January 2016 Coach's Quiz

We’ve reviewed HUD’s proposed regulations on harassment and liability for discriminatory housing practices under fair housing law. Now let’s look at how the rules might apply in the real world. Take the Coach’s Quiz to see what you have learned.

INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the following questions has only one correct answer. On a separate piece of paper, write down the number of each question, followed by the answer you think is correct—for example, (1) b, (2) a, and so on. The correct answers (with explanations) follow the quiz. Good luck!

Question #1

Fair housing law bans not only sexual harassment, but also harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. True or false?

a.   True.

b.   False.

Question #2

As the community owner, you could face liability for sexual harassment by an employee, even if you didn’t know anything about it while it was happening. True or false?

a.   True.

b.   False.

Question #3

A resident reports that his upstairs neighbor has been harassing him because of his race. If you ignore his complaint, your community could be sued for harassment under fair housing law. True or false?

a.   True.

b.   False.

COACH’S ANSWERS & EXPLANATIONS

Question #1

Correct answer: a

Under the proposed HUD regulations, fair housing law bans harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. Though sexual harassment claims are most common, many courts have permitted residents to pursue fair housing claims for harassment based on race, disability, and other protected characteristics.

Question #2

Correct answer: a

Under HUD’s proposed regulations, community owners may be vicariously liable for discrimination or harassment committed by employees or agents, regardless of whether they knew of or intended the wrongful conduct or were negligent in failing to prevent it from occurring. Furthermore, a community owner may face direct liability for a fair housing violation if he knew or should have known about the employee’s misconduct but failed to take prompt action to correct and end it.

Example: The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against a public housing authority in Kansas, alleging that its former employee sexually harassed a female public housing applicant and a female public housing tenant. The complaint alleged that, while exercising his authority as a hearing officer, the former employee subjected the two women to unwanted sexual conduct as a condition for favorable hearing decisions, including asking them sexual questions, showing them pornographic pictures and videos, making explicit sexual comments, and exposing himself. The lawsuit was filed after the women filed a complaint with HUD, which investigated and referred the matter to the Justice Department [U.S. v. Kansas City, Kansas Housing Authority, October 2015].

Question #3

Correct answer: a

Under HUD’s proposed regulations, community owners could face liability for discrimination or harassment by third parties, such as other residents, if they knew or should have known about the misconduct and failed to fulfill a duty to take prompt action to correct and end it. Even without a formal regulation in place, courts have been willing to consider fair housing claims against owners for tenant-on-tenant harassment based on allegations that that community knew or should have known about the harassment but didn’t do enough to stop it.

Example: In June 2015, a court refused to dismiss claims of race discrimination and harassment filed by a Hawaii condominium resident against the homeowners association and its management company. Among other things, the resident claimed that his upstairs neighbor subjected him to hostile behavior because of his race by yelling racial slurs and threats while repeatedly stomping on his floor. He claimed that he called the police and the community’s security guard, but that community managers refused to help him resolve the situation. Denying the defendants’ request to dismiss the claim, the court ruled that he could pursue his hostile environment claim based on race based on allegations that his upstairs neighbor engaged in racially discriminatory conduct toward him, and that the defendants knew about the conduct, but failed to assist him or otherwise take remedial action [Hicks v. Makaha Valley Plantation Homeowners Association, June 2015].