The following are examples of disparate impact discrimination:

Minimum Loan Policies

This minimum loan amount policy is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live. The lender will be required to justify the “business necessity” for the policy.

See also Agreed Order, US v. Luther Burbank Savings , No. 12-7809 (lender’s $400,000 minimum loan amount policy in its wholesale channel alleged to result in discrimination on grounds of race and national origin).

The lender’s policy may have a disparate impact on individuals with disabilities and the elderly, both of whom are more likely than the general applicant pool to receive substantial nontaxable income.

The lender’s policy is likely to be proven discriminatory. First, the lender is unlikely to be able to show that the policy is compelled by business necessity. Second, even if the lender could show business necessity, the lender could achieve the same purpose with less discriminatory effect by “grossing up” nontaxable income (i.e., making it equivalent to gross taxable income by using formulas related to the applicant’s tax bracket). Joint Statement on Discrimination in Lending ( April 29, 1994).

Insurance Practices

Landlord-Tenant Policies

The post Examples of Disparate Impact Discrimination appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Using the List Price or Location of a Home to Determine Broker Fees and Services

Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:19:00 GMT

Using the price or location of a home to determine broker fees and what services are available to prospective buyers or sellers can result in real estate sales discrimination. Policies based on the list price or location might appear neutral on their face, but they have an unnecessary #DisparateImpact on communities of color. Visit https://bit.ly/2ZTfivx to learn more about housing discrimination & where you can find help.

Companies can take the following steps to try to address the issue:

We are available to answer these and other important questions regarding real estate practices and policies.

The post Using the List Price or Location of a Home to Determine Broker Fees and Services appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Addressing Racial Disparities in Health Outcomes – Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sat, 12 Sep 2020 16:16:00 GMT

In a recent article, the Center’s executive director, Steve Tomkowiak, published an article addressing the roles that residential segregation and discrimination play in the disparate affliction rates in the CIVOD-19 pandemic and other health emergencies.

The article explains how the Fair Housing Act’s affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) requirements, and civil rights enforcement under Title VI and other laws applicable to medical care and treatment (which take place in places of public accommodation), can be used to address disparities in medical outcomes.

The article may be accessed here:

Tomkowiak, Using Community Planning and Public Accommodations Laws to Address Racial Disparities in Health Outcomes—Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic (Federal Bar Association Civil Rights Insider, Summer 2020)

CDC Eviction Moratorium & Helpful Eviction Moratorium Form

Thu, 03 Sep 2020 17:04:00 GMT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19 (“CDC’s Moratorium Order”). The CDC’s Moratorium Order temporarily ceases residential evictions through December 31, 2020 to prevent further spread of COVID-19.

To qualify for the moratorium, a tenant must deliver to the landlord a letter containing the following 5 declarations: The tenant (1) has made best efforts to obtain available government assistance for rent or housing; (2) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), was not required to report any income in 2019 to the IRS, or received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) under the CARES Act; (3) is unable to pay the full rent or housing payment due to the substantial loss of income or the incurring of extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses; (4) has made best efforts in making timely partial rent or housing payments as close as possible to full payments as the circumstances may permit; and (5) believes that eviction is likely to render the tenant homeless or force the tenant to move into and live in close quarters in a shared living setting because the tenant has no other available housing options.

The Suffolk University Law School’s Legal Innovation and Technology Lab has provided a free, online CDC Eviction Moratorium Assistant form (https://massaccess.suffolklitlab.org/housing/#CDC) to aid tenants in generating a declaration letter to obtain protection under the CDC’s Moratorium Order. Each adult listed on the lease, rental agreement, or housing contract should complete a moratorium declaration letter. All representations by the tenant in the declaration letter must be accurate, as they are made under penalty of perjury.

Once completed, the declaration letter must be provided to the tenant’s landlord, the owner of the residential property where the tenant lives, or another person who has a right to have the tenant evicted.

