42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(a) permits a tenant to raise a racially discriminatory lease termination or refusal to renew as a defense to a possession action.

Marine Park Associates v. Johnson · filed 1971-08-27(a)

Again, the question: Is the assertion of a claim under 42 U.S.C., sec. 3604(a) and sec. 1982, germane to the distinctive purpose of determining plaintiff’s right to possession? The answer, we think, is that whether possession is sought by reason of lease termination or refusal to renew, if based upon the rights enunciated and protected by these sections, then such is pertinent and germane under Rosewood to the distinctive purpose of the proceeding and can be introduced by “joinder, counterclaim or otherwise”.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions based on race or national origin.

Lozano v. City of Hazleton · filed 2007-07-26(a)

The FHA prohibits discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions on the basis of “race ... or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604 prohibits race-based discrimination in the sale or rental of covered dwellings, but it does not create a right to menace or assault someone who allegedly opposed its purposes.

The People of the State of New York v. Davis · filed 1969-03-28

Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, which, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is indubitably a “law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States,” prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings covered by its terms “because of race, color, religion, or national origin.” ... In contrast the Fair Housing Act confers no right to menace or assault anyone, including persons who have allegedly demonstrated hostility to its purposes.

Section 3604(a) and (d) prohibit racially discriminatory refusals to sell housing and discriminatory misrepresentations that housing is unavailable.

McNeil v. P-N & S, Inc. · filed 1973-11-14(a) and (d)

Each of these acts individually and all of them collectively were motivated by racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (d).

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of race, and § 3604(b) prohibits racially discriminatory terms or conditions of sale.

United States v. Pelzer Realty Company, Inc., and William G. Thames · filed 1973-11-19(a), (b)

Thames violated § 3604(a) when he offered to build identical houses for them in another part of town, and when he threatened to force them into litigation before selling the houses. ... We find that Thames’ demand that Barnett and Marshall find other buyers before they could avoid payment of closing costs was discriminatory treatment, and we find further that this discriminatory treatment was racially motivated. It therefore violated 42 U. S.C. § 3604(b). ... The placing of “sold” signs in front of the houses in order to foreclose the right of Barnett and Marshall to recontract for the houses violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604 prohibits using race as a factor in selling or negotiating for residential lots and invalidates a facially neutral sales policy when it operates to discriminate.

D. C. Williams Et Ux. v. The Matthews Company · filed 1974-06-20(a), (b)

Race is an impermissible factor in real estate transactions under both 42 U.S..C- § 1982 and 42 U.S.C. § 3604 and “cannot be brushed aside because it was neither the ... reason for discrimination nor the total factor of discrimination.” ... The undisputed facts show that under the circumstances the alleged procedure of selling lots only to builders carried racial overtones, and such a policy, even though neutral on its face, cannot stand if it in its operation serves to discriminate on the basis of race.

Section 3604(a) and (d) prohibit racially discriminatory refusals to sell or negotiate for the sale of a dwelling and misrepresentations that a dwelling is unavailable, but those prohibitions apply only to property meeting the Act’s definition of a dwelling.

Ryan v. Brown · filed 1976-01-16(a) and (d)

The Act makes it unlawful where on basis of race, color, religion, or national origin a person refuses to sell or negotiate for the sale of a dwelling or to represent that any dwelling is not available for inspection or sale when it is, in fact, so available. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (d). ... Despite this, there was not competent substantial evidence to sustain the Commission’s finding that the tract of acreage was offered for sale in such a manner as to meet the definition of “dwelling” under 42 U.S.C. § 3602.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of race and applies even when the residential operation is noncommercial.

United States v. Hughes Memorial Home · filed 1975-05-25(a)

Whether the Home is within the scope of the prohibition in section 3604(a) thus turns on whether it is “occupied as . . . a residence.” ... The Court therefore holds that the Home is a dwelling within the meaning of section 3602(b). ... While the Home receives some payment on behalf of 80%-90% of the residents, the Court concludes that the Act also reaches noncommercial activities, and that the Home is prohibited from discrimination even with respect to residents for whom no payment is made.

Section 3604(a) covers real-estate appraisers and reaches practices that effectively make a dwelling unavailable or deny it because of race or national origin, including discriminatory appraisal standards.

United States v. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Ass'n of Realtors · filed 1977-11-23(a)

It is clear from the plain language of the provisions that appraisers are not exempted from their coverage; both sections are unrestricted with respect to the class of persons subject to their prohibition. The “otherwise make unavailable or deny” language of section 804(a) has been applied to a variety of conduct to prohibit all practices which have the effect of denying dwellings on prohibited grounds. ... The promulgation of standards which cause appraisers and lenders to treat race and national origin as a negative factor in determining the value of dwellings and in evaluating the soundness of home loans may effectively “make unavailable or deny” a “dwelling” and may “interfere” with persons in the exercise and enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the Act. When such denial or interference occurs as a result of considerations relating to race or national origin, sections 804(a) and 817 are transgressed.

Section 3604 does not make a multiple-listing service vicariously liable for participating brokers’ discriminatory acts where the brokers are not its agents and the service has not violated an express statutory duty.

Wheatley Heights Neighborhood Coalition v. Jenna Resales Co. · filed 1978-03-15(b)

Nonetheless, the facts offered by plaintiffs to support this aspect of their claim are insufficient to hold MLS liable under Title VIII. ... It is evident that here MLS is not a principal and has not been shown to have violated an express statutory duty.

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to refuse to negotiate for, make unavailable, or deny a dwelling because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Dillon v. AFBIC Development Corp. · filed 1979-06-21(a)

To carry out that purpose, Congress made it unlawful “to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin”. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... Thus, Greene’s refusal to sell comes within the prohibitions of the Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or negotiate for a dwelling, or otherwise making it unavailable, because of race.

Dewitt and Ella McDonald v. Raymond L. And Bonnie G. Verble · filed 1980-05-05(a)

We read these actions as violative of the letter and spirit of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (b) and (d).

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race, and a housing applicant may recover when race actually played a part in the denial rather than relying on hypothetical housing availability.

Jordan v. Dellway Villa Of Tenn., Ltd. · filed 1981-10-19(a)

If race played a part in the claimant's denial, then recovery of damages is mandated. ... Hypothetical factors are irrelevant to this inquiry. Accordingly, courts are not to erect hypothetical constructs of what might have happened in each individual class member's case had the defendant not discriminated against the entire class. ... The critical issue in determining eligibility for recovery of damages in this case is whether an individual applicant was actually discriminated against by the defendants, not whether an individual applicant would have been able to rent an apartment at Dellway Villa if all applications had been processed fairly.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and this prohibition applies to federally assisted public housing authorities.

Title VI and Urban Indian Housing · filed 1982-06-08

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631 more specifically bans discrimination in the sale or rental of housing “ because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604. This prohibition applies to public housing authorities like the St. Raul agency involved here that receive federal financial assistance. 42 U .S.C . § 3603(a).

Section 3604 bars race discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, including governmentally operated housing and the terms and conditions of rental, and may be enforced by private parties.

Burney v. Housing Authority of County of Beaver · filed 1982-08-20(a), (b)

The operative section of Title VIII, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, bars discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, including both governmentally and privately operated units, as to both the actual sale or rental and all terms and conditions; Section 3604 is among those sections of Title VIII that are enforceable by private parties.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, including making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race.

Betty Anderson, Arlene Hudson, Cassie Moore and Bertha Daniels v. City of Alpharetta · filed 1984-08-01(a)

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, while section 3617 provides that it shall be unlawful "to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with" any person's exercise or enjoyment of the rights secured by the other provisions of Title VIII. ... The plaintiffs do not allege that HUD was involved in the sale or rental of housing in north Fulton County, and we do not believe that the language "or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race" can be extended to cover the action or inaction of the federal defendants in this case.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race; race need only be an effective reason for the refusal, not the sole reason.

Melvin E. Green and John W. Saunders, III v. Century 21, Briarcrest Realty, Inc., Martin Fewlas, Donna Fewlas, Ruth Ann · filed 1984-08-13(a)

Similarly in housing discrimination suits, other circuits have clearly and repeatedly found liability when race was only one factor, rather than the sole reason for refusal to sell. ... Judge Young’s instruction that the jury could find liability if race was “an effective reason for defendants’ refusal to sell” was therefore an accurate statement of housing law. There was no error in the instruction.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, or otherwise making unavailable or denying, a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Delano Village Companies v. Orridge · filed 1990-01-12(a)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent * * * or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (42 USC § 3604 [a]).

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits handicap discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or making it unavailable or denying it, and applies to discriminatory leasing conduct occurring after the Act's effective date regardless of when the dwelling was built.

