42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(b) prohibits race discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of property insurance connected with a dwelling, including discriminatory renewal practices.

Lindsey v. Allstate Insurance · filed 1999-01-13(b)

Although this section of the FHA does not explicitly indicate that the statute was intended to govern the practices of property insurers, the provision of property insurance can be reasonably interpreted as the “provision of services or facilities in connection” with the sale or rental of a dwelling. ... Discrimination by insurers in the renewal of property insurance policies poses as substantial a threat to fair housing as discrimination by insurers in providing property insurance to those seeking to purchase a home. It would seem odd to construe a statute purporting to promote fair housing as prohibiting discrimination in providing property insurance to those seeking a home, but allowing that same discrimination so long as it takes place in the context of renewing those very same insurance policies. ... Accordingly, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a FHA violation to survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Section 3604 reaches discriminatory provision of property insurance, including claims handling that makes housing unavailable or provides insurance on unequal terms.

Burrell v. State Farm & Casualty Co. · filed 2002-09-03(a), (b)

Although § 3604 does not specifically mention the provision of insurance, a number of courts have found that § 3604 applies to insurance companies that engage in so-called “redlining” — or the arbitrary refusal to underwrite risks relating to property insurance on the basis of race or relating to people in certain geographical locations based on race, or the failure to provide insurance to such persons on equal terms and conditions due to race. ... HUD’s interpretation of § 3604 as covering discrimination in the provision of insurance is not unreasonable; hence, this interpretation is entitled to controlling weight. ... In this case, the plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim against State Farm for violation of the FHA. ... Such conduct is actionable under the FHA, a conclusion that is consistent with HUD regulations as well as the Supreme Court’s instruction that the provisions of the FHA be given a “generous construction.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in housing rules when necessary to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; adding a fourth resident to these group homes satisfied that requirement.

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES OF NE v. City of Lincoln · filed 2007-05-02(f)(3)(B)

In the housing context, a “reasonable accommodation” is one that is “necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” ... I conclude that the plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that the accommodation at issue is “reasonable and necessary to provide them with an equal opportunity to enjoy housing in a residential community” of their choice. ... I conclude that the DSN’s proposed accommodation of adding a fourth resident to its group homes at 416, 418, and 424 North Coddington Avenue; 5516 Hunts Drive; 1661 Timber Ridge Road; and 2440 Southwest 18th Street in Lincoln, Nebraska, is both necessary to ameliorate its clients’ disabilities and reasonable because — by the City’s own admission — the accommodation will neither fundamentally alter the City of Lincoln’s zoning scheme, nor cause the City undue financial or administrative burdens. Thus, the City’s failure to grant DSN’s proposed accommodation constituted an act of discrimination within the meaning of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and -judgment should be entered in favor of DSN and against the City of Lincoln.

Section 3604(b) supports an exploitation theory when racial segregation creates a dual housing market and defendants demand unreasonable prices or terms above those available to white buyers for comparable housing.

Honorable v. Easy Life Real Estate System, Inc. · filed 1998-09-29(b)

To allege an exploitation theory, the plaintiffs must claim that as a result of racial residential segregation, a dual housing market exists and the defendants have taken advantage of the situation by demanding unreasonable prices and terms in excess of prices and terms available to white citizens for comparable housing.

Section 3604(b) permits a discriminatory exploitation claim without proof of market share based market power if the plaintiff shows another credible mechanism for charging minority homebuyers above market prices.

Honorable v. Easy Life Real Estate System · filed 2000-06-15(b)

The Seventh Circuit does not make market power necessary for exploitation liability, as is shown by the explanatory qualification at 706 F.2d at 212 n. 8, cited by the defendants themselves. Market power based in market share is just one way to show the mechanism by which the exploitation occurs. A plaintiff may show others.

Section 3604(f)(1) permits a seller who suffers actual injury from discriminatory interference with a housing sale to sue under the Fair Housing Act.

San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles · filed 1998-11-06(f)(1)

Thus, to establish standing under the Act, all the Fentises need show is that the City interfered with the housing rights of the mentally ill and that, as a result, the Fentises suffered an actual injury.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires accommodations that reduce, rather than increase, burdens imposed on disabled persons seeking equal housing opportunity.

Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington · filed 1999-02-03(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

A reasonable accommodation would lessen, not increase, the requirements imposed on the disabled.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of handicap, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations to rules or practices when necessary to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department · filed 2003-12-15(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHAA 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." ... Under the FHAA and the ADA, 7 a governmental entity engages in a discriminatory practice if it refuses to make a "reasonable accommodation" to "rules, policies, practices or services when such accommodation may be necessary to afford [a handicapped person] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."

Section 3604(f)(1) bars making a dwelling unavailable because of handicap, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.

Taylor v. Harbour Pointe Homeowners Ass’n · filed 2012-08-02(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The statute requires “that covered entities make reasonable accommodations in order to provide qualified individuals with an equal opportunity to receive benefits from or to participate in programs run by such entities.” Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 45 (2d Cir. 2002). Under the FHA, an entity engages in discrimination if it refuses to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a handicapped person] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The statute requires “that changes be made to such traditional rules or practices if necessary to permit a person with handicaps an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328, 333 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 25 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2186). A defendant must incur reasonable costs and take modest, affirmative steps to accommodate the handicapped as long as the accommodations sought “do not pose an undue hardship or a substantial burden.” Id. at 335.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability-based discrimination in housing, including refusal of a reasonable accommodation, and a violation occurs when the accommodation is first denied regardless of later remedies.

United States v. Menendez · filed 2023-09-28(f)(2)

Under FHA, it is “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’ on the basis of that person's handicap.” ... Disability discrimination may include the refusal to make reasonable accommodations to policies as necessary to afford a person with disabilities the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. ... Yet, under the FHA “a violation occurs when the disabled resident is first denied a reasonable accommodation, irrespective of the remedies granted in subsequent proceedings.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) prohibits refusing, at the disabled person's expense, a reasonable property modification that may be necessary for full enjoyment of the premises; a claimant must adequately allege disability, the defendant's knowledge, necessity, reasonableness, a qualifying request, and refusal.

Bock v. Brentwood Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2024-08-30(f)(3)(A)

The FHA defines discrimination to include, among other things, “a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A). ... Courts evaluating reasonable modification claims use the same analytical framework used to evaluate reasonable accommodation claims under the FHA. ... Accordingly, to state a claim for failure to permit reasonable modification, the plaintiffs must allege: (1) they suffer from a handicap as defined by the FHA; (2) that the Association knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiffs’ handicap; (3) that modification to the premises may be necessary to afford the plaintiffs an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling; (4) that the modification is reasonable; and (5) the Association refused to permit the requested modification. ... There are no specific requirements an individual must comply with when requesting a reasonable modification. ... Rather “the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make structural change because of a disability.” ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the FHA for failure to permit modification and the Court will dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim.

Section 3604 applies to discriminatory real property assessment policies that affect the fair provision of housing.

Coleman v. Seldin · filed 1999-03-08(a), (b)

This court concludes that the FHA applies to the real property assessment policies, procedures and conditions practiced and imposed by the defendants herein. The court can discern no substantive distinction in the application of the broad national anti-discrimination policy, as embodied in the FHA, between zoning policies and real property assessment policies effecting the fair provision of housing.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a renter’s handicap, and the discrimination inquiry includes evidence through the trial date when the renter has not yet been actually evicted.

Lebanon County Housing Authority v. Landeck · filed 2009-02-27(f)(1)(A)

Federal case law has interpreted this section to mean that in determining whether or not the Authority discriminated against Tenant on the basis of handicap, the trial court should have accepted evidence up until the date of the trial.

Section 3604(f)(1) treats inaccessible new-construction sales as a continuing violation, so the limitations period runs until the last occurrence of the violation.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc. · filed 1999-03-15(f)(1)

As such, the limitations period does not begin to run until the last occurrence of the violations which the Court finds to be the sale of the last inaccessible unit in light of the language in § 3604(f)(1).

Section 3604(f)(2) gives residential providers standing to challenge laws and regulations that discriminate against them because of a resident’s disability.