The CDC’s Moratorium Order does not apply to foreclosures on home mortgages. Moratoriums on foreclosures are governed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other governmental regulators.

The Moratorium Order does not prevent a landlord from charging or collecting fees, penalties, or interest as a result of the failure to pay rent. Further, all other obligations or rules under a lease or tenancy agreement remain in effect.

The Fair Housing Center’s staff remain available to answer questions from homeowners, tenants, and housing providers regarding moratoriums and other matters.

The post CDC Eviction Moratorium & Helpful Eviction Moratorium Form appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Limiting the Number of Family Members Per Bedroom

Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:55:00 GMT

Familial status discrimination is one of the most common types of housing discrimination reported to and investigated by fair housing organizations like the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, despite – or maybe because of – familial status being one of the less known protected classes under the federal Fair Housing Act. Familial status discrimination, or discrimination against families with children under the age of eighteen, can occur in a host of forms, ranging from families being denied rental housing because of their children to teenage children being subject to overly restrictive and targeted house rules requiring unnecessary supervision.

Another common form of familial status discrimination involves unduly and unlawfully restricting the number of family members who can sleep in a bedroom. Specifically, some housing providers enforce a strict policy of allowing only “two heartbeats” per bedroom, regardless of the size of the bedroom or the age of its occupants. At first glance, this policy does not directly target families with children like some forms of discrimination do. It simply states a policy that applies to everyone, regardless of whether the occupants are all adult roommates or families with children. However, considering that families with children are almost always larger in household size than occupants without children, this policy has a disproportionately negative impact on families with children. Under this policy, a young couple in a one-bedroom apartment could face eviction for having a new-born baby, and a family of five may never apply to rent a two-bedroom apartment despite the bedrooms being large enough to house the whole family.

Such a policy often runs counter to the local building occupancy code, which normally requires only that a bedroom provides fifty square feet for each of its multiple occupants (or seventy square feet if there is only one occupant). According to this commonly-used code, a 70-square foot bedroom would be suitable for one person, a 100-square foot bedroom would be suitable for two people, a 150-square foot bedroom would be suitable for three people, etc. The purpose behind these codes is to ensure the health and safety of the families living in the units by discouraging overcrowding.

A property limiting occupancy to “two heartbeats” per bedroom regardless of the bedroom’s size is almost certainly not following the local building occupancy code or its health and safety rationale. This type of overly restrictive occupancy policy unlawfully discourages families with children from even applying for a rental home. A family of three or five seeing a “two heartbeat” policy published on a property’s website or rental listing will likely pass over the listing without even attempting to apply. This chilling effect can greatly limit the housing available to families, especially in areas where there is already a paucity of affordable housing.

This also increases rental costs for families with children by forcing them to rent units with more bedroom units than they need. As a result, these overly restrictive policies contribute to the eviction crisis.

If you suspect that your family has been excluded or discouraged from housing because of children under the age of eighteen, please contact the Fair Housing Center for assistance.

The post Limiting the Number of Family Members Per Bedroom appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Canton Apartments Forced Out Over 70 Recovering Addicts

Tue, 19 May 2020 16:46:00 GMT

On May 11, 2020, a federal lawsuit was filed against the owners and managers of the Crossings at Canton apartment complex, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit by Personalized Nursing LIGHT House (PNLH), its President Joseph Paliwoda, and the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit.

PNLH provides comprehensive treatment for substance abuse, which includes providing housing for its clients. PNLH pays for and supervises the residents in the apartments it rents. PNLH rent payments were never late, and there was no history of complaints about noise or other issues involving PNLH clients residing at the Crossings at Canton.

The lawsuit details the multiple efforts by owners and management of the Canton Township, Mich. apartment complex to evict over 70 of the PNLH clients in its residential substance abuse recovery program. According to the complaint, PNLH, which is based in Plymouth, Michigan, had rented apartments at the Crossings at Canton to be used by its clients since at least 2004. Nonetheless, between December 2018 and October 2019, the Crossing at Canton management served “notices to quit” on PNLH, forcing PNLH to scramble to find new apartments for the 74 clients who had been living there.