United States v. Forest Dale, Inc. · filed 1993-03-05(f)(1)

The Act makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The prohibition against handicap discrimination is thus applicable to discriminatory conduct in the lease or rental of any dwelling which occurs after the effective date of the Act.

Section 3604(b) prohibits racial discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, and permits liability based on significant discriminatory effects when tied to an identified policy, procedure, or practice.

Gordon D. Simms, Gordon D. Simms v. First Gibraltar Bank, First Gibraltar Bank, Fsb, Now Known as First Madison Bank, Fs · filed 1996-05-31(b)

Section 3604(b) provides that it is unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race.” ... We agree that a violation of the FHA may be established not only by proof of discriminatory intent, but also by a showing of significant discriminatory effect. ... The relevant question in a discriminatory effects claim against a private defendant, however, is not whether a single act or decision by that defendant has a significantly greater impact on members of a protected class, but instead the question is whether a policy, procedure, or practice specifically identified by the plaintiff has a significantly greater discriminatory impact on members of a protected class. ... We therefore conclude that Simms did not present sufficient evidence to establish a violation of the FHA under a discriminatory effects theory of liability.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination based on familial status in the sale or rental of housing unless the housing qualifies for the Fair Housing Act's older-persons exemption.

Lippman v. Bridgecrest Estates I Unit Owners Ass'n · filed 1998-09-01(a)

Because Bridgecrest fails to qualify as housing for older persons under 42 U.S.C. Section 3607(b), it is not exempt from 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(a) which prohibits discrimination, based on familial status, in the sale or rental of housing. If Bridgecrest used its right of first refusal solely to discriminate based on familial status, the trial court erred in finding that Bridgecrest properly exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the Klass unit. At trial, two Bridgecrest board members testified that the sole reason for exercising the right of first refusal was to stop Mr. Lippman from leasing the unit to someone who did not meet Bridgecrest’s age restriction. Because Bridgecrest does not qualify for an older persons’ housing exemption under the Fair Housing Act, Brid-gecrest’s exercise of its right of first refusal was improper.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling because of race or other listed protected characteristics.

Cooper v. Commission on Human Rght., No. Cv 99 0496223 (Oct. 23, 2000) · filed 2000-10-23

The federal Fair Housing Act, and regulations issued thereunder, as well as the state statutes, make it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604 ; 24 C.F.R. § 100.60 (b)(4); General Statutes § 46a-64c (2).

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to refuse, negotiate, or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling because of familial status, among other protected characteristics.

Opinion Number · filed 2003-03-14(a)

Under federal law is 42 U.S.C. § 3604 , "Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices," provides it shall be unlawful (a) to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familia status, or national origin."

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in the sale or rental of a dwelling, including claims based on disparate impact.

Darst-Webbe Tenant Association Board, a Missouri Non-Profit Corporation Housing Comes First, a Missouri… · filed 2003-08-08(a)

... However, the appellants presented evidence of disparate impact discrimination and we believe that the district court should have provided some explanation as to why that evidence is insufficient. See United States v. Badgett, 976 F.2d 1176 (8th Cir.1992) (setting out the proper test to apply when analyzing alleged discrimination under the Fair Housing Act). As such, these three counts are remanded to the district court for a more thorough explanation on the appellants' disparate impact claims.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of a handicap.

Needham v. Mae · filed 2012-02-21(f)(1)

However, Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits “discrimination] in the sale or rental of, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap,” Needham was not denied the ability to buy or rent a home. Therefore, he states no Fair Housing Act Claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination that makes housing unavailable or denies housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

White v. Ockey · filed 2007-06-05(a)

M s. W hite’s Fair Housing Act claim fails to state a cause of action against the State Defendants because it does not allege that the State Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604(a) prohibits making housing unavailable or denying housing because of a protected classification, including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Parker v. Viacom International, Inc. · filed 2009-03-11(a)

Under the Fair Housing Act, discrimination is the sale or rental of housing is prohibited on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C §§ 3601-3631. To assert a violation under the Fair Housing Act, plaintiff must show: (1) he is the “victim of a discriminatory housing practice;” (2) “that make[s] unavailable or den[ies]’ housing” on account of a protected classification. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Here, Plaintiff has made no such claim. Rather Plaintiff describes Defendants’ behavior as harassment, designed to make him lose access to the Internet.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent a dwelling after a bona fide offer because of a protected status, and a plaintiff must plausibly connect the refusal to that status.

Bond v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-05-21(a)

The Act provides that it is unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent” a dwelling, “after the making of a bona fide offer,” on account of a protected status, including disability, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f), but Bond’s amended complaint says nothing which raises a plausible inference that he is a member of a protected class under the Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race or another protected characteristic.

Maine Human Rights Commission v. Megunticook Management · filed 2017-05-17(a)

housing was denied Ms. Kelderhouse and Ms. Patton by Megunticook within the meaning of 5 MRS §§4581-A(l)(B) and 42 U.S.C §3604(a). They are members of a protected class; and they were qualified for a housing opportunity, which in this case means they had a right to have their application reviewed; and their application was denied while the housing opportunity remained available to others.

Section 3604(f) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, or making housing unavailable, because of a person’s handicap or an associated person’s handicap; a prima facie case requires discriminatory purpose or impact.

Thomas v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2018-02-20(f)

“The FHA, enacted pursuant to United States policy to provide for ‘fair housing throughout the United States,’ 42 U.S.C. § 3601, makes it unlawful, inter alia, to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing or otherwise to make housing unavailable to a buyer or renter because of that buyer’s or renter’s handicap or the handicap of certain persons associated with the buyer or renter.” Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cty., Md., 124 F.3d 597, 602-03 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)). “To prove a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA, the [plaintiffs must] demonstrate that the housing action or practice being challenged was either motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a discriminatory impact.”

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, and covers discrimination based on sexual orientation, while harassment must be severe or pervasive to be actionable.

Ross v. Tucker · filed 2019-07-25

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone in the sale or rental of housing based on their race, color, religion, sex, family status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Plaintiff’s complaint states that he was evicted as a result of his failure to pay rent despite apparent verbal agreements that he had with Defendant Tucker. He also complains that he paid a utility bill that was not his. These landlord-tenant issues are not actionable under the Fair Housing Act, and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction because the parties are all from Wisconsin. (Docket #1 at 1–2); 28 U.S.C. § 1332. While discrimination based on sexual orientation is actionable under the Fair Housing Act, Plaintiff does not allege that he was evicted for his heterosexuality, or that the harassment that he experienced was “severe or pervasive.” Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Comm., LLC, 901 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 2018). Therefore, his complaint must be dismissed.

Section 3604(b) bars religion-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling sale or related services, while § 3604(c) bars housing-sale statements indicating a religious preference or intent to discriminate and permits context and ordinary-reader analysis.

Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2019-04-04(b), (c)

Section 3604(b) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale ... of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of" that person's religion. ... Section 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful "[t]o make ... any statement ... with respect to the sale ... of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on ... religion ... or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." ... Finders of fact evaluating a claim under section 3604(c) may use the context in which the statement was made to evaluate whether the statement expresses a preference that a non-religious individual purchase the home. ... The Court, having reviewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to offer sufficient proof upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Homeowners Association violated sections 3604(b), 3604(c) and 3617 of the Fair Housing Act. As it must in the Rule 50 context, the Court has not evaluated the credibility of the witnesses in deciding the issue. Put simply, the January 2015 Letter, which is by far Plaintiffs strongest piece of evidence, does not support the conclusion that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs due to Plaintiffs' Christian faith. As such, judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Homeowners Association is appropriate.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell, rent, or negotiate for a dwelling, or otherwise making it unavailable or denying it, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Alcaraz v. KMF Oakland LLC · filed 2019-12-05(a)

Mr. Alcaraz alleges that Altezza engaged in a variety of discriminatory practices, including refusing to sell, rent, or negotiate the sale or rental of his residence, that effectively made his home unavailable to him within the meaning of § 3604(a). ... Although the SAC’s allegations could be more robust, the Court finds them sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claims is DENIED.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or negotiate for a dwelling, or otherwise making it unavailable or denying it, because of race, color, or national origin.

Noel v. Aqua Vista Townhomes Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2019-09-12(a)

Section 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful, on the basis of someone’s race, color, or national origin, (1) to refuse to sell a dwelling after the making of a bona fide offer, (2) to refuse to negotiate for the sale of a dwelling, or (3) to otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling based on handicap, race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Briley v. Barreca · filed 2020-10-26(f)(1), (b)

The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of a handicap of that buyer or renter, or a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling. The Fair Housing Act also prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Plaintiff does not allege that he was discriminated against in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of a handicap of a buyer or renter, or a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling. Plaintiff also does not allege that he was discriminated against in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(b) covers discriminatory conditions or services after a dwelling is acquired and requires discriminatory motive, while § 3604(e) bars profit-driven inducements based on a protected class, not homelessness alone.