Grimes v. State Department of Social Services · filed 1999-03-22(f)(2)

The FHAA makes clear that residential providers, such as the Hannas, have standing to challenge the state laws and regulations which discriminate against them “because of a handicap” of the “person residing in or intending to reside” in their home.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Association · filed 2002-12-20(f)(3)(B)

The federal Fair Housing Act imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons. ... A facially neutral requirement that affects disabled and non-disabled individuals alike implicates the reasonable accommodation section of the Act when it prevents a disabled individual from gaining access to proposed housing. ... One example of a reasonable accommodation is to simply not enforce a restrictive covenant that operates to prevent a disabled person from living in a community. ... Indeed, the Act allows the Association to consider each request individually and to grant only those requests that are reasonable.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits handicap discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation when it may be necessary to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge · filed 2013-03-19(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” . 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Thus, the Court finds that the City violated the FHÁ by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) treats failure to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings with accessible common areas, sufficiently wide doors, and specified adaptive-design features as discrimination.

United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc. · filed 2003-01-07(f)(3)(C)

The Court finds Defendants Quality Built, Dansey, and Hite liable for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(ii) and § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii)(I)-(IV). The Court also finds Defendants Quality Built and Dansey liable for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i).

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) imposes design-and-construction accessibility duties on entities involved in that work, not on a subsequent owner that neither designed, constructed, nor altered the dwelling.

Harbour Pointe of Perdido Key Condominium Ass'n v. Henkel · filed 2017-04-13(f)(3)(C)

Because Respondent had nothing to do with the design and construction of the condominium’s lobby doors, the Act’s discrimination in § 3604(f)(3)(C) does not apply to it, or require it to fix the nonconforming doors. The FHA’s terms squarely visit design-and-construction discrimination on entities that discriminate “in connection with the design and construction.” And this court is not at liberty under the statute to turn subsequent property owners into guarantors of noncompli-ant designs and construction. Congress could have done it, but not us.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) permits liability for an entity that wrongfully participates in the design or construction of an inaccessible covered dwelling, without making it liable for another participant’s wrongdoing.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc. · filed 1998-05-06(f)(3)(C)

In essence, any entity who contributes to a violation of the FHAA would be liable. By this, the Court does not suggest that all participants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful actions of others regardless of their participation in the wrongdoing, but rather, that those who are wrongful participants are subject to liability for violating the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats a landlord’s refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination when the accommodations are necessary to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Cobble Hill Apartments Co. v. McLaughlin · filed 1999-06-23(f)(3)(B)

Under the Fair Housing Act, discrimination includes a landlord’s “refusal to make reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. §3604(f) (3) (B).

Section 3604 broadly protects current residents, including owners, from discriminatory interference with maintaining their dwelling, not just people seeking to buy or rent.

Gomes v. Casagmo Condominium Association, Inc., No. 33 19 07 (Jul. 23, 1999) · filed 1999-07-23

This provision not only protects people seeking housing, but also protects people from discrimination while living in their place of residence. ... In the present case, the defendant allegedly harassed the Tropeas by threatening fines and foreclosure of their condominium stemming from complaints made because six additional people live in their unit. Furthermore, the defendant accused the Tropeas of violating the Condominium Association by-laws by having the additional occupants live there, despite the by-laws permitting owners to take in immediate family members. The defendant's actions suggest an attempt to have the Tropeas move out or be CT Page 9586 forced out, which would deny them services and facilities as prohibited under the statute. Taking the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, this court finds sufficient evidence to support a claim of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

Sections 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) apply to discriminatory insurance practices: denying or making housing unavailable, discriminating in connected services, and refusing reasonable accommodations, including by insurers, because of disability.

Wai v. Allstate Insurance · filed 1999-09-30(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B)

This case presents the question whether the refusal to provide standard property insurance at ordinary rates to landlords who rent their homes to disabled persons makes unavailable or denies a dwelling. ... Such powerful disincentives to rent to disabled persons, make housing unavailable to them. ... The court concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Property insurers fit the latter category. ... The court concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... If a dwelling is made unavailable to a person with a disability, that person is denied an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy” the dwelling. If a reasonable accommodation in “rules, policies, practices or services” is necessary to avoid that situation, refusal to provide that accommodation is discrimination under the clear language of the FHA. The obligation reasonably to accommodate the disabled is not limited to landlords. ... The court concludes that plaintiffs have stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(a) covers discriminatory insurance denials that effectively preclude housing ownership and permits suit by any person injured by the discriminatory housing practice, including a nonresident policyholder.

Connectors Realty Group Corporation, The v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company · filed 2024-08-21(a)

“Section 3604 applies to discriminatory denials of insurance . . . that effectively preclude ownership of housing because of the race of the applicant.” ... The plain text of the statute does not require a policy holder who does not reside in an apartment building to bring suit on behalf of protected class members who reside in the apartment building. Rather, it only requires one to have suffered an injury caused by a discriminatory housing practice.

Sections 3604(a)-(c) prohibit race discrimination that makes a dwelling unavailable, changes the terms or services of its sale, or uses discriminatory statements, including when the discrimination targets a person's racial association rather than the home buyer's own race.

United States v. Bankert · filed 2000-03-21(a), (b), (c)

These statutory provisions proscribe discriminatory conduct by developers and home sellers, among others, based on race. There is no indication in the statutory language that the discrimination complained of must be based on the race of the potential home buyer to be actionable. ... Here, such a close causal connection is apparent from plaintiffs allegations. ... Plaintiff has therefore stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... Plaintiff has therefore stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... Plaintiff has therefore set forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in housing transactions because of race, including discrimination against a person because of that person's association with people of a particular race.

H.O.P.E., INC. v. Lake Greenfield Homeowners Association · filed 2018-07-31(b)

Section 3604(b) refers to discrimination “because of race . . . ,” not discrimination because of a plaintiff’s own race, and thus prohibits discrimination against persons because of their association with others of a particular race.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of race, color, or national origin; economic differences alone do not establish discrimination, and the alleged treatment must be tied to a protected characteristic.

Moody v. The Related Companies, L.P. · filed 2022-08-10(a)

As is relevant here, to state a claim for disparate treatment under the FHA, Plaintiffs “must allege they were treated differently from similarly situated persons or groups because of race, color, . . . or national origin.” ... Defendants are correct that the FHA does not provide protections based on economic status, even when economic status has substantial overlap with race. ... Because different outcomes based on wealth do not provide a basis for an FHA claim, Plaintiffs must show “prejudicial treatment of minorities over and above that which is the inevitable result of disparity in income.” Id. They fail to do so here.

Section 3604(b) prohibits a landlord from conditioning white tenants’ rental on their agreement not to receive black guests.

Woods-Drake v. Lundy · filed 1982-02-18(b)

It is evident that when a landlord imposes on white tenants the condition that they may lease his apartment only if they agree not to receive blacks as guests, the landlord has discriminated against the tenants in the “terms, conditions and privileges of rental” on the grounds of “race.” Therefore, the imposition upon white tenants of a rule that they may not receive black guests violates the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604 permits a prospective tenant to obtain relief by proving that a landlord committed one of the statute's unlawful acts in connection with the tenant's attempt to obtain housing; no additional legal-causation showing is required.

Ronald Alexander Faye Alexander Fair Housing Partnership of Greater Pittsburgh, Inc., in No. 98-3597 v.… · filed 2000-03-22(a), (b), (d)

The plain language of the Fair Housing Act thus permits an individual to obtain relief for the discriminatory housing practice or breach. A prospective tenant must prove only that a landlord did one of the unlawful acts listed in section 3604 with respect to the prospective tenant's attempt to obtain housing. If an individual proves discrimination, he or she need not prove anything else.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii) requires multifamily housing bathroom walls to be reinforced for later installation of grab bars.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Lob, Inc. · filed 2000-04-20(f)(3)(C)(iii)

The Court, however, agrees with Melby that the studs do not constitute reinforcement within the meaning of § 3604. ... After reviewing all of the evidence, the Court is satisfied that the existing bathroom walls do not contain reinforcement to allow the later installation of grab bars. Accordingly, the Court finds defendant LOB liable in this regard.

