In "Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions", the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") urges housing providers to exercise caution when implementing criminal history policies or practices used to make housing decisions.
HUD's guidance comes on the heels of the Supreme Court's decision last summer, which held disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.1 While persons with criminal records are not a protected class under the Act, HUD stresses that criminal history-based barriers to housing have a statistically disproportionate impact on minorities, which are a protected class under the Act, and as such, creating arbitrary or blanket criminal-based policies or restrictions could violate the Fair Housing Act ("FHA" or "Act"). To be clear, HUD's guidance does not preclude housing providers from crafting criminal history-based policies or practices, but the guidance makes evident that housing providers should create thoughtful policies and practices that are tailored to serve a substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, such as resident safety or the protection of property.
HUD includes context for its guidance, and offers statistical evidence that the United States minority population experiences arrest and incarceration at rates disproportionate to their share of their population. For instance, HUD asserts that in 2014, African Americans were incarcerated at a rate nearly three times their proportion of the general population.
In the context of criminal history policies or practices, disparate impact liability is determined using a burden-shifting framework that first requires a plaintiff or HUD to prove that the criminal history policy or practice has a discriminatory effect, meaning the policy or practice results in a disparate impact on a group of persons because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic under the Act. In this step of the process, evidence must be provided that demonstrates that the criminal history policy or practice actually or predictably results in a disparate impact. If successful, the burden then shifts to the housing provider to show that the policy or practice in question is justified. Here, the housing provider must show that the policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, and further, that the policy or practice actually achieves that interest. Finally, if a housing provider is successful, the burden shifts back to the Plaintiff or HUD to prove that the housing provider's interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
The determination of whether a criminal history-based policy or practice has a disparate impact in violation of the Act is ultimately a fact and case-specific inquiry. However, HUD's guidance provides insight into how to create a legally defensible policy that does not violate or frustrate the FHA's prohibition on the discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of dwellings or in other housing-related activities. We recommend review of HUD's guidance, but have distilled that guidance to assist in reviewing existing criminal history-based policies or practices or in the creation of a new one.
1 Texas Dep't of Hous. & Cmty Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys Project, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 2507 (2015).
2 42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(4).