Brown v. Fire Department of the City of New York · filed 2020-11-25(b), (e)

The Second Circuit has recently ruled that § 3604(b) covers not just the initial sale or rental of a dwelling but “conduct that . . . would constitute discrimination in the enjoyment of residence in a dwelling or in the provision of services associated with that dwelling after acquisition.” ... Discriminatory motive is an element of any § 3604 discrimination claim. ... Section § 3604(e) defines protected classes as “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(e). ... Accordingly, having failed to allege that the Building Defendants made representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons in any protected class, Plaintiffs’ blockbusting claim fails.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of a handicap, and § 3604(b) prohibits such discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Briley v. Barreca · filed 2021-01-27(f)(1) (b)

The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of a handicap of that buyer or renter, or a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling. The Fair Housing Act also prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the rental of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, but does not prohibit housing discrimination based on age.

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2021-05-11(b)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the . . . rental of a dwelling, . . . because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” and on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of age.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of a handicap, and a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to make a disability-discrimination claim plausible.

Swanson v. King · filed 2021-08-27(f)(1)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Plaintiff alleged discrimination because of his disability in his complaint, but he does not provide any factual support of his complaint in either his complaint or his objection. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating a plausible claim that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his disability.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Miller v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama · filed 2022-01-05

Although Miller does not specify the specific provisions at issue, the court assumes she is referring to the provisions that make it unlawful to discriminate against any person in “the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,” or for “any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions” to discriminate in these transactions, based on an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3605. Unfortunately, however, Miller does not plead that Blue Cross, her health insurance provider, discriminated against her in the terms of her residence, engaged in discriminatory real-estate transactions, or interfered in the “making or purchasing of loans or . . . other financial assistance” for her home due to her race, religion, gender, disability, familial status, or nationality.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in real-estate transactions, and a plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case at the motion-to-dismiss stage when factual allegations plausibly support discrimination.

Thornton v. Caramagno · filed 2022-03-18(a)

The FHA prohibits discrimination against “any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” in real estate transactions. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... At the motion-to-dismiss stage, however, Thornton is not required to plead a prima facie case or show that Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selling the property to her was pretextual. ... Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Thornton’s FHA and ELCRA claims should be dismissed for failure to plead a prima facie case of housing discrimination. ... Together, these allegations permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference of racial discrimination and are sufficient to state a claim for relief. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of Thornton’s FHA or ELCRA claims.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin; it does not generally create a right to a habitable home.

Northern v. Pedcor Management Corp. · filed 2022-05-09

The Fair Housing Act contains provisions making it unlawful for a person to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale or rental of housing. 42 U.S.C. §3604; Valencia v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 883 F.3d 959, 966 (7th Cir. 2018). ... The Fair Housing Act is a discrimination law; it does not generally establish a right to a “habitable home.” ... Because Northern does not claim to belong to any of the protected categories of the Act, nor claim that any such category was the basis for discrimination against him by defendant, his complaint does not state a viable claim under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent, refuse to negotiate, or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Williams Jr v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc. · filed 2022-08-01(a)

In Count II, plaintiffs rely on 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), which states it is unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” ... Construing these pro se allegations in plaintiffs’ favor, along with allegations that defendants’ conduct was harassing and defendants’ reason for the grill infraction was factually baseless, plaintiffs have alleged “enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claims as alleged in Counts I and II.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or making a dwelling otherwise unavailable or denied, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Want v. Jones · filed 2022-08-09(a)

Further, Mr. Want does not allege that there was discriminatory conduct by Ms. Jones in connection with leasing the property to him as a disabled person. See 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. The FHA prohibits discrimination in rental housing or “in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith” on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b). ... Here, there is no allegation that Mr. Want’s landlord refused to make reasonable accommodations in any rules or practices, and Mr. Want was not denied the opportunity to lease the apartment. The FHA claim also fails.

Section 3604 bans discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on protected characteristics including race and disability.

Hall-Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2022-11-01

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 bans discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of, among other protected groups, race or disability.2 42 U.S.C. § 3604. ... These allegations suffice to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under the FHA at the pleading stage.

Section 3604 prohibits specified forms of discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings, and the conduct alleged here did not fall within those prohibited categories.

Douse v. Traeger · filed 2022-10-20

Moreover, the conduct complained of – the delayed return of a pool deposit check and the alleged misclassification of real property that has led to higher assessments, also does not fit into any of the types of prohibited discrimination enumerated in § 3604.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, including discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling sale or rental based on protected status or other prohibited acts listed in the statute.

Gerdon v. French · filed 2023-01-09

Gerdon fails to allege facts establishing that French discriminated against Gerdon with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling on account of Gerdon’s protected status, or for any other prohibited act set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

Section 3604(a)-(b) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Leonard v. Montgomery · filed 2023-01-27(a)-(b)

Similarly, Plaintiff has pled no facts supporting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604. That title outlaws discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Id., (a)-(b). Plaintiff has made no such allegations. So dismissal is required.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, including discriminatory denial of a rental relationship or its terms, conditions, or privileges, based on protected traits such as race, color, national origin, and familial status.

Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Tomlinson & Associates, Inc. · filed 2023-03-29

The legal framework governing this claim is set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 3604, which prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of a dwelling based on certain protected characteristics, such as race, color, national origin, and familial status.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Tidwell v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2023-05-10

Lastly, Tidwell cites to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, which prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. His claims have nothing to do with housing.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Burnside v. Monarch Real Estate Crop · filed 2023-07-06(a)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Housing Act for failure to state a claim because there are no factual allegations that suggest Plaintiff’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, were factors that motivated Defendants’ actions.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, and a plaintiff may proceed past screening by identifying the type of discrimination, the alleged discriminator, and when it occurred.

Kendrick v. Brennan · filed 2023-11-17

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone in the sale or rental of housing based on their race, color, religion, sex, family status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §3604. To state a discrimination claim under the FHA, a plaintiff need only identify the type of discrimination, by whom, and when.

Section 3604 makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Kendrick v. Oakbrook Corporation · filed 2024-02-14

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone in the sale or rental of housing based on their race, color, religion, sex, family status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §3604. To state a discrimination claim under the FHA, a plaintiff need only identify the type of discrimination, by whom, and when.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability in the rental or sale of a dwelling.

ROBINSON v. PATHWAY TO HOUSING · filed 2024-04-18

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability in the rental or sale of a dwelling, see 42 U.S.C. § 3604, but nothing in Robinson’s Complaint suggests she was discriminated against, so this statute is inapplicable here.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on protected characteristics and protects the exercise or enjoyment of equal housing services and conditions.

Jett v. The Country Acres Association of Columbus County LTD · filed 2024-04-22

Plaintiffs state they are bringing this action pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Am. Compl. [DE-8] at 6, which prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Plaintiffs do not state which provisions of the act were violated or how, and a conclusory statement that the act was violated is insufficient to state a claim. ... they have not sufficiently alleged that the failure to sell the lots was due to a discriminatory purpose, i.e., race, color, religion, sex, familial status, handicap, or national origin discrimination, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3605. ... To the extent Plaintiffs attempt to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, an individual must have been engaged in “protected activity,” which includes “any action taken to protest or oppose statutorily prohibited discrimination or the exercise or enjoyment of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 3604 to equal services and conditions of housing.” ... Plaintiffs have not alleged they engaged in any protected activity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state a Fair Housing Act claim.

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to make a dwelling unavailable or deny it because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

COPENY v. ENGLAND · filed 2024-06-24(a)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to "make unavailable or deny a dwelling" or "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services of facilities in connection therewith," on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a)–(b). The Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations from which the Court could infer racial discrimination in the sale, terms, conditions, or provision of services for Copeny's home.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, including discrimination in rental terms, conditions, or privileges, because of protected characteristics such as race or sex.

Clark v. GSL Properties, Inc. · filed 2024-08-26(a), (b)

The Ninth Circuit applies “Title VII discrimination analysis in examining Fair Housing Act discrimination claims.” ... “A plaintiff can establish a FHA discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact.” ... A plaintiff must plead that the “(1) plaintiff’s rights are protected under the FHA; and (2) as a result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff has suffered a distinct and palpable injury.” ... In other words, she has not alleged that similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably. ... Further, Clark has not alleged any other facts suggesting that the rent increase, calls to police, other negative treatment, and eventual eviction were because of a protected status. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that Clark fails to state an FHA claim and recommends that the district judge dismiss her claim.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin; a disparate-treatment plaintiff must plausibly allege prohibited conduct and discriminatory intent.