Section 3604(f)(1) reaches discriminatory conduct intended to deny or make housing unavailable even without an actual denial; § 3604(f)(3)(B) imposes liability for failing to make necessary reasonable accommodations, while § 3604(f)(2) does not cover police and regulatory harassment unrelated to rental terms or housing-related services.

Fowler v. Borough of Westville · filed 2000-05-16(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B)

The Court concludes that the FHA is directed at the elimination of discriminatory conduct, not merely discriminatory results, and that plaintiffs may assert a claim under § 3604(f)(1). ... In addition, a defendant will be liable under the FHA, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, for failure to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Although plaintiffs assert claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 3604(0(1) and § 3604(0(2), the Court finds that the facts as alleged by plaintiffs do not support a claim under subsection (0(2). ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs' claims under § 3604(0(2) and will analyze plaintiffs’ claims in this section only with respect to § 3604(0(1).

Section 3604(f)(1) gives group-home sponsors standing to sue over discriminatory barriers to housing for disabled residents even when the sponsors are not themselves disabled.

County of Charleston v. Sleepy Hollow Youth, Inc. · filed 2000-04-17(f)(1)

Therefore, group home sponsors, such as Sleepy Hollow, have standing to bring FHA claims, though they are not themselves “handicapped.”

Section 3604(a) bars landlords from engaging in discriminatory housing practices based on sex or familial status in connection with a dwelling.

Ordelli v. Mark Farrell and Associates · filed 2014-12-03(a)-(b)

The district court properly dismissed Ordelli’s FHA claim because Ordelli failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants engaged in any discriminatory housing practice or treated her differently than her roommates based on her sex or familial status.

Section 3604(b) prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to or evicting a person because the person has children living with them.

Woodard v. Fanboy, L.L.C. · filed 2002-07-26(b)

Section 3604(b) thus operates to prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to (or from evicting) a person because that person has children living with them.

Section 3604(b) prohibits an owner from discriminating because of religion in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling or in related services, and nonphysical conditions affecting a dwelling may be relevant evidence of such discrimination.

Union River Associates v. Budman · filed 2004-04-08(b)

The statute does not contain such a limitation, however, and experience teaches that nonphysical conditions can have as great an influence on the quality of life in one’s dwelling as do physical conditions. Accordingly, nonphysical conditions — for example, repeated acts of vandalism committed against a tenant — should be analyzed as possible “conditions affecting that individual’s dwelling unit” when it is claimed that the acts are a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act or the Maine Human Rights Act, both of which prohibit an owner from discriminating against a person because of religion.

Section 3604(f)(1) does not entitle a residential recovery facility to operate in violation of local zoning laws without first seeking available zoning relief.

Woodfield Equities, L.L.C. v. Incorporation Village of Patchogue · filed 2005-02-24(f)(1)

Neither the FHA, the ADA, or the Rehabilitation Act allows for an entity to plunk down within a community in an area or in a way forbidden by local laws, without first making any attempts to comply with such laws.

Section 3604(b) bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, but it does not create a right to display religious artwork in a rental office separate from the tenant’s personal dwelling.

Dixon v. the Hallmark Companies, Inc. · filed 2010-12-09(b)

The problem with the Dixons’ claim is that they have not asserted rights protected by § 3604(b), which prevents discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The Dixons have not explained how § 3604(b) provides a right to hang religious artwork in Hallmark’s rental office, which is separate from their personal dwelling. Because we believe that § 3604(b) provides no such right, the Dixon’s claim for retaliatory housing discrimination under § 3604(b) must fail.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits handicap discrimination in the sale of a dwelling, and its protection reaches a treatment facility that qualifies as a dwelling because residents stay there for a significant period and treat it as home.

Lakeside Resort Entr v. Bd Supv Palmyra Twp · filed 2006-07-20(f)(1)

The Fair Housing Act proscribes discrimination in the sale of a dwelling due to a handicap5 of those who are to reside in the dwelling after the sale. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Because the Lakeside facility was intended to house persons for a significant period of time and because those persons would have viewed it as their home during that time, we hold that it is a dwelling under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities; it does not cover conduct unrelated to those rental matters.

Corwin v. B'NAI B'RITH SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING CITIZEN HOUSING, INC. · filed 2007-06-13(b)

As to § 3604(b), Plaintiffs’ claim does not revolve around the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of their dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination because of a handicap in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling.

United States v. Shanrie Co., Inc. · filed 2009-02-23(f)(2)

Third-Party Plaintiffs also fail to meet the requirements for recovery under § 3604(f)(2) which is “predicated upon showing discrimination in the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of a sale or rental of a dwelling ... because of a handicap....’” ... Third-Party Plaintiffs have failed to show that they, as an engineering firm and owners of the property on Rock-wood Court, have been discriminated against due to a handicap in the course of buying or renting a dwelling.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination based on race in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling and in related services or facilities.

Barrera v. Mid America Management · filed 2014-02-20(b)

We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs “failed to plead any facts . . . that defendants discriminated against them in violation of . . . the Fair Housing Act.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (making 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”). In the complaint at issue, Plaintiffs provided several conclusions, but they fail to draw our attention to any specific factual allegations that were not contradicted by Plaintiffs themselves at the hearing.

Section 3604(b) prohibits racial discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling sale or rental, or related services and facilities; FHA damages claims require proximate cause beyond mere foreseeability.

Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami · filed 2017-05-01(b)

The Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act) forbids “discriminat[ing] 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 . . . .” 42 U. S. C. §3604(b). ... We hold that the City’s claimed injuries fall within the zone of interests that the FHA arguably protects. Hence, the City is an “aggrieved person” able to bring suit under the statute. We also hold that, to establish proximate cause under the FHA, a plaintiff must do more than show that its injuries foreseeably flowed from the alleged statutory violation.

Section 3604(f)(2) reaches discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, and related services in housing-voucher administration, while § 3604(b) prohibits sex discrimination when a protected characteristic motivates the defendant’s different treatment.

ANTONELLI v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2019-10-25(f)(2), (b)

Under the FHA, it is illegal “[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 with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... However, Growth Horizons only addressed Section 3604(f)(1), concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, while this case involves Section 3604(f)(2), concerning the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of any dwelling.” As such, Growth Horizons does not control. ... As such, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s FHA claims merely because Defendants are only involved in the administration of her HCVP voucher. ... The FHA prohibits discrimination “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 . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). As mentioned above, an intentional discrimination claim under the FHA requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant acted with a discriminatory purpose. The plaintiff need not show “malicious or invidious” intent, but only that “a protected characteristic played a role in the defendant’s decision to treat her differently.” Wind Gap, 421 F.3d at 177 (internal quotation omitted). ... Given that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants violated her VAWA rights, the Court’s obligation to construe Plaintiff’s claims liberally, and the procedural posture of this case on a Section 1915(e)(2) screening, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of intentional sex discrimination in violation of the FHA at this time.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, or in related services, because of protected characteristics, and permits claims under disparate-impact or disparate-treatment theories.

Williams v. Camden Old Creek · filed 2020-02-26(b)

Pursuant to the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), a claim for discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” can be established through either disparate impact or disparate treatment theory. ... It is not plausible to infer that Defendant’s enforcement of its printing policy has a racially discriminatory effect. ... At this stage, in order to proceed under a disparate treatment theory, the FAC must plausibly allege that Defendant acted with discriminatory motive.

Section 3604(b) does not treat the setting of tax assessments as a term or condition of a dwelling's sale or rental.

Tax Equity Now NY LLC v. City of New York · filed 2020-02-27(b)

The portion of the FHA upon which plaintiff relies makes it unlawful to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin" (42 USC § 3604[b]). However, in the context of taxation, defendants are not involved in the terms and conditions of the sale or rental of property ( Robinson , 143 AD3d at 642; see Housing Justice Campaign v Koch , 164 AD2d 656, 672 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 858 [1991]). We hold here, as we held in Robinson that, as a matter of law, the setting of tax assessments does not constitute a term or condition of the sale or rental of property under the FHA.

