A federal court in Florida has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that an owner’s refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) amounted to illegal housing discrimination. The court found that such a refusal, on its own, does not support a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and the plaintiff failed to allege a specific policy causing the statistical disparity.

Background

The plaintiff, an African-American woman and participant in the HCV program, sued the owner after being denied a tour and informed that the property didn't accept vouchers. The complaint described how the leasing agent’s demeanor changed once she inquired about voucher acceptance. A supervisor then told her they didn't accept HCVs, canceled her tour, and claimed no units were available, despite earlier confirmations.

The woman alleged that the site’s refusal to accept HCVs had a racially discriminatory effect, violating both federal and local fair housing laws. Specifically, it had a discriminatory impact on African Americans, who are disproportionately represented among voucher holders. Her complaint alleged violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and a provision of the county’s Human Rights Code.

Her amended complaint argued that the policy of rejecting HCVs disproportionately affects African-American voucher holders in Florida, who are overrepresented in the program. She cited statistics showing that while only 15.1 percent of Florida households are African American, over 50 percent of HCV participants fall into that group. She claimed that this disparity resulted in voucher holders being locked out of predominantly white, higher-income neighborhoods.

Takeaway

The court granted the owners’ motion to dismiss, ruling that participation in the HCV program is voluntary under federal law, and rejecting vouchers does not, by itself, constitute a viable FHA disparate impact claim. Even if it could, the court said, the plaintiff’s complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations linking the defendants’ policy to the statistical disparity she cited. Without a clearly identified policy and “robust causality,” the claim could not move forward. The court dismissed the FHA claim with prejudice and declined to take on the case over the related state-law claim.

• Gibbs v. The Connor Group, May 2025