Semper v. Hawaii Life Real Estate Services, LLC · filed 2024-09-25(b)

To prevail on a claim of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that she qualified for protection under the FHA, that the defendant engaged in conduct prohibited by the FHA, and that the defendant’s prohibited conduct was motived by discriminatory intent. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that these Defendants engaged in conduct prohibited by the FHA or that their conduct was motivated by discriminatory intent. The Court finds that the conclusory allegations of Defendants’ intent to discriminate in the FAC based on their knowledge that Plaintiff’s Section Q contingencies were religious in nature are insufficient to state a plausible claim for discrimination under the FHA against these Defendants.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, and a violation may be shown through discriminatory intent or significant discriminatory effect.

Holloway v. SiFuentes · filed 2024-10-17

Section 3604 of the Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in the sale of a dwelling based on the person's “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” ... “[A] claim brought under the Act ‘may be established not only by proof of discriminatory intent, but also by proof of a significant discriminatory effect.’” ... Even if the Court liberally construes Holloway’s Complaint to raise a claim under the Fair Housing Act, Holloway pleads no facts to show that SiFuentes discriminated against her in violation of the Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits housing-market actors from refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race.

Williams v. 647 E. 229th St. Bronx LLC · filed 2024-10-21(a)

The FHA, which was enacted as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, makes it unlawful for private actors in the housing market to “refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... To state a claim of intentional discrimination under the FHA, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that he is “a member of a protected class,” that he “suffered relevant ‘adverse’ treatment,” and he must sustain “a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.” ... Because Plaintiff does not allege any facts about what occurred that could give rise to an inference of racial discrimination, he fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted under the FHA.

Section 3604(a)-(b) prohibits refusing or making unavailable a dwelling, and discriminating in its rental terms or services, because of race or other protected characteristics; allegations that a landlord terminated a lease partly because of race adequately state an FHA claim.

Johnson v. FirstKey Homes LLC · filed 2025-01-30(a)-(b)

In pleading that Defendant terminated her lease shortly after she took possession, at least in part, due to her race, Johnson has adequately stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, or related services, because of race or sex, while § 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability.

Lopez v. The YWCA of North East New York · filed 2025-02-27(b), (f)(1)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race” or “sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The FHA also makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of” the buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... For the reasons discussed above, see supra Part III.C.3., the Court finds Plaintiff’s disability-based FHA claims against all Defendants require a response. ... In an abundance of caution, and while the allegedly overt harassing conduct appears to have been committed by third-parties, the Court finds that a response is required to Plaintiff’s FHA, sex discrimination claim and hostile housing environment claim.

Section 3604 governs discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, rather than ordinary homeowners’ association fee charges.

Turner v. Autumn Lake Property Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2025-04-24

That has nothing to do with the Fair Housing Act, which governs (1) discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3604; (2) discrimination in the making or purchasing of loans for housing and the sale, brokering, or appraising of property, id. § 3605; and (3) discrimination in the listing and brokering of property for sale or rent, id. § 3606.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate for the sale or rental, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a protected characteristic.

Askins v. Prestige Management Inc. · filed 2025-05-27(a)

The FHA “broadly prohibits discrimination in housing.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 93 (1979). Among other things, it prohibits the “refus[al] to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, . . . [and the] refus[al] to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, . . . national origin,” or disability.5 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f)(1). ... Here, Plaintiff does not state a claim under the FHA because he does not allege facts suggesting that he has a disability as defined by the FHA or that any adverse actions Defendants took against him were motivated by his disability. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s FHA claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Section 3604(c) bars statements about the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicate a religious preference, limitation, or discrimination, while § 3604(f)(1) bars disability-based rental discrimination and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary for equal use and enjoyment.

Exline-Johnson v. Rosser Properties, LLC · filed 2025-07-10(c), (f)(1), and (f)(3)(B)

First, § 3604(c) prohibits only statements or advertisements made “with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicate[] any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on ... religion... .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) (emphasis added). ... The statement at issue here was not made, printed, or published “‘with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling” as required by the statute. ... When evaluating whether this requirement is satisfied, the Court uses an “ordinary listener” standard. ... The Court concludes that no ordinary listener would believe that a religion-based preference, limitation, or discrimination was expressed by Ms. Rosser. ... The evidence is insufficient to create a disputed question of fact as to whether the Rosser Defendants violated § 3604(c) by making a statement of religious preference with respect to the rental of a dwelling, and the Rosser Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to that claim. ... Section 3604(f)(1) of the Fair Housing Act prohibits landlords from discriminating in or denying the rental of a dwelling to a renter because of the handicap of that renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Because Ms. Johnson cannot establish that she was handicapped under either § 3602(h)(1) or (3), she cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. ... Accordingly, the Rosser Defendants’ motion is granted with respect to Ms. Johnson’s claims that the Rosser Defendants discriminated against her with respect to the rental of a dwelling in violation 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... In view of the foregoing, it is evident that Ms. Johnson’s § 3604(f)(3)(B) claims fail for the same reasons as her other § 3604 claims. ... Absent such evidence, Ms. Johnson’s failure-to-accommodate claim cannot proceed to trial. The Rosser Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to that claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling because of a protected characteristic.

Rosa v. Administration for Children's Services (ACS) · filed 2025-08-05(a)

The FHA “broadly prohibits discrimination in housing.” Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 93 (1979). Among other things, it prohibits the “refus[al] to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, . . . [and the] refus[al] to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, . . . national origin,” or disability.7 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f)(1).

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin in the terms, conditions, or privileges of dwelling sales or rentals and related services or facilities.

Solano v. PHH Mortgage Company · filed 2025-09-04

The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provisions of services or facilities in connection therewith. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. ... The Court finds that such allegations do not comply with the pleading standards under Rule 8(a)(2), which requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” ... He also fails to allege that these actions were “because of” his race, instead alleging that they “may have been” based on his race; this is fatal to his claim.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, familiar status, or national origin.

Armour v. Gold · filed 2025-09-30

Among other things, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 makes it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, familiar status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. And section 3617 makes it unlawful to threaten another for exercising their rights under section 3604. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they have attempted to rent or purchase any property from Defendants, or alleged any discrimination based on the statuses listed in section 3604. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a Fair Housing Act claim.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits discriminating in the sale or rental, or otherwise making unavailable or denying, a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of that person's handicap.

HERRERA v. MADDOX MANAGEMENT, LLC · filed 2025-11-26(f)(1)(A)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him by responding to rental verifications by prospective landlords with false or misleading information. But Plaintiff also does not allege that Defendant discriminated in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or otherwise made unavailable or denied him a dwelling, because of his disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A) (it is unlawful “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer or renter.”). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant denied him a rental or a dwelling. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Housing Act when it provided an allegedly false or misleading response to rental verification inquiries from prospective landlords, while the state court eviction proceeding was pending. This type of claim does not appear to fall under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Harden · filed 2025-12-08(a)

Ms. Harden specifically references 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), which prohibits discrimination against a person based on their “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” in the sale or rental of dwellings. But Ms. Harden does not allege Defendants discriminated against her based on any of these categories.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or making a dwelling unavailable or denying it, because of a buyer’s or renter’s handicap.

Herrera · filed 2026-01-06(f)(1)(A)

But Plaintiff also does not allege that Defendant discriminated in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or otherwise made unavailable or denied him a dwelling, because of his disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A) (it is unlawful “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer or renter.”). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant denied him a rental or a dwelling. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Housing Act when it provided an allegedly misleading response to rental verification inquiries from prospective landlords, while the state court eviction proceeding was pending. This type of claim does not appear to fall under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(a)-(b) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, but a plaintiff who was not prevented from renting and was not required to accept different or additional lease terms cannot establish a discrimination claim under those provisions.

Rockette · filed 2026-03-13(a)-(b)

These undisputed facts make it impossible for Mr. Rockette to raise a claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a)-(b) because he was never prevented from renting an apartment from Defendants and he was not forced to take different or additional terms in his lease when compared to other tenants. Mr. Rockette’s racial discrimination claims pursuant to §§ 3604(a)-(b) are dismissed.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

King · filed 2026-03-19

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. ... “The FHAA makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing or make unavailable a dwelling because of a handicap of a buyer or renter.” ... Here, the analysis is the same with respect to the Rehabilitation Act. Again, King alleges “exacerbated anxiety symptoms,” Doc. 5 at 10, but she does not allege anything indicating that her anxiety “substantially limits one or more of” her “major life activities.” See also 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). King fails to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the purchase or rental of property because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Wente · filed 2026-03-24

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the purchase or rental of property because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, including disparate-treatment and disparate-impact discrimination.

Xu v. Suffolk County · filed 2021-03-26(b)

The FHA forbids “discriminat[ion] against any

Section 3604(c) applies to a discriminatory statement only if it concerns the sale or rental of a dwelling.

FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. v. NEW · filed 2021-12-17(c)

In order for Section 3604(c) to apply to a statement, that statement must be made with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Section 3604(b) requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege discrimination connected with the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Dean v. Lafayette · filed 2023-03-13(b)

Here, even drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, plaintiff fails to allege a violation of the FHA because he has not plausibly alleged defendants discriminated against him and he has not alleged defendants’ purported conduct occurred in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Section 3604 applies to discrimination in the sale or rental of housing; allegations unrelated to housing do not state a claim under it.

Grimes v. Mossy Nissan Kearny Mesa · filed 2024-03-14

None of Plaintiff’s allegations relate to the sale or rental of housing, and the Court can conceive of no argument as to how the FHA is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mossy Nissan. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the FHA, and the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this claim.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination connected to the sale or rental of a dwelling; allegations unrelated to such a transaction do not establish a violation.

Douse v. Traeger · filed 2023-08-29

Likewise, the factual allegations Douse raised in other portions of his complaint did not encompass conduct prohibited by the FHA because they did not relate to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Section 3604(b) requires discrimination connected to the sale or rental of a dwelling; disputes arising after the plaintiffs already owned their home did not state a claim under it.

Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n · filed 2002-07-02(b)

Because plaintiffs already owned their home and none of plaintiffs’ allegations involve the sale or rental of housing, there are no hypothetical facts consistent with plaintiffs’ second amended complaint that would entitle plaintiffs to relief under § 3604(b).

Section 3604 prohibits refusing to sell or rent housing, or discriminating in the terms of a sale or rental, based on listed protected traits.

Steinhauser v. City of St. Paul · filed 2008-12-18(a)-(b)

Section 3604 of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent to any person or discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a building on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Section 3604(b) requires a buyer alleging discriminatory terms of sale to plead that buyers outside the protected class received more favorable terms.

Wiltshire v. Dhanraj · filed 2005-09-14(b)

In sum, plaintiffs’ FHA claim would have survived had plaintiffs alleged that other home buyers, who are not members of the protected class, purchased homes from the defendants on more preferable terms.

Section 3604(e) prohibits profit-driven efforts to induce or attempt to induce a person to sell or rent a dwelling through representations about the entry or prospective entry of people of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin, and regulates conduct rather than mere speech.

United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc. · filed 1970-05-19(e)

The challenged section, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(e), provides that it shall be unlawful “for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood, of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin.” ... It is evident that the statute does not make mere speech unlawful. What it does make unlawful is economic exploitation of racial bias and panic selling. We conclude that the statute is one regulating conduct, and that any inhibiting effect it may have upon speech is justified by the Government’s interest in protecting its citizens from discriminatory housing practices and is not violative of the First Amendment.

Section 3604(e) prohibits even an attempted inducement of a home sale or rental through representations encouraging racially motivated “white flight.”

Linmark Associates, Inc., and William Mellman v. The Township of Willingboro and Gerald Daly · filed 1976-04-28(e)

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits the mere attempt to encourage "white flight." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(e).

Section 3604(e)’s prohibition on profit-driven blockbusting is within Congress’s Thirteenth Amendment authority and does not violate the First Amendment.

United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc. · filed 1973-03-16(e)

We find that § 3604(e) falls within the constitutional authority of Congress to enact legislation to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment and that § 3604(e) does not violate the First Amendment.

Section 3604(c) prohibits anyone, including newspapers, from making, printing, publishing, or causing publication of housing advertisements indicating a racial preference, limitation, or discrimination, including an advertisement describing an apartment as being in a “white home.”

United States v. Bill R. Hunter, D/B/A the Courier · filed 1972-04-27(c)

Hunter first takes the position that § 3604(c) was not intended to prevent newspapers from publishing classified advertisements indicating a racial or other statutorily proscribed preference in the sale or rental of a dwelling. We reject this assertion, for we find Congress clearly intended that very prohibition. ... The section provides it shall be unlawful “to make, print, publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published” any advertisement prohibited by the Act. In the context of classified real estate advertising, landlords and brokers “cause” advertisements to be printed or published and generally newspapers “print” and “publish” them. Since each phrase in a statute must, if possible, be given effect, United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-539, 75 S.Ct. 513, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955), both landlords and newspapers are within the section’s reach.

Section 3604(a) prohibits denying or making unavailable a dwelling because of race, including through race-based conduct by a housing intermediary.

Harrison v. Otto G. Heinzeroth Mortgage Co. · filed 1977-03-04(a)

In his telephone call to the defendant Company, the plaintiff talked with a person who identified himself as the defendant Haugh (hereafter Haugh). The plaintiff says that after he told what he wanted in the way of financing, Haugh asked where the house was, and when the plaintiff told him, Haugh said that was a bad area, as it was transitional from white to black. Because of the racial problems there, the only conventional financing available was with a fifty percent down payment. Haugh said that if the plaintiff would look for property elsewhere, he would probably be able to get the financing he wanted. ... It is clear that the actions of Haugh that are found by the Court to have taken place violate the provisions of Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), 3604(c), 3605, and 3617.

Section 3604(c) makes landlords liable when they use their control over rental property to express a discriminatory intent that is coupled with a race-based refusal to rent.

Stewart v. Furton · filed 1985-10-08(c)

Given these conclusions, the District Court's conclusion as a matter of law that the Furtons exercised no control over Crosson's rental decision is error. As landlords, the Furtons had actual control over the rental of Crosson's trailer. In the specific context of that rental, the Furtons expressed an intention to exercise their control in a discriminatory way. Their control of the premises together with their statement of intention, coupled with the subsequent race-conscious refusal to rent, is part of one chain of events that renders the Furtons liable for damages under Sec. 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(b) prohibits denying sewer services because of race when that denial interferes with efforts to provide racially integrated housing.

McCauley v. City of Jacksonville, N.C. · filed 1987-09-08(b)

His complaint sufficiently alleges he has offered to provide racially integrated housing, the city has denied him sewer services because of race in violation of Sec. 3604(b) and interfered in violation of Sec. 3617 with his aiding and encouraging prospective minority tenants to rent the housing that he proposes.

Section 3604(a) prohibits conduct that directly affects the availability of housing to minorities, but discriminatory effect alone is not automatically unlawful; the court applies a four-factor analysis to determine when a discriminatory-impact action violates the statute.

Burrell v. City of Kankakee · filed 1987-04-06(a)

Under this four part analysis the evidence does not support a violation of Section 3604(a).

Section 3604(c) prohibits housing advertising that, to an ordinary reader, naturally indicates a racial preference; proof that the advertiser intended to express the preference is unnecessary.

Saunders v. General Services Corp. · filed 1987-05-12(c)

In order to prove a violation of this subsection, plaintiffs need not establish that defendants intended to express a racial preference.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise denying housing because of race, while § 3604(c) prohibits advertisements indicating a racial preference or intent to make one; an advertisement does not violate § 3604(c) merely because it omits models of a particular race absent intent or other extrinsic circumstances revealing such a preference.

Spann v. Colonial Village Inc. · filed 1987-05-22(a) and (c)

The Court holds, therefore, that absent a showing of intent to indicate a racial preference or of other extrinsic circumstances revelatory of a racial preference, real estate advertisements do not violate the Fair Housing Act merely because models of a particular race are not used in one ad or a series of ads.

Section 3604(c) bars publishing housing advertisements indicating a racial preference, limitation, or discrimination; an allegation that defendants used only white models adequately states a § 3604(c) claim.

Ragin v. Steiner, Clateman and Associates, Inc. · filed 1989-06-20(a) and (c)

We believe that the complaint adequately states a claim under § 3604(c).

Section 3604(c) prohibits housing advertisements that indicate a racial preference, but a mere racial imbalance or absence of models is insufficient without an obvious discriminatory message or extrinsic evidence of discriminatory intent.

Housing Opportunities Made Equal v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc. · filed 1990-02-19(c)

It is clear from the case law interpreting Section 3604(c) that a violation is not triggered merely because models of a particular race were not used in one advertisement or in a series of advertisements. ... The kinds of advertising Congress intended to prohibit through the enactment of Section 3604(c) fall into two categories: (1) advertisements which communicate in an obvious and undeniable way a discriminatory preference; or (2) advertisements rendered discriminatory through the proof of extrinsic circumstances which demonstrate a discriminatory intent.

Section 3604(c) prohibits housing advertisements that suggest to an ordinary reader that a particular race is preferred or dispreferred; discriminatory intent need not be shown.

Fenwick-Schafer v. Sterling Homes Corp. · filed 1991-04-01(c)

Section 3604(c) makes it unlawful to publish or cause to be published any housing advertisement which indicates a preference or discrimination based on race. ... Thus, § 3604(c) is violated “if an ad for housing suggests to an ordinary reader that a particular race is preferred or dispreferred for the housing in question.” ... Plaintiffs need not show that defendants had a discriminatory intent although this evidence may lend additional support to plaintiffs’ case; it is the suggestion contained in the ad itself which is the key.