Section 3604(b) prohibits racial discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling a dwelling and applies to disparate-treatment claims under the FHA.

Crain v. City of Selma · filed 2020-03-12(b)

Section 3604 of the FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale . . . of a dwelling . . . because of race.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). To make out a prima facie claim of disparate treatment under the FHA, Crain must establish “(1) membership in [a] protected class, (2) that [he] applied and was qualified to rent or purchase housing[,] (3) that [he] was rejected, and (4) that the housing thereafter remained open to similarly situated applicants.”

Section 3604(b) bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, on a protected-characteristic basis.

Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(b)

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 therewith, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). ... Plaintiff states that Farr Rentals and the Farrs discriminated against her in terms of seeking repairs, but she does not support that conclusion with facts permitting the inference that she actually was treated differently. She therefore fails to state a plausible FHA discrimination claim against Farr Rentals or the Farrs.

Section 3604(b) prohibits extending credit to a protected class on less favorable terms than those offered to people outside the protected class.

FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. v. RAINBOW REALTY GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-03-27(b)

Similarly, the Fair Housing Act prohibits extending credit to a protected class of people on terms less favorable than those offered to people outside of the protected class, which the plaintiffs refer to as reverse redlining.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits discrimination against a tenant with a disability in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, and the court applied that rule alongside the reasonable-accommodation provision.

Hill v. Holcombe · filed 2020-05-20(f)(2)(A)

Further, we find the following evidence in the record supports the circuit court's finding that Windy Hill MHP, LLC (Windy Hill) made reasonable accommodations for Holcombe's disabilities: Windy Hill (1) gave Holcombe sixty-days' notice to vacate in July 2015, (2) allowed him to continue leasing his lot on a month-to-month tenancy, (3) gave him four-months' notice to vacate in March 2016, and (4) postponed initiating ejectment proceedings until August 2016—an entire year after Holcombe's written lease terminated. See Hadfield v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 94, 538 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Unless [the court of appeals] finds an error of law, [it] will affirm the [circuit court]'s holding if there are any facts supporting [its] decision."); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A) (2018) (stating it is unlawful to discriminate against a tenant in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of the tenant's disability); § 3604(f)(3)(B) (stating "discrimination includes . . . a refusal [by the landlord] to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services"); id. (stating an accommodation is reasonable if it "afford[s] equal opportunity [for a tenant with a disability] to use and enjoy a dwelling"). Because the record supports the circuit court's finding that Windy Hill made reasonable accommodations, we find the circuit court properly held Windy Hill did not discriminate against Holcombe due to his disabilities.

Section 3604(b) prohibits sex discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Pierson v. Martinelli · filed 2020-09-15(b)

FHA protects against discrimination “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... Where the allegation is that the violative policy “on its face applies less favorably to a protected group,” the policy is considered “facially discriminatory,” and the question is not whether the defendant treats people differently based on protected class, or the defendant has a discriminatory motive, but whether the defendant can offer a legally sufficient reason for the discrimination. ... A defendant may defend its facially discriminatory policy by showing “either: (1) that the restriction benefits the protected class or (2) that it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected, rather than being based on stereotypes.”

Section 3604(b) prohibits race discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, and a disparate-treatment claim requires proof of discriminatory motive.

Hicks v. Skaar · filed 2020-10-15(b)

Pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, it is 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 of facilities in connection therewith, because of race[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Plaintiff makes a claim of “disparate treatment” under the Fair Housing Act because she claims Defendants treated her differently because of her race. See Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304–05 (9th Cir. 1997). “Proof of discriminatory motive is crucial to a disparate treatment claim.” Id. at 305. ... Assuming the allegations are true and taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the complaint, however, fails because Ms. Hicks’ conclusory allegation that Defendants treated non-Black American tenants differently than her makes the claim for relief theoretically possible, but it alone does not make the claim plausible.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling's sale or rental, or in related services or facilities, and a complaint must plead facts making the disability discrimination claim plausible.

DAVIS v. RUBIN · filed 2020-12-22(f)(2)(A)

Those amendments, the FHAA, make 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 with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person.” ... Accordingly, her disability discrimination claim under § 3604(f)(2)(A) is not plausible as pled.

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

Norman v. Northwest Indiana CA · filed 2021-07-06(b)

To the extent her retaliation claim is based on her rights under § 3604(b), she has not alleged any facts to create an inference that she was discriminated against in relation to the payment of her rent because of her race. Thus, there is no alleged underlying violation of § 3604(b) that would satisfy the second element.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related housing services, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Franklin v. Omaha Housing Authority · filed 2021-07-16(b)

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a discrimination claim under the FHA because he makes no allegations regarding his race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, or that such characteristics were the basis for his eviction.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities; under the applicable burden-shifting framework, conclusory allegations lacking minimal support for discriminatory intent do not state a claim.

Tasfay v. Ramos · filed 2021-09-28(b)

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 therewith, because of race.” ... Because Plaintiffs do not allege direct evidence of discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that they: “(1) [are] member[s] of a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse . . . action, and [3] ha[ve] at least minimal support for the proposition that the [housing provider] was motivated by discriminatory intent.” ... And second, conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim of discrimination under the FHA. ... Thus, even under the “less stringent standard” accorded to pro se pleadings, the complaint fails to sufficiently allege discrimination in violation of FHA.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, including restricting Black employees to lower-quality employee housing.

Adams v. Cameron · filed 2021-11-12(b)

These allegations that Black employees were excluded from certain housing units of higher quality, viewed in the light most favorable to Adamis as is required at this stage, state a prima facie case of intentional discrimination in housing based on race.

Section 3604(b) does not support a discrimination claim based only on conclusory allegations without facts connecting the challenged real-estate agent's statements to the plaintiff's race or nationality.

Paraison v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2022-03-25(b)

Second, Paraison argues that Nationstar violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Georgia Fair Housing Act by discriminating against him based on his race and nationality. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); Ga. Code § 8-3-202(a). ... As the district court correctly observed, these allegations are nothing more than “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Paraison has not alleged any facts establishing a connection between his race or nationality and the real estate agent’s statements. He has therefore fallen short of the pleading standard in Twombly by failing to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 550 U.S. at 555.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discriminatory treatment in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of race, and requires a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment to plead facts supporting a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

PAYNE v. THE GALMAN GROUP · filed 2022-03-29(b)

The Court will construe Payne’s Amended Complaint to allege racial discrimination regarding the disparate enforcement of his landlord’s pet policy under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et. seq. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, Payne bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination under the FHAA. ... The FHAA 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 therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... Since Payne claims he was treated differently because he is Black and Andrew S. is white, Payne seemingly has a “disparate treatment” claim. ... Payne has failed to do so.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or related services, because of a person's handicap.

Tall v. Commissioner of the Howard County Housing Authority · filed 2022-07-15(f)(2)(A)

Similarly, under the Fair Housing Act, 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 with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). To state a claim for discrimination under Section 3604(f), a plaintiff “must show that he is handicapped and that he was either discriminated against because of his handicap or denied a reasonable accommodation necessary to allow him the same use and enjoyment of his dwelling as other non-handicapped persons.”

Section 3604(b) prohibits a public or private landlord from intentionally discriminating against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling because of race or another protected characteristic.

Dickerson v. BPP PCV Owners LLC · filed 2022-09-28(b)

The FHA, a landmark civil rights statute, makes it unlawful for a public or private landlord to intentionally “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” ... “When, as here, a plaintiff brings a claim under the FHA that does not rest on direct evidence of landlord discrimination, [courts] analyze the claim under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework first developed in Title VII cases.” ... For a plaintiff’s claim to survive a motion to dismiss in a McDonnell Douglas case, she must plausibly allege that she: (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse action, and (3) has at least minimal support for the proposition that the housing provider was motivated by discriminatory intent. ... Although Plaintiff has alleged that, as a Black woman, she is a member of a protected class, her complaint lacks even minimal factual support to raise an inference of discriminatory intent.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling and in related services or facilities; in the circumstances presented, the FHA did not require displacing other disabled tenants from assigned accessible parking spaces.