Paliwoda, who helped found PNLH in 1990 and has served as its president since then, was sidelined from almost all other work for months as he and his team contacted over 60 different apartment complexes before finding one that would rent to PNLH clients. “Discrimination against people suffering from addiction is rampant and blatant in our culture,” Paliwoda said. “It’s extremely hard to convince a property manager to give our clients a chance. It’s hard even when we guarantee the rent – even when we pay a premium – and provide supervision.”

The 24-page complaint asserts that the defendants informed PNLH CEO Joseph Paliwoda in early 2019 that it would not be renewing any of the company’s leases because those units were to be remodeled. At the time, Paliwoda informed Crossings management that he would be happy to relocate his clients to other, open units in the complex.

The defendants’ on-site manager responded by informing Paliwoda that there was no inventory available for any PNLH clients at the Crossings at Canton, which comprises some 700 units. Throughout the period that PNLH clients were being evicted, Paliwoda said he continued to receive multiple marketing and promotional materials from the Crossings which advertised vacancies and move-in specials being offered to the general public. The complaint states that the comment and related actions made it clear “that the Crossings no longer wanted to rent to PNLH because the PNLH clients were in addiction recovery programs.”

“Despite all the recent media coverage of our country’s opiate epidemic and a significant improvement in the general population’s understanding of addiction, recovering substance abusers still face stigmatization and discrimination in some form almost every day,” said Paliwoda, who has worked with recovering substance abusers for decades. Paliwoda says that the management of the apartment complex which is now housing the formerly displaced PNLH clients has informed him that his clients are “a joy to work with.”

Steve Tomkowiak, the Executive Director of the Fair Housing Center, has met with many of the PNLH clients. Tomkowiak commented that “it is very troubling to see a large number of persons who voluntarily agreed to participate in an intensive drug and alcohol treatment program, persons we would expect to be supported in their efforts to reestablish productive lives, instead be thrown out of their homes.” According to Tomkowiak, “this is why we need fair housing laws.”

The lawsuit requests that the court issue an order finding the defendant’s actions in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act; an order enjoining the defendants from participation in further housing discrimination on grounds of disability; actual and compensatory damages; punitive damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and has been assigned to Judge Bernard A. Friedman.

The lawsuit is the subject of an article in Crain’s Detroit Business, entitled, “ Nonprofit sues Canton apartment complex alleging discrimination of recovering substance abusers”.

The post Canton Apartments Forced Out Over 70 Recovering Addicts appeared first on Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit .

Proposed Legislation on Late Fees

Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:28:00 GMT

On March 12, 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives, rather than addressing this crisis, passed HB 4587 to permit late fees of the greater of $50 or 10% of the monthly rent. This will increase the financial burden on low- and moderate-income families, exasperating Michigan’s eviction crisis. We urge the rejection of this legislation. Better options are available, such as the District of Columbia’s Rental Housing Late Fee Fairness Amendment Act of 2016. The District of Columbia caps late fees at 5% and prohibits evictions based solely on non-payment of late fees.

Military Status & Fair Housing

Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:14:00 GMT

On November 7, 2019, House Bill No. 5224 was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives to add military status as a protected class to the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The bill defines military status to include those in active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States and veterans who received honorable or general administrative discharge from active duty.

Unfortunately, the bill was referred to a committee with no further action taken. Michigan and most states do not specifically protect military status or veterans against housing discrimination at this time.

Notwithstanding their service to our country, combat veterans have found some landlords uncomfortable renting to them. On other occasions, veterans have found landlords reluctant to accept VA vouchers.

Although veterans are not yet specifically covered under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the ELCRA, veterans can be included in other protected class categories. For example, veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) may receive protection from discrimination based on disability under the FHA and the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA).

Also, under the FHA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the PWDCRA veterans with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations and modifications.