Section 3604(c) prohibits publishing housing advertisements that indicate a racial preference or limitation.

Spann v. Carley Capital Group · filed 1989-09-08(c)

Clearly, then, the subject matter of the lawsuit is covered by the statute.

Section 3604(c) prohibits making, printing, publishing, or causing an advertisement about selling or renting a dwelling that indicates a racial preference, limitation, discrimination, or intent to do so.

Ragin v. Harry MacKlowe Real Estate Co., Inc. · filed 1992-08-25(c)

Given this pattern, an ordinary reader who had viewed the pre-Limitations Period Ads as frequently as did the Plaintiffs would naturally infer from these ads, the single-model Limitations Period Ads and the post-Limitations Period ads that white individuals were preferred as tenants at Riverterrace and Riverbank West. ... I therefore conclude that the Plaintiffs have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendants violated § 3604(c).

Section 3604(c) does not require proof of discriminatory intent when an advertisement would discourage an ordinary reader from answering it.

Tyus v. Urban Search Management · filed 1997-01-06(c)

The plaintiffs need not show that the defendants hád a discriminatory intent.

An ambiguous housing advertisement requires evidence of the author's intent before it establishes discrimination under the § 3604(c) standard.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Harlett · filed 1999-02-26(c)

Therefore, since the advertisement was not clearly discriminatory on its face, it was proper to consider evidence presented as to the author’s intent.

Section 3604 prohibits discriminatory housing notices and representations about availability or preferences, but does not prohibit truthfully disclosing that someone else is attempting unlawful discrimination.

Staff of the Idaho Real Estate Commission v. Nordling · filed 2001-03-29(c), (d), and (e)

Contrary to Nordling’s position, these provisions do not establish a blanket prohibition against disclosure of the Invalid Rule.

Section 3604(c) bars making, printing, or publishing a housing notice that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected class, and its causation language reaches causing particular discriminatory content rather than merely providing a forum.

Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. · filed 2008-03-14(c)

Causation in a statute such as § 3604(c) must refer to causing a particular statement to be made, or perhaps the discriminatory content of a statement.

Section 3604(a) bars facially discriminatory housing restrictions unless they further a legitimate, bona fide governmental interest in theory and practice and no less-discriminatory alternative would serve that interest.

Sierra v. City of New York · filed 2008-10-01(a)

The Court held that it must apply a “heightened level of scrutiny,” upholding such a provision only where it “ ‘further[s], in theory and in practice, a legitimate, bona fide governmental interest and that no alternative would serve that interest with less discriminatory effect.’ ” ... In sum, the Court concludes that the City has carried its burden of demonstrating that HMC section 27-7076(b) furthers, in theory and in practice, legitimate government interests in the health, safety and welfare of children that cannot be achieved through other alternatives, and that HMC section 27-2076(b) does not violate the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(c) applies to discriminatory notices, statements, or advertisements concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, and does not apply to advertising by defendants not engaged in selling or renting homes.

Davis v. Fenton · filed 2014-02-07(c)

Because Defendants were not engaged in the business of selling or renting homes, Plaintiffs claim under section 3604(c) is also misguided.

Section 3604(a) prohibits sex discrimination in housing, and a violation may be shown by discriminatory intent or by disparate impact or effect.

Linkletter v. Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc. · filed 2017-03-23(a)

But a violation of the Fair Housing Act can be shown either by proof of discriminatory animus or by proof of disparate impact or effect.

Section 3604(c) prohibits discriminatory housing advertisements, and a plaintiff challenging advertisements based solely on reading them must allege personal injury, including psychic injury or substantial insult or distress.

Newkirk v. Douglas Elliman, Inc. · filed 2024-12-12(c)

When a plaintiff brings a § 3604(c) claim based purely on reading discriminatory advertisements, the plaintiff must “allege some form of personal injury, including psychic injury or substantial insult or distress.” ... Here, Newkirk does not claim that she suffered any injury from reading the allegedly discriminatory advertisements, only arguing that the advertisements demonstrate that Defendants’ policy of discrimination against voucher holders was ongoing. (See FAC ¶ 303.) Therefore, the purportedly discriminatory advertisements, standing alone, cannot sustain an FHA claim, although they were published within the statute of limitations period.

Section 3604(c) permits a person who reads a discriminatory housing advertisement to sue only if the person alleges a personal injury, such as psychic injury or substantial insult or distress.

McDermott v. NEW YORK METRO LLC · filed 2009-09-16(c)

Given the Second Circuit’s limited treatment of standing under section 804(c), this Court concludes that a person who reads a discriminatory advertisement has standing to sue only if they allege some form of personal injury, including psychic injury or substantial insult or distress.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race- or national-origin-based discrimination in housing terms and conditions and supports a hostile-housing-environment claim only when harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive and tied to a protected characteristic; § 3604(c) prohibits housing notices or advertisements indicating a prohibited preference, limitation, or discrimination.

Ngiendo v. Pep-KU, LLC · filed 2019-07-30(b), (c)

These sections have been interpreted to prohibit discriminatory harassment that unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of a home, i.e., a hostile housing environment. ... The court finds that plaintiff has not alleged facts in the amended complaint which plausibly demonstrate that plaintiff’s living conditions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive environment; that the alleged harassment was based upon plaintiff’s race; or that PEP-KU knew or should have known about the harassment. ... Here, plaintiff’s allegations are too vague to describe a plausible claim for a violation of § 3604(c).

A Section 3604(c) claim based on a website’s publication of discriminatory housing notices supplied by users is barred when Section 230(c)(1) prevents treating the website as their publisher.

Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. · filed 2006-11-14(c)

Because to hold Craigslist liable under Section 3604(c) would be to treat Craig-slist as if it were the publisher of third-party content, the plain language of Section 230(c)(1) forecloses CLC’s cause of action.

Section 3604(a) prohibits a municipality that undertakes housing construction from proceeding discriminatorily, even though it has no general duty to construct subsidized housing.

United States v. Yonkers Board of Education · filed 1987-12-28(a)

This does not mean that we would have reached the same conclusion in the face of findings that there had been discriminatory impact and discriminatory intent, for the absence of a general obligation to construct does not give the municipality license to proceed discriminatorily once it has started down the road to construction.

Section 3604(a) requires a plaintiff challenging a discriminatory housing permit denial to establish a prima facie case, including qualification for the permit and approval of a comparable applicant.

Pina v. TOWN OF PLYMPTON · filed 2007-10-31(a)

As Pina is unable to meet all of the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or disparate treatment, this Court finds that summary judgement in favor of Plympton on the basis of her FHA claim of discriminatory intent is appropriate.

Section 3604(c) prohibits housing advertisements that indicate a national-origin preference or an intent to make one, including ads seeking buyers or tenants who speak a particular language.

Holmgren v. Little Village Community Reporter · filed 1971-01-14(c)

It is significant that § 3604(c) makes it unlawful not only to print an ad which indicates a preference based on national origin, but also an ad which indicates “an intention to make any such preference.” ... Thus, the ads which indicate a preference for a purchaser or a tenant who speaks a particular language are unlawful under § 3604(e).

Section 3604(c) reaches rental advertisements that suggest to an ordinary reader a preference against families with children.

Guider v. Bauer · filed 1994-10-04(c)

Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the language of the advertisement is not facially nondiscriminatory as a matter of law. The inference that the Bauers would not rent to families with children can be drawn from the clearly expressed preference for a single individual or couple.

Section 3604(c) can reach housing advertisements with so few Black models that they indicate a racial preference; it requires neither total exclusion nor exact racial proportions.

Ragin v. the New York Times Co. · filed 1989-12-18(c)

Between the polar extremes of total exclusion, and strict proportionalism according to population percentages, the proof at trial may show sufficient numbers of black models to achieve fair representation; or such a paucity of black models as to constitute “tokenism.” The factfinder could, in my judgment, lawfully conclude that proof of the former does not violate the FHA; but that proof of the latter does offend a statute prohibiting advertisements which indicate a racial preference.

Section 3604(c) reaches racial preferences conveyed through human models in housing advertisements.

Luther M. Ragin, Jr., Deborah Fish Ragin, Renaye B. Cuyler, Jerome F. Cuyler and Open Housing Center, Inc. v. The New Yo · filed 1991-01-23(c)

A threshold question is whether Section 3604(c) reaches the use of models as a medium for the expression of a racial preference. We hold that it does.

Section 3604(c) does not make a single housing advertisement using a small number of all-white models actionable without more; the complaint must allege that the advertiser had an opportunity to include models of a protected group.

Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., a Division of Gannett Co., Inc. · filed 1991-09-05(c)

We conclude that a complaint alleging a violation of section 3604(c) based on the single publication of an advertisement which uses a small number of all-white models does not, without more, state a cognizable claim under section 3604(c) as a matter of law. The complaint must allege that an advertiser had the opportunity, based upon either the large number of models used in an advertisement or the numerous advertisements placed by an advertiser with a particular publisher, to include models of a protected group.

Section 3604(c) prohibits distributing rental notices that indicate a preference against families with children, regardless of the landlord’s intent.

Blomgren v. Ogle · filed 1993-07-13(c)

Under either of these standards, as a matter of law, distribution of both the original “no children” provision and the September 1992 “no children” revision were violations of § 3604(c).

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race; a plausible claim must allege facts showing the plaintiffs were qualified to rent and identifying what the defendants did to deny the housing or subsidy.

Sanders v. Grenadier Realty, Inc. · filed 2010-02-22(a)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent . . . or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), or “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of race,” id. § 3604(b). ... The complaint fails adequately to plead that plaintiffs “were qualified to rent or purchase the housing.” Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir. 2003). ... Because plaintiffs have not alleged satisfaction of this requirement for the year at issue, we cannot conclude that the complaint plausibly alleges plaintiffs’ entitlement to the subsidies that qualify them to pay their rent. In light of this omission and plaintiffs’ failure to allege what defendants did or did not do to deny them subsidies, we identify no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ FHA claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to rent a dwelling after a bona fide offer, or otherwise making it unavailable or denying it because of race; race need only be a factor in the refusal.

Williamson v. Hampton Management Company · filed 1972-03-27(a)

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)) makes it unlawful “To refuse to . rent after the making of a bona fide offer, . or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Race need not be the sole reason for the decision to refuse if it is an element in that decision. Smith v. Adler Realty Co., 436 F.2d 344, 349-350 (7th Cir. 1971). Finally, a white plaintiff upon whom a discrimination against black persons has an impact may bring an action under the statute. Walker v. Pointer, 304 F.Supp. 56 (N.D.Tex.1969).

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to negotiate for a dwelling's sale or otherwise making it unavailable or denying it because of race, and does not require a home seeker to list an existing home for sale first.

Fred Donald Johnson, and Sandra Johnson, His Wife v. Jerry Pals Real Estate, and Erv Jurinek · filed 1973-09-13(a)

They no longer champion this ground, and we certainly know of no such requirement before an action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 3604. It is significant that even defendants exacted no such requirement from the plaintiffs or Shapiros. Since it is undisputed that plaintiffs were actual home seekers, it was erroneous as a matter of law for the district court to rest its decision on the fact that they had not placed their current home on the market before seeking a new residence. ... 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) makes it unlawful to “refuse to negotiate for the sale * * * or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion or national origin.”

Section 3604 prohibits refusing to show or rent an apartment because of racial discrimination.

Fort v. White · filed 1974-10-25(a)

In the instant case the plaintiffs have claimed refusals to show or rent apartments based upon racial discrimination; these claims allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (1970); violations of § 3604 are explicitly made actionable under § 3612.

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to refuse to sell a dwelling after a bona fide offer because of race.

Crumble v. Blumthal · filed 1977-02-09(a)

In our view, the findings were not clearly erroneous. Under the circumstances it is reasonable to find that the sellers' decision not to pay the real estate commission to the brokers, as provided in both the real estate sales contract and the escrow agreement, caused the transaction to be terminated. There was testimony that at the time when the house was first listed for sale the sellers indicated that they preferred not to sell to black buyers. Still later, the sellers again voiced displeasure at the conduct of the brokers in securing black buyers. Finally, it was after the problem of the earnest money check had been resolved and negotiations between the attorneys were reopened, that the sellers must have instructed their attorney to remove the escrow agreement and terminate the transaction. As analyzed by the district court, the sellers, who were in Florida, had begun to suspect that the buyers were black before they first raised objections to paying the commission as required by the contract, and they had admittedly learned the race of the buyers before the escrow was withdrawn.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to negotiate for or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race, including discouraging prospective buyers from inspecting it.

Bradley v. John M. Brabham Agency, Inc. · filed 1978-06-23(a)

The efforts by Mr. Pate, an agent of the defendant, to discourage plaintiffs from inspecting the dwelling in question were made because of plaintiffs’ race and were in direct violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), since such actions amounted to a refusal to negotiate because of race.

Section 3604 makes it unlawful for an owner to refuse to rent an apartment because of race.

Warner v. Perrino · filed 1978-10-10

Section 3604 makes it unlawful for an owner to refuse to rent an apartment on grounds of race.

Section 3604(a) makes a race-based refusal to change zoning unlawful when it makes a dwelling unavailable to the affected person.

Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., Northwest Opportunity Center and Eluteria D. Maldonado, Intervening v. Village o · filed 1977-08-25(a)

The ultimate question is whether the refusal of the zoning change made a dwelling unavailable to plaintiff Ransom (and others) because of race. If it did, the refusal was unlawful under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604(a) can be violated when a housing provider's actions have a discriminatory effect in making housing unavailable or denying housing, even without direct proof of discriminatory intent, unless the discriminatory results are justified.

Resident Advisory Board v. Rizzo · filed 1977-08-31(a)

What we do decide is that plaintiffs have established a prima facie Title VIII case under § 3604(a) against PHA and RDA by proving that the agencies' acts had a discriminatory effect and that the agencies have failed to justify the discriminatory results of their actions.

Section 3604(a) prohibits race-based conduct that makes a dwelling unavailable, even if the prospective renter never submits a formal application or makes an overt attempt to rent.

Reeves R. Taylor and Wife, Gloria Beaubien Taylor v. Fletcher Properties, Inc. · filed 1979-03-29(a)

Counsel correctly argued that the defendants could make an apartment unavailable in ways that would preclude plaintiffs from making any overt attempt to rent. ... Of course, counsel’s assertion was correct: a negative answer to the first interrogatory was not dispositive of the case, though it is scarcely a fatal objection to a special interrogatory that it does not incorporate all grounds of recovery.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race, color, religion, or national origin, and a pattern or practice can include discriminatory omissions or failure to eliminate a policy preventing fair housing.

United States v. City of Parma, Ohio · filed 1980-06-05(a)

The rights granted by the Act which the government claims Parma has resisted or denied are specified in two separate sections: Sections 804(a) and 817, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3617. ... To demonstrate a pattern or practice of resistance to the enjoyment of the rights secured by Sections 804(a) and 817, the government must prove more than an isolated incident of unlawful discrimination. ... The unlawful discrimination, in other words, must have been a regular procedure followed by the defendant. ... The existence of a discriminatory policy, statute, or ordinance is itself a discriminatory pattern or practice. ... Additionally, the failure to eliminate a policy which prevents fair housing violates the Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to rent or negotiate for a dwelling, or otherwise making it unavailable or denying it, because of race.

Davis v. Mansards · filed 1984-11-14(a)

Defendant Patrice Burke, an agent of defendants Lauerman and The Mansards corporation, misrepresented to plaintiffs Glindolyn and Cecil Johnson the availability of apartments, and refused to let them fill out an application or place a deposit for an apartment, because of the Johnsons’ race. This conduct directly violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (b) and (d), because it amounted to a refusal to negotiate a rental, and an effort to make unavailable a dwelling because of race; because it discriminated in the terms and conditions of rental of a dwelling because of race; and because it amounted to a representation because of race that an available apartment was not available.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or negotiate for a dwelling after a bona fide offer, or otherwise making it unavailable, because of race or another protected characteristic; the court applied that rule to a racially motivated refusal to sell vacant residential land.

McHaney v. Spears · filed 1981-11-20(a)

The Court finds from all of the credible evidence in the record and concludes that plaintiffs have proved, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants did reject and refused to accept their offer to purchase Lot 20 because they are black persons in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and 42 U.S.C., § 1982.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or negotiate for a dwelling, or otherwise making it unavailable, because of race.

Hobson v. George Humphreys, Inc. · filed 1982-12-06(a)

Finally, plaintiffs’ offer was rejected, and the opportunity to purchase the vacant condominium remained open.

Section 3604(a) covers a landlord's refusal to let a prospective tenant sign a lease and return the required checks when the refusal is racially discriminatory.

Portee v. Hastava · filed 1994-06-14(a)

The gravamen of the Portees’ complaint is that Mr. Vajda’s refusal to allow Mr. Portee to sign the lease for the Premises, coupled with his refusal to return the checks, constituted a statutory refusal in violation of this section. Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the jury was entitled to draw this conclusion.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, or otherwise making unavailable or denying, a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Kloth v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. · filed 1998-09-22(a)

It is unlawful under the Act “to refuse to sell or rent ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). The Court has reviewed the other statutory provisions defining “prohibited practices” and finds them all inapplicable to defendant. Thus, the motion to dismiss plaintiffs Fair Housing Act claim is GRANTED as a matter of law.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to negotiate for or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race or color, including a trailer pad.