Hume v. Guardian Management LLC · filed 2022-12-21(f)(2)

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 service or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) (as amended by Pub. L. No 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619 (1988)). Under the FHA, discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The Court agrees with Defendants, however, that under the circumstances of this case, the undisputed facts show that allotting Plaintiff an accessible parking space would impose an undue hardship on Defendants. There currently are no accessible parking spaces available in either Uptown Tower’s residential garage or the Burnside garage. Thus, granting Plaintiff’s request would require Defendants to remove other disabled individuals from their assigned accessible parking spaces in favor of Plaintiff. The FHA does not require such a result.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, and a sober-living operator may establish the residents’ actual disabilities collectively through admissible evidence of policies and practices serving people with actual disabilities.

Socal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa · filed 2023-01-03(f)(2)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling” because of a handicap of that person, a resident or intended resident, or any person associated with that person. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... We now hold that Appellants and other sober living home operators can satisfy the “actual disability” prong on a collective basis by demonstrating that they serve or intend to serve individuals with actual disabilities. ... Rather, they can meet their burden by proffering admissible evidence that they have policies and procedures to ensure that they serve or will serve those with actual disabilities and that they adhere or will adhere to such policies and procedures.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination based on race in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling and in related housing services or facilities; absent direct proof, a plaintiff must plausibly allege protected-class membership, adverse action, and minimal support for discriminatory intent.

Poteat v. Hartford Housing · filed 2023-01-30(b)

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 ....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). Absent direct proof of discrimination, a plaintiff “must plausibly allege that he [1] is a member of a protected class, [2] suffered an adverse action, and [3] has at least minimal support for the proposition that the housing provider was motivated by discriminatory intent.” Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67, 73 (2d Cir. 2021) (en banc) ... The problem for Poteat is that the amended complaint does not allege facts to suggest that the Hartford Housing Authority defendants discriminated against Poteat because of her race or because of any of her membership in any other protected class.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination because of race or color in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling.

Byng v. Kelly · filed 2023-02-24(b)

The FHA also provides that “it shall be 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 therewith, because of . . . race [or] color” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... With respect to plaintiff’s FHA racial discrimination claims, plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing defendant Connelly discriminated against him on the basis of race. However, his FHA racial discrimination claims against defendant Kelly survive sua sponte review and require a response.

Section 3604(b) bars discrimination because of sex in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling.

MEALY v. CASABLANCA INVESTORS, LLC · filed 2023-03-06(b)

To establish a claim for gender-based discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to plausibly allege that she was discriminated against “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, family status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §3604(b). ... Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Ms. Mealy has pled sufficient facts to allege that the addendum is discriminatory under federal law and Third Circuit precedent. ... It imposes upon Ms. Mealy and other women extra terms, duties, and repercussions that are not applicable to any of the males living in similarly situated units in the apartment complex. This facially satisfies 24 C.F.R. §100.65(b)(1)’s prohibition against requiring different contract terms based on gender, and §100.65(b)(4)’s prohibition on limiting the use of privileges or facilities associated with the dwelling because of the occupant’s gender. 24 C.F.R. §§100.65(b)(1), (4).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Nelson v. Sorrento Tower Apartments · filed 2023-04-24(b)

The Court finds these allegations are conclusory and insufficient to state a claim that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of section 3604. ... However, the complaint lacks any information as to whether Defendants’ alleged actions were motivated by Plaintiff’s race ... Moreover, as previously noted, even if Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to state a claim, Plaintiff has not shown an injury-in-fact. ... Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s first cause of action fails to state a claim.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, or related services or facilities, because of a person’s disability or an associated person’s disability.

Allfrey v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2023-07-25(f)(2)

The Fair Housing Act provides that it is 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 a handicap of . . . that person . . . [or] any person associated with that person. ... Additionally, Plaintiff has not even alleged what terms, conditions, or privileges he has been denied. ... Thus, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to support a claim for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

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 a protected characteristic; it does not cover an eviction solely for failure to pay rent.

Watkins v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2023-10-26(b)

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination 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[ ]” on the basis of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). ... The Fair Housing Act does not cover the eviction of a person for failure to pay rent. Instead, as discussed above, the Act’s terms are restricted to discrimination in renting or selling “because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin,” or because of a person’s handicap. 28 U.S.C. § 3604(a)–(e), (f); see also § 3605(a).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental because of a person’s handicap or the handicap of an associated person, and protects an aggrieved non-title occupant who suffers injury from that discrimination.

Escamilla v. Echelon Communities, LLC · filed 2023-12-04(f)(2)

The FHAA makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of a handicap of . . . that person; or . . . any person associated with that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Construed in Plaintiffs’ favor, the allegations are that the refusal to allow more time and rescind the Sixty-Day Notice denied Plaintiffs equal enjoyment of their home on account of Escamilla’s disability. ... Thus, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs are unable to allege the denial of a reasonable accommodation by virtue of Defendant’s refusal to rescind the Sixty-Day Notice. ... Accordingly, Escamilla meets the requirements to bring an FHAA claim, even if he individually was not the title owner of the mobilehome. ... Under the FHAA, Cordero may base her claims on Escamilla’s disability because she is an aggrieved party. ... The Court declines Defendant’s argument that Cordero lacks standing to sue under the FHAA. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FHAA claims for lack of standing is DENIED.

Section 3604(f) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a handicap, and a claimant must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that housing was denied on that basis.

Richardson v. Cardinal Ritter Institute Residential Services Corporation · filed 2023-12-11(f)

The FHA 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). In order to state a claim under either of these statutory provisions, Plaintiff is required to allege facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that Defendant denied her housing on the basis of her disability.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Lattimore v. Brahmbhatt · filed 2024-01-03(b)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of . . . rental of a dwelling . . . because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... These allegations, taken as true, do not suggest that any discriminatory action occurred. ... Because their allegations, on their face, establish the non-discriminatory motive behind their purported “eviction” to a smaller dwelling, their claim is insufficient to survive.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of national origin; conduct targeting political beliefs rather than national origin does not plausibly state such a claim.

Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC · filed 2024-03-18(b)

Assuming as true that other tenants display flags, artwork, and decorations (including religious decorations) in their windows, and that defendants have not asked these tenants to remove these displays, plaintiff still does not allege that tenants are treated differently based on the national origin of the tenant. In fact, she does not offer any factual allegations about the national origins of the other tenants who have allegedly displayed such flags, artwork, and decorations. While plaintiff implies that the Palestinian flag is the symbol of a nation, she does not plausibly allege that plaintiff was discriminated against based on her national origin, rather than her political beliefs in support of the Palestinian cause. ... Consequently, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that defendants discriminated against her “because of” and not merely “in spite of” her protected status. ... The court thus dismisses Counts I and II, which allege claims under § 3604(b) of the FHA, for failure to state a claim.

Section 3604(b) bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling or in related services because of protected characteristics, and a claim requires a link between discriminatory animus and the challenged action.

Sproaps v. Brown · filed 2024-01-25(b)

Plaintiff’s allegation of a stray discriminatory remark by Brown in June 2022 and a lack of timely repairs, is not enough to state a claim under the FHA. There is no evidence linking defendant Brown’s discriminatory remark to any discriminatory conduct. The discriminatory remark was related to a dispute between the parties as to who caused, and was therefore financially responsible, for damage to Plaintiff’s apartment.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Chen v. Commodore Management Company, Inc. · filed 2024-06-10(b)

The FHA prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of . . . rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... To state a claim for FHA discrimination based on race or national origin, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against the plaintiff on the basis of race or national origin. ... Even accepting all of the allegations of the Amended Complaint as true, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Defendants discriminated against them on the basis of race or national origin under a disparate-treatment theory of discrimination.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits refusing to rent or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of a handicap, and a reasonable-accommodation claim requires a reasonable accommodation.

