Home Buying

Overturned Obama Plan Spurs Questions on Housing Bias

This fall, a federal judge threw out a housing regulation issued by President Obama’s administration that said racial bias claims could be based on “seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.’’ But does subtle discrimination still play a role in housing business?

December 16, 2014

2 minutes to read

Before The Fair Housing Act of 1968, discrimination based on race, color, and national origin was a common aspect of housing business practices in the US—racial minorities were sometimes prevented from purchasing or renting homes in certain neighborhoods.

From 1966 to 1967, Congress “regularly considered the fair housing bill, but failed to garner a strong enough majority for its passage,’’ according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., however, spurred on its passage.

The Fair Housing Act originally prohibited those who rent or sell houses from discriminating based on race, color, religion and national origin. Sex was added as a protective class in 1974, and in 1988, disability and familial status were added. The law also protects other types of housing transactions, like mortgage lending, zoning practices, and advertising.

The Act changed once again when a housing regulation issued by President Barack Obama’s administration said racial bias claims could be based on “seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.’’

The regulation was approved in 2013 by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

On Monday, November 3, a federal judge threw out a housing regulation issued by President Barack Obama’s administration that said racial bias claims could be based on “seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect.’’

US District Judge Richard Leon said the Fair Housing Act only allows for direct discrimination claims and not those based on “so-called disparate impact allegations,’’ according to Reuters.

Leon wrote that the Obama administration’s take on the text was “nothing more than wishful thinking on steroids.’’

But does subtle discrimination still play a role in housing business?

It would appear so.

Boston’s Office of Fair Housing and Equity investigates between 40 and 50 claims of housing discrimination per year.

Though the department said they determined the November decision would not have any immediate impact on their existing fair housing policies and how they are applied, spokesperson Melina Schuler said they are looking ahead to the potential impacts of a pending Supreme Court case on a similar matter, which could have deeper implications.

The Supreme Courts has never ruled on the issue of assumption claims, but is expected to take up the issue by June.

In 2012, a study by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians looking for housing are still “quietly’’ discriminated against.

Though outright discrimination was unnoticeable, the study found that minorities were less likely to be shown all of the available units than white customers. The study conducted 8,000 tests. In each, one white and one minority tester of the same gender and age would pose as equally qualified renters or buyers.

Though they visited the same housing providers and rental agents, some of the 8,000 tests showed that white customers were offered lower rents.

Racial bias claims in housing business still appear in Boston.

This past July, the Massachusetts state attorney general’s office investigated the property management company owned by Boston landlord Anwar N. Faisal, over a claim made by a Northeastern student who said Faisal would not rent to her because she was Indian.

According to a Boston Globe article, the investigation was launched after the Boston Fair Housing Commission found probable cause that Alpha Management Corp. discriminated based on race.

Alpha Management Corp. denied the allegations of discrimination.