Walker v. Todd Village, LLC · filed 2006-03-13(a)

that the evidence in the summary judgment record, even viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a claim under the FHA and, independently, that the facts are insufficient to sustain a claim for punitive damages under the FHA.

Section 3604(a) makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent to individuals because of their religion.

OT, LLC v. Harford County Maryland · filed 2019-10-24(a)

The FHA makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent to individuals because of their religion, see 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), and to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s enjoyment of housing rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 3617. ... Here, by contrast, the Delegates are not alleged to have made housing available in any capacity. Instead, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the Delegates conspired with Harford County officials to derail the Old Trails housing project entirely.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a person because of race; allegations that a landlord returned white testers’ calls but not black testers’ calls adequately plead such a violation.

Project Sentinel v. Komar · filed 2021-04-12(a)

Thus, in this case, Plaintiff may adequately allege an FHA violation by alleging that: (1) it is an aggrieved person, Gillian, 108 F.3d at 250, and (2) it was subject to a discriminatory housing practice, id., by (a) “mak[ing] unavailable” (b) “a dwelling,” (c) “because of race,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Here, Plaintiff is an aggrieved person for the same reasons it has standing. It alleges Defendants made the Property unavailable by refusing to return black testers’ calls. The Property, which Plaintiff alleges is a “three-unit residential rental property,” (ECF No. 1 at 2), is a “dwelling” under the FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b) (“ ‘Dwelling’ means any building … which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families … .”). Plaintiff alleges that Sarah Komar returned white testers’ callers, but not black testers’ callers and, hence, the dwelling was made unavailable because of race. Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a claim for discrimination under the FHA.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of a protected characteristic; the characteristic need only be a significant factor, not the sole reason.

Burnside v. Monarch Real Estate Crop · filed 2023-05-16(a)

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. ... It is no defense under Section 1982 or under the Fair Housing Act that racial animus was not a defendant's sole reason for denial of housing. Plaintiff need only prove that race was one significant factor in defendant's dealings with them in order to establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race or another protected characteristic.

Hinton v. Cochise, County of · filed 2025-06-13(a)

As relevant here, the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). The County Defendants argue that Plaintiffs make “no plausible allegation any Cochise County Defendant refused to sell or rent a dwelling after making a bona fide offer, or refused to negotiate for the sale or rental of a property, or make it unavailable or deny access, due to race.” (Doc. 108 at 11–12.) The Court agrees. Plaintiffs allege vaguely that “racial epithets were directed” at them on December 1. While that is reprehensible, it does not support the inference that the County Defendants, who are not alleged to have had any authority to sell or rent the property, engaged in housing discrimination based on Plaintiffs’ race. Thus, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race.

Moffett · filed 2025-10-22(a)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... Plaintiff states his belief that Defendants have engaged in race-based discrimination against him generally but does not plead any facts to support this assertion, nor does he allege facts to support an inference that he was discriminated against in one of the ways specifically prohibited by the FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604(b) bars race-based discrimination in the terms and conditions of renting a dwelling, and § 3604(c) bars statements indicating a racial preference or intent to discriminate in renting.

United States v. Gilman · filed 1972-03-22(b), (c)

(a) Defendants discriminated in the rental of housing under the JONES CLAIM by discriminating against blacks as to the terms and conditions of rental in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); ... (b) - Defendants discriminated in the rental of housing under the OPPENHEIMER CLAIM by making statements indicating their preference to rent apartments to white persons and in their intention to discriminate against black persons in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in covered housing because of race, color, religion, or national origin, but it does not authorize rent strikes or preclude state regulation of landlord-tenant relationships.

Housing Authority of Newark v. Henry · filed 1971-11-18(b)

Rent strikes are not sanctioned by 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and the general nature and broad scope of the statute cannot be said to preclude all state regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship.

Section 3604(c) applies to anyone who makes, prints, or publishes a notice or statement indicating a racial preference concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, including a government recorder publishing racially restrictive covenants.

Mayers v. Ridley · filed 1972-06-30(c)

Thus a careful textual examination of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(c) makes clear that the Recorder's activity falls within its ambit.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling; the court held that the landlord did not violate that rule because the plaintiffs failed to show racially discriminatory treatment.

Wainwright v. Allen · filed 1978-12-05(b)

Sections 1982 and 3604 are clear on their face and do not admit of technical legal arguments as to what action they prohibit. Thus, the ultimate issue in this case is a factual question: Did Earl Allen discriminate against the Wainwrights in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of the house because they are black? I find that he did not.

Section 3604(b) prohibits sex discrimination in the terms or conditions of a housing rental, but does not prohibit a landlord from considering the combined income of both spouses when evaluating an application.

Normal v. St. Louis Concrete Pipe Co. · filed 1978-02-15(b)

Plaintiffs' theory is that defendants' alleged refusal constitutes sex discrimination violative of Section 804(b) of Title VIII (42 U.S.C. Section 3604(b) ) in that had the income of the husband alone been sufficient, the application would have been acceptable. The difficulty with this contention is that it is not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. It is also inconsistent with the fact that defendants sought to verify the employment and salary of both spouses. We find that defendants were not guilty of sex discrimination in any respect. To the contrary, it was the consistent policy of defendants to take into consideration the combined income of both spouses.

Section 3604(b) prohibits housing discrimination based on listed protected classes, but an English-only policy applied uniformly to all non-English-speaking tenants does not show a distinct national-origin impact.

Vialez v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 1991-06-18(b)

All non-English speaking people are equally affected by English-only forms. There is no distinct impact on those of Hispanic origin.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination based on national origin in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in providing related services or facilities, and such allegations can sufficiently state a claim.

United States v. Sea Winds of Marco, Inc. · filed 1995-07-07(b)

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith.” Taking the Plaintiffs allegations as true, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a valid claim under § 3604(b), pursuant to Rule 8(a), on behalf of all aggrieved persons named in the complaint.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of handicap, and a failure-to-accommodate claim requires a causal link between the challenged policy and the plaintiff’s injury.

Geter v. Horning Brothers Management · filed 2008-03-24(f)(2)

The FHA makes it unlawful “to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of [the person’s] handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... To prevail on the claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate “a causal link between defendants’ policy and the plaintiffs injury.” ... Plaintiff therefore has not established a causal link between his disability and an inability to pay the amount of rent required by the lease. ... Because plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite causation, he cannot prevail on his FHA claim.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discriminatory interference with the privileges of renting a dwelling, including eviction-related intrusion and the provision of related services or facilities.

Dickinson v. Zanesville Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2013-09-30(b)

Ultimately, ZMHA began procedures to evict Plaintiffs from their apartment, the very essence of intrusion into the “privileges of ... rental of a dwelling,” as well as the “provision of services or facilities” in connection with a rental, under § 3604(b).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, because of race or another protected characteristic.

Downs v. Red Brick Management, LLC · filed 2020-07-28(b)

Plaintiff's claim in Ground Two, that the Defendants violated the FHA by filing a police report related to stolen televisions and targeted her because she is a Black woman, is not conduct that falls within the scope of the FHA, as it does not relate to any “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

Section 3604(b) prohibits sex discrimination in the terms and conditions of renting a dwelling, while § 3604(c) prohibits sex-discriminatory notices, statements, or advertisements related to its rental.

Torres v. Rothstein · filed 2020-12-26(b) and (c)

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on sex in the terms and conditions of the rental of a dwelling and in the making of discriminatory statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b)-(c). ... The material factual disputes therefore preclude summary judgment for the 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) claim and the parallel FHL claim. ... The FHA makes it unlawful to “make, print, or publish . . . any notice, statement or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination” based on sex. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). ... The factual disputes identified in the previous sections preclude summary judgment here. ... I therefore deny summary judgment of the FHA and FHL claims on this basis.

Section 3604(b) and (f)(2) do not require a landlord to police private tenant events it does not control, while section 3604(c) reaches oral statements by a rental manager that a reasonable juror could view as expressing a preference against a handicapped tenant.

Haynes v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware · filed 2010-06-22(b), (f)(2), (c)

Haynes utterly fails to present evidence of the defendant’s control over the Neighborhood Association’s pool tournaments and bingo nights. ... Although an expansive statute, the FHA fails to create a federal claim requiring a landlord to intervene each time a tenant excludes his neighbor from a private dinner party, pool tournament, or bingo night. ... A reasonable juror could conclude that Sanchez, while serving as the manager of Rice Creek, uttered a statement “indicating a preference” against a handicapped tenant who required assistance to enter the Rice Creek leasing office. ... Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to the FHA claim arising from Sanchez’s alleged tirade.