Mengistu v. Forestview Apartments, LLC · filed 2024-08-29(f)(1)

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mengistu’s discrimination claims on the additional ground that he had failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether his requested accommodations were reasonable, whether defendants made the apartment unavailable or otherwise took any adverse action against him, or whether defendants discriminated against him. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) (FHA, stating that it us 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”); Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that an FHA discrimination claim premised on refusal to make reasonable accommodations requires the plaintiff to show, among other things, “that the accommodation is reasonable”).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling and in related housing services or facilities, requiring a plausible protected-class, adverse-action, and discriminatory-intent showing.

Cymbalsky v. 522 Shore Road Owners Inc · filed 2025-01-08(f)(2)

Pursuant to the FHA, it is illegal “to discriminate against any [disabled] 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). To survive a motion to dismiss an FHA claim, the plaintiff “must plausibly allege that he ‘(1) is a member of a protected class, . . . (2) suffered an adverse . . . action, and (3) has at least minimal support for the proposition that the [housing provider] was motivated by discriminatory intent.’” ... Plaintiff also fails to allege that any Defendant discriminated against him. ... As Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that he continues to reside in his apartment and has not suffered any adverse action, he fails to allege that Defendants discriminated against him under the FHA. ... Finally, even if Plaintiff sufficiently pled discriminatory conduct, he does not allege that it was the result of his alleged disability.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling because of a protected characteristic.

Fleming v. Westwood Place Apartments, LLC · filed 2025-05-06(b)

Fleming’s FHA claim fails for the same reason. To state an FHA claim, the plaintiff must allege they were discriminated against because of their membership in a protected class, including “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (banning discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling”); 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a) (banning discrimination “because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin”); see Roberson v. Graziano, No. WDQ-09-3038, 2010 WL 2106466, at *2 (D. Md. May 21, 2010), aff’d, 411 F. App’x 583 (4th Cir. 2011). Fleming does not allege that he is a member of a protected class. Thus, his FHA claim must be dismissed.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities; a failure-to-accommodate theory requires notice of the requested accommodation.

APPELGREN v. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT VII, LLC · filed 2025-05-19(f)(2)

Under the FHA, it is 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 a handicap.” ... For the third theory, failure to accommodate, to be the basis of liability, “defendants must have had an idea of what accommodation [the plaintiff] sought.” ... He has not pled that Defendants were aware of his disabilities, so Defendants cannot be held liable for this failure. ... Defendants therefore cannot be said to have discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing these requests. Accordingly, the ADA and FHA claims must be dismissed.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of race or another protected characteristic, and a racial-discrimination claim must allege facts showing treatment based on a protected characteristic.

Lester v. Bamboo Broadway, LLC · filed 2025-06-11(b)

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 therewith, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). ... As to her racial discrimination claim, plaintiff does not provide any facts to explain how the defendant allegedly discriminated against her because of her race. ... Plaintiff has not alleged any factual information showing she was treated differently due to one of the protected provisions within the FHA. As a result, liberally construing plaintiff’s complaint, her FHA race discrimination allegations against defendant fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based differences in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling; a policy requiring disabled SSDI recipients to pay rent monthly while non-disabled tenants may pay weekly is facial discrimination.

McCready v. Unity Sober Living Homes, LLC · filed 2025-07-16(f)(2)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA)5 prohibits discrimination “in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling” against individuals “because of a handicap of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... The operative question” for an intentional discrimination claim, also known as disparate treatment, is “whether handicapped or disabled status — the protected trait under the FHAA — was being used as the basis for different treatment.” ... A policy is facially discriminatory when disability “is the dispositive trait, singled out for different treatment.” ... Individuals receiving SSDI are explicitly “singled out for different treatment” by the “language of the challenged . . . [rent] policy.” ... The text presents no ambiguity regarding the basis for the disparate treatment — tenants receiving SSDI are given different terms than tenants not on SSDI.

Section 3604(b) makes a condominium association’s discrimination through enforcement of its rules actionable, but it does not create a blanket privilege to be free from all discrimination by any source.

Maslowski v. Listing Leaders Select LLC · filed 2025-08-20(b)

Though § 3604(b) “is not broad enough to provide a blanket ‘privilege’ to be free from all discrimination from any source,” a condominium association’s discrimination through the enforcement of its rules is actionable.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing rental and related services because of a protected characteristic, requiring different treatment because of protected-class status for a prima facie claim.

(PS) Moore v. C.F.Y. Development Inc. · filed 2025-06-03(b)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA, plaintiff must first show (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was denied a rental relationship or otherwise treated differently in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her rental relationship, or in the provision of services or facilities to her as a tenant; and (3) the different treatment was, at least in part, because of her protected class status. See Scoggins v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-01542-EPG, 2023 WL 2354820, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2023); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 305 (9th Cir. 1997) (FHA claims are analyzed under a burden shifting test).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling rental, or related services or facilities, because of race or another protected trait; a prima facie case requires different treatment at least partly because of protected-class status.

CHARLESETTA MOORE, SR. v. C.F.Y. DEVELOPMENT INC. · filed 2025-09-12(b)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA, a plaintiff must first show (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was denied a rental relationship or otherwise treated differently in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her rental relationship, or in the provision of services or facilities to her as a tenant; and (3) the different treatment was, at least in part, because of her protected class status.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person with a handicap in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, or in related services or facilities.

TAYLOR · filed 2026-03-10(f)(2)(A)

“Under those amendments, the FHAA, make 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 with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person.” ... Taylor simply has not alleged facts that allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that any Defendant violated the FHAA. Accordingly, Taylor’s FHAA claims will be dismissed.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental because of protected characteristics; a claim may proceed on discriminatory intent or an unjustified disparate impact.

ELLIS-MACLIN · filed 2026-04-30(b)

The FHA prohibits discrimination in “the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, . . . because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). To state a claim under this provision, a plaintiff must allege either that “the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive,” or that the defendant’s challenged practices “have a disproportionately adverse effect on protected classes and are otherwise unjustified by a legitimate rationale.” Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Ltd. P’ship, 903 F.3d 415, 421 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits municipalities from discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing because of disability.

New Beginning Sanctuary, A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corporation, Jaam Properties LLC, A Missouri Limited… · filed 2026-05-26(f)(2)

The FHA prohibits municipalities from discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing because of disability.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling or in related services, and requires a causal connection between the alleged discrimination and the disability.

Zeng v. Owner of 8020 Quartz Lane · filed 2026-04-07(f)(2)

The FHA outlaws discriminating “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 a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Plaintiffs must allege facts to demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged discrimination and the disability. ... As Zeng did not plead specific facts showing a causal link between the alleged failure to make repairs and her purported disability, she has failed to establish causality for purposes of discrimination under the FHA, as we persuasively explained in Mason v. Integra Peak Mgmt. Inc., 821 F. App’x 382, 383 (5th Cir. 2020).

Section 3604(b) prohibits a condominium association from discriminating through enforcement of rules when the buyer’s agreement to be governed by the association’s future restrictions was a condition of purchase, even if the rules are facially neutral.

Bloch v. Frischholz · filed 2009-11-13(b)

Here, however, the Blochs’ agreement to subject their rights to the restrictions imposed by the Board was a “condition” of the Blochs’ purchase; the Board’s power to restrict unit owners’ rights flows from the terms of the sale. And the Blochs alleged that the Board discriminated against them in wielding that power. Consequently, because the Blochs purchased dwellings subject to the condition that the Condo Association can enact rules that restrict the buyer’s rights in the future, § 3604(b) prohibits the Association from discriminating against the Blochs through its enforcement of the rules, even facially neutral rules.

Section 3604(f)(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate in selling or renting, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling because of a buyer’s or renter’s handicap.

Jones v. Blue Ocean Realty LLC · filed 2023-04-25(f)(1)

As to Plaintiff’s disability, 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 of . . . that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to identify his impairment at all. While he alleges that he receives disability benefits, he does not identify the nature of his impairment to allow this Court to ascertain whether or not his impairment plausibly meets the definition of “handicap” in the FHA. More importantly, Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that Defendants at any time knew of the nature of his impairment. Without such facts, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that Defendants took action because of a “handicap” of which they were apparently unaware.

Section 3604(b) bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, because of specified protected characteristics.

