ShareA federal court has considered whether a tenant could move forward with his race and familial status discrimination allegations against former landlord.
William Vaughn (“Tenant”), an African American, and Lakesha Tucker leased an apartment in the Sibley Cove Apartments (“Landlord”) for themselves and Tucker’s two minor children. The lease period was from June 2005 to May 2006. The Tenant qualified for a tax credit, and so the Tenant had to complete an Addendum to the lease identifying the residents of the apartment. The Addendum stated that any additional residents had to be approved by the Landlord and eligible for the tax credit prior to occupancy. In addition, the Tenant had to receive annual certification in order to continue receiving the tax credit.
In March 2006, the Tenant received temporary custody of his four children on a trial basis. At the time, one of the Landlord’s employees had allegedly told the Tenant that “fathers don’t win their kids, especially a person of color.” The same employee allegedly told him that the children could not reside in the apartment because of occupancy restrictions. When the Tenant said this was only a temporary arrangement and inquired if the Landlord had any larger apartments available, the employee stated that there were no other apartments available for rent.
Starting in February 2006, the Landlord allegedly began sending notices to the Tenant informing him that he needed to get recertified in order to continue to receive the tax credit. The Tenant did not attempt to get recertified until mid-May, when he allegedly asked an employee of the Landlord for the necessary paperwork. This same employee also allegedly used a racial slur, telling the Tenant “his kind” were no longer welcome in the complex. The Landlord allegedly never gave the Tenant the necessary paperwork for recertification, and so the Landlord terminated the lease at the end of May.
Following the lease termination, the Tenant claimed that he received permission from the Landlord’s regional manager to stay in the apartment through the weekend. Meanwhile, the onsite manager for the property, unaware of this extension, called the police and sought to have the Tenant and his children ejected for trespass. Allegedly, this employee used racial slurs when confronting the Tenant.
The Tenant left the premises and filed a complaint with HUD and also a lawsuit. He alleged in the lawsuit violations of the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) for racial and familial status discrimination. The FHA is intended to remove discrimination from the housing marketplace, including both race familial and status discrimination. Familial status is defined in the FHA as one or more children under the age of 18 living with either a parent or a guardian. The Landlord filed a motion seeking judgment in its favor.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of the Tenant on most of his allegations. The Tenant argued that the Landlord had discriminated against him in both the renewal process and also by refusing to provide him with a lease for a larger apartment.
The court determined there was a fact dispute concerning the Landlord’s apparent refusal to renew the Tenant’s lease and so the court ruled in favor of the Tenant. Because there was no direct evidence of the Landlord’s refusal to lease the premises, the Tenant needed to show that he was a member of a protected class and that he was willing and able to continue renting the apartment.
Since the Tenant was a member of a protected class, the question before the court was whether the Tenant was unable to continue renting the apartment because the Landlord’s employees failed to provide him with the necessary paperwork. The Tenant had alleged that he had requested the paperwork on a timely basis. He also submitted evidence based on his income, that he likely would have qualified for the credit. Therefore, the court allowed these allegations to proceed because the Tenant had properly alleged violations of the FHA.
Next, the court considered whether the Tenant had alleged race and familial status discrimination by the Landlord for its failure to offer him a larger apartment for lease. The Tenant had testified that the Landlord’s employee had made racial slurs when he had inquired about a new apartment, and so there was a fact dispute on whether there was race discrimination. However, the Tenant had presented no evidence that his familial status had a role in the Landlord’s decision to allegedly not offer him another unit. Therefore, the court allowed the race discrimination arguments to proceed but ruled in favor of the Landlord on the familial discrimination allegations related to the lease of a new apartment.
Vaughn v. Weis Management, No. 06-2989 DSDJJG, 2008 WL 2045817 (D. Minn. May 12, 2008). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, online legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].