Articles Tagged with Fair Housing Act claims and issues

Firm partner Michael E. Chapnick authored an article that appeared as a “Board of Contributors” guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper.  The article, which was titled “Ruling Illustrates Unpredictability of Fair Housing Litigation for Associations,” focuses on a recent ruling by the First District Court of Appeal that highlights the unpredictable nature of Fair Housing Act litigation for unwary associations.  Michael’s article reads:

The decision came in the case of Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Association v. Henkel, which originated from a housing discrimination complaint filed by James Henkel with the Florida Commission on Human Relations pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.  Henkel alleged that the association committed discriminatory housing practices by making modifications to the closing pressure of doors that rendered many of the common areas at his condominium inaccessible to him.

The administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings presiding over the case concluded that Henkel had failed to establish that the association discriminated against him based on his handicap, but the commission disagreed with the ALJ’s conclusions of law and ruled against the association.

In the association’s subsequent appeal before the First DCA, the majority found that the commission erred in its determination that the association had committed discriminatory housing practices by allegedly making modifications to the opening pressures of doors that rendered them noncompliant with the Fair Housing Act’s standards.  The two judges concluded that the ALJ properly found that Henkel had not proven a prima facie case of discrimination because the association did not design or construct the condominium.  They also ruled that the evidence was insufficient to show that the association had modified the doors, as its oversight of the property had recently been transferred from the original developer.

dbr-logo-300x57A concurring opinion states: ” … the respondent did not design or construct Mr. Henkel’s building, nor make any alterations to the disputed door pressures after assuming ownership of the building.” It goes on to find that evidence indicated the door pressures were not adjustable.

Continue reading

An article authored by firm partner Michael E. Chapnick appeared as a guest column in today’s edition of the Daily Business Review, South Florida’s exclusive business daily and official court newspaper.  Michael’s article, which was titled “Proposed HUD Rule Would Make Associations Guardians of Civil Rights,” focuses on a proposed rule change by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that could have a significant impact in associations’ involvement in some matters involving disputes among members.

Michael’s article reads:

In October 2015 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated proposed rules and regulations that have the potential to significantly expand associations’ involvement in some matters involving disputes among members. The proposed changes would serve to standardize how claims of harassment are to be treated under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, and they address both quid pro quo (this for that) and hostile environment harassment in housing.

Claims of quid pro quo harassment typically arise in the context of sexual harassment, which is considered a form of sex discrimination and is prohibited under the Fair Housing Act, in cases in which housing providers condition housing or housing-related services or transactions on sexual conduct.

Hostile environment harassment includes subjecting a person to unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive such that it interferes with or deprives the person the right to use and enjoy their home.

The proposed hostile environment rule is not based solely on sexual discrimination. It covers all of the protected characteristics, also known as protected classes, under the Fair Housing Act: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status and disability.

dbr logo-thumb-400x76-51605The new rule intends to clarify standards for liability based on traditional legal principles of tort liability. It states that a person would be directly liable for failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by that person’s employee or agent when the person should have known of the discriminatory conduct. A person would also be directly liable for failing to take prompt action to correct and end harassment by a third party when the person knew or should have known of the harassment and had a duty to intervene.

Continue reading