August v. The Glade Property Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2023-05-01(b)

On its face, the Amendment does not discriminate on the basis of any of the protected classes identified in the federal or state Fair Housing Acts. ... That definition does not exclude members of a Family who may be disabled or elderly. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s contention that the Amendment is invalid as discriminatory fails.

Section 3604(b) requires a plaintiff to show that the plaintiff was subjected to different terms, conditions, or privileges because of a protected status.

(PS) James v. Metzger Mgt. Co. · filed 2024-01-08(b)

“To state a claim under § 3604, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to different ‘terms, conditions, or privileges because of a protected status.’” Cabrera v. Alvarez, 977 F.Supp.2d 969, 975 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 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, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Scutt v. Norton · filed 2021-12-17(b)

The FHA prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms,

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) requires a primary entrance to a covered multifamily dwelling to be accessible when it is part of a public or common use area, even if another entrance is accessible.

United States v. Edward Rose & Sons · filed 2003-02-21(f)(3)(C)(i)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that HUD interprets the Act such that a primary entrance is part of the public or common use areas, regardless of whether it opens from the interior or exterior. If this is true, then, it must comply with the FHA accessibility requirements, even if there is a secondary entrance that is adequately accessible. A “primary entrance,” it seems, is one that is on an accessible route and is most likely to be used as such, particularly when it is most convenient to parking. The Court finds that HUD’s interpretation is a reasonable, permissible construction of the FHA and is consistent with the letter and spirit of the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) requires covered multifamily dwellings to be designed and constructed with specified accessibility features, and section 3604(f)(7) covers ground-floor units in buildings of four or more units; HUD’s Guidelines provide a safe harbor rather than mandatory standards.

Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Village of Olde St. Andrews, Inc. · filed 2003-03-14(f)(3)(C), (f)(7)

The design and construction requirements of the FHAA apply only to new construction of multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after 1991. ... Each cluster of 4 units must but be considered a single building for purposes of the design and construction requirements of FHAA. Accordingly, all Defendants’ units are covered by the Act with the exception of the multi-story units. ... The Guidelines, however, are not mandatory. ... A failure to meet the requirements as interpreted in the Guidelines does not constitute unlawful discrimination. ... The real question that must be resolved is whether the units and common areas as designed are reasonably accessible to most handicapped persons.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) validly prohibits housing discrimination through a refusal to make reasonable accommodations, and the provision is neither beyond Congress's Commerce Clause authority nor unconstitutionally vague.

Groome Resources Ltd v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2000-12-22(f)(3)(B)

Following Morrison, we hold that Congress did not exceed its bounds in determining that the decision to grant or deny reasonable accommodations to a disabled buyer or renter of real property was an activity “economic in nature,” and that Congress can well prohibit discrimination in the national market for housing. ... For the foregoing reasons, we hold that § 3604(f)(3)(B) was enacted pursuant to Congress’s legitimate authority under the Commerce Clause and affirm the district court’s grant of an injunction against the Parish of Jefferson. ... Applying this standard, we find no merit in the Parish’s contention that the provision is vague. ... We conclude that the reasonable accommodations language is neither vague nor indefinite, and therefore reject the Parish’s void-for-vagueness challenge.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to any person because of race or national origin, and claims may proceed under intentional-discrimination or disparate-impact theories.

Central Alabama Fair Housing Center v. Magee · filed 2011-12-12(a)

The FHA prohibits actions that “make unavailable” or “deny” a dwelling “to any person because of’ his race or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... The FHA recognizes claims of intentional discrimination, as well as those brought under a disparate-impact theory. ... The plaintiffs have alleged violations of the FHA under both theories, and the court finds that they are likely to succeed on each claim.

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

Nevada Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. INC. v. CLARK COUNTY · filed 2008-07-09(f)(1)

Under the FHAA, 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Nevada’s group home statute facially discriminates against the handicapped. ... Therefore, the FHAA preempts Nevada’s group home statute.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of a handicap of a person residing in or intending to reside there.

Affordable Recovery Housing v. City of Blue Island · filed 2017-06-21(f)(1)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act forbids “mak[ing] unavailable or denying] a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of ... a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). But Affordable of course was not trying to exclude handicapped persons from its facilities, and Blue Island’s exclusion when it forced the 73 residents to leaves was quickly undone when Affordable discovered the supervening state law regarding sprinkler systems.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of a handicap, but a facially different rule may be lawful when it benefits persons with disabilities.

Harper v. Lindon City · filed 2019-05-21(f)(1)

Under the FHA, it is 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). ... While it is clear that those sections treat the handicapped differently, the differential treatment is actually “beneficial to, rather than discriminatory against, the handicapped.” Bangerter, 46 F.3d at 1503. ... Indeed, under the eight-person RFPD exception, the handicapped have preferential housing opportunities because, unlike other GLAs, they are permitted an eight-person cap instead of the general four-person cap. As such, the eight-person cap on RFPDs falls within the purview of the second Bangerter justification.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of handicap, and section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal of a necessary reasonable accommodation in rules or policies as discrimination.

Eastwood v. Willow Bend Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2020-06-22(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

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 of (A) that buyer or renter; (B) a person residing in that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). “Discrimination” includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his discrimination claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits discrimination based on handicap that makes a dwelling unavailable or denies it to a buyer or renter.

OXFORD HOUSE, INC. v. TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN · filed 2024-05-21(f)(1)

The FHA, passed by Congress as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... Because the Amended Complaint fails to provide factual allegations supporting an inference of discriminatory intent, Plaintiff’s discriminatory treatment claims under the FHA and the ADA must fail.

Section 3604(a) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin; a housing-discrimination claim is not plausible without allegations that the adverse action was based on a protected class.

Xi v. BES Kessler Park Fund X11 LLC · filed 2024-12-16(a)

So, where a plaintiff fails to allege discrimination because of a protected class recognized by the FHA, the FHA claim is not plausible and should be dismissed under the applicable pleading standards.

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination because of a handicap, including discrimination in a dwelling’s availability, rental terms, privileges, services, or facilities.

Tanner v. Rochdale Village Inc. · filed 2024-12-20(f)

As relevant here, the FHA 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,” or “[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 with such dwelling, because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). ... Plaintiff fails to state a disparate treatment claim under the FHA. First, the allegation that management staff desired to evict him because he was suing the MTA cannot form the basis of a discrimination claim, because litigants are not a protected class under any provision of the FHA. ... Second, the allegation that management staff directed personnel not to repair plaintiff’s unit because of his perceived disability also falls short of the pleading standard. Among other defects, the complaint does not include sufficient factual allegations to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 3604 requires a housing-discrimination claim to allege discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling based on a protected characteristic such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or family status.

Heron v. Gunjan Keida CEO of US Bank Trust, N.A. · filed 2025-09-03

The FHA forbids discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or family status. See Tejada v. LittleCity Realty LLC, 308 F. Supp. 3d 724, 730 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Davis v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 324, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief states simply that defendants’ actions in attempting to remove them “without a valid court judgment [or] proper notice . . . constitute[] housing discrimination.” Mot. 1. As plaintiffs do not claim that they were discriminated against in their housing based on a protected characteristic, they have not stated an FHA claim.

Section 3604(f)(1) bars housing discrimination because of handicap, and § 3604(f)(2) prohibits treating group homes for handicapped residents differently or worse than comparable uses because of their residents’ handicap.

Be the Bush Recovery Ministries v. Coffee Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2025-10-02(f)(1), (f)(2)

In the setting of a group home like the one operated by BTB, a statute facially discriminates when it “single[s] out . . . group homes for the handicapped” for different or worse treatment than comparable uses because of their residents’ handicap. ... Measured by these standards, the County’s zoning rules for RS-1 zones do not facially discriminate against the handicapped. ... In the end, BTB cannot show that its exclusion from the RS-1 zone was “because of” its residents’ handicap. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1).

Section 3604 prohibits housing discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race, gender, national origin, and disability.

HILL · filed 2025-10-14

“‘[t]he Fair Housing Act (‘FHA’), passed by Congress as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, race, gender, and national origin’—and, following the adoption of the FHAA in 1988, individuals with disabilities. ... Since nothing in the Amended Complaint ties the conditions of the properties where Hill lived or is living to her membership in a protected class, she cannot state a discrimination claim under the FHA.”

Section 3604(a) bars discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Waheed · filed 2025-10-20(a)

The FHA “broadly prohibits discrimination in housing,” Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 93 (1979), based on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f)(1). ... Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not concern housing discrimination, she cannot state a claim under the FHA. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s FHA claims on this basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 3604 protects rights against housing discrimination; challenging utility billing practices alone does not invoke those rights.

Grant · filed 2026-05-19

Challenging utility-billing practices, however, does not implicate any of the rights protected under §§ 3604, 3605, or 3606.

Section 3604(b) does not prohibit housing discrimination based solely on political expression, even when that expression relates to a tenant’s heritage.

Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC · filed 2025-12-04(b)

But the FHA’s protections simply do not extend to discrimination based on political expression.

Section 3604 does not authorize a tenant to sue over apartment habitability alone.

Kummerow, Andrew v. Ohawcha.org · filed 2022-03-24

However, the statute does not authorize plaintiff to sue defendants in federal court for claims related to the habitability of the Oshkosh apartment.

Section 3604(a) can reach discriminatory conduct beyond a literal sale or rental when it makes housing unavailable, while § 3604(b) addresses discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, or related services of a sale or rental; refinancing previously owned homes falls under § 3605 instead.

Eva v. Midwest National Mortgage Banc, Inc. · filed 2001-02-15(a), (b)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that while § 3604(a) applies to transactions beyond the literal sale or rental of a dwelling, it is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. The circumstances presented here fit squarely within the provisions of § 3605 and, as such, the Midwest Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to bring that claim pursuant to § 3604(a). ... Accordingly, the Motion is granted to the extent that the Midwest Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to § 3604(b).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related housing services, but does not cover mortgages for improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling already acquired.

Matthews v. New Century Mortgage Corp. · filed 2002-02-08(b)

Section 804 of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, is to be read liberally, so that its terms reach transactions that fall beyond the literal scope of selling or renting housing. ... Despite the breadth of the provision, however, it does not reach the particular transactions at issue in this case. To the contrary, this Court has specifically stated that transactions such as these, involving financial assistance requested for the purpose of improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling that the owner had previously acquired, fall outside the scope of § 3604. ... As the transactions at issue in this case relate to the allegedly discriminatory provision of mortgages on homes that were previously acquired by the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) does not apply, and GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this claim.

Section 3604(a) and (b) do not give a property seller a housing discrimination claim against a municipality that is not an owner, broker, seller, or lessor.

K D Group Enterprises, LLC v. Village of Oak Park · filed 2025-12-19(a), (b)

Similarly, the relevant sections of the FHA make it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b) (1988). ... Thus, the fact that plaintiff was not a buyer or renter of real estate and the village was not an owner, broker, seller, or lessor is dispositive of its claim for unlawful racial discrimination in a real estate transaction.

Section 3604 does not support a disability-discrimination claim without evidence that the plaintiff is disabled or regarded as disabled and that the challenged conduct involved a handicap-based preference, limitation, or discrimination.

Hall v. Meadowood Ltd. Partnership · filed 2001-03-28(f)(2)(A)

Hall has not presented any evidence that his neck injury rendered him disabled (“handicapped”) under the FHA or that Herrera-Spaulding regarded him as disabled. Accordingly, he cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the FHA and the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. Moreover, the question asked by Herrera-Spaulding while renting the apartment to Hall does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any preference, limitation or discrimination based on handicap under 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

A disability discrimination claim under § 3604(f)(1) must allege facts showing that the buyer has a qualifying handicap.

Shaddonna Miles v. Housing Authority of Texarkana · filed 2016-06-30(f)(1)

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Miles failed to state a claim for discrimination under the FHA because she failed to allege that she has a handicap as defined by the FA.

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination based on handicap, but claims concerning residents actively recovering from addiction are unlikely to succeed where the Act’s exclusion for current illegal drug use or addiction applies.

Lake-Geauga Recovery Centers, Inc. v. Munson Township · filed 2021-03-19(f)

Under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful to discriminate in the terms and conditions of housing because of a handicap of any person residing in a dwelling or associated with such a person. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). ... The Fair Housing Act defines a handicap not to include “current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). The residents of Twelve Meadows, as persons actively recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction, likely fall within this exclusion from the Fair Housing Act. ... Therefore, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(f) permits a housing discrimination claim to be proved through intentional discrimination, discriminatory impact, or refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.

Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven, Connecticut · filed 2001-01-30(f)

A plaintiff can prove an FHAA violation by showing (1) intentional discrimination; (2) discriminatory impact; or (3) a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(1) protects bona fide buyers or renters from disability discrimination, and § 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental and related services or facilities.

United States v. Rock Springs Vista Development · filed 2001-05-08(f)(1), (f)(2)

He failed to assert either that he was a bona fide “buyer or renter” of a condominium in the Rock Springs Vista development, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1), or that he was discriminated against in any “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or [any] provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling ....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).

Section 3604(a) requires a plaintiff to allege that a defendant denied or made housing unavailable and did so because of race, color, or national origin.

ASWAN v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 2010-03-15(a)

To state a claim under the first prong, ASWAN "must assert, first, that [Defendants] denied or made housing unavailable to [members of ASWAN] and, second, that [Defendants'] actions were based on [members of ASWAN's] race, color, or national origin."

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) requires plausible allegations connecting the challenged housing conduct to the tenant’s disability.

Davis v. Rubin · filed 2022-08-02(f)(2)(A)

None of the above, however, reveals a plausible disability-based discrimination claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) requires facts supporting a claim that housing was denied or made unavailable because of disability; conclusory allegations of discrimination are insufficient.

Graham v. Herron Management Property · filed 2022-09-22(f)(1)(A)

Apart from the two conclusory assertions noted above, nothing in the complaint suggests a violation of either § 3604(f)(1)(A) or § 3617, and, as previously mentioned, conclusory statements are not entitled to the presumption of truth which attaches to well pleaded facts.

Section 3604(a) protects a group home under the familial-status provisions only when minors are domiciled with their caretaker, while § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested disability accommodation to be necessary, known to the decisionmaker, and reasonable in light of legitimate safety concerns.

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe · filed 2001-05-11(a), (f)(3)(B)

“Familial status” requires that the minors be domiciled “with” their caretaker. This means that the youths and Keys’ staff must be domiciled together, at the same dwelling. ... Absent other indicia, one’s workplace is not one’s home and, thus, not where one is domiciled for purposes of the FHA. ... As a matter of law under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Keys’ employees, collectively or individually, are domiciled at the group home. Thus, the youths cannot be “domiciled with” them, and Keys’ proposed group home therefore cannot qualify for “familial status” under the FHA. ... As noted supra, handicap discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The court based its decision on the principle that Olathe cannot be liable for refusing to grant a reasonable and necessary accommodation if the City never knew the accommodation was in fact necessary. We agree. ... Common sense dictates that when a defendant possesses a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for a housing decision, a plaintiff’s requested accommodation must substantially negate the defendant’s concern in order to be considered reasonable. ... We therefore affirm the district court’s reasonable accommodation ruling.

Section 3604 prohibits discriminatory rental practices based on race or familial status, and a policy relegating families with children to first-floor units may violate subsection (c) and support a pattern-or-practice claim.

United States v. Garden Homes Management, Corp. · filed 2001-08-10(a), (c)

For all of these reasons, there exists a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of violating 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Thus, summary judgment must be denied. ... These admissions create a substantial likelihood that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) by adopting an unlawful policy, which preferred keeping families with children off the second floor of the Subject Properties.

A Section 3604(b) segregation claim cannot survive summary judgment on a bare assertion that housing was segregated without evidence that its location segregated residents based on race.

Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND · filed 2010-06-23(b)

When questioned about her segregation claim, Plaintiff testified that she had no knowledge of the demographics of South Bend when the apartments were built, no knowledge of the demographics of South Bend when she moved into the apartment, no knowledge of the decision-making process leading to the construction of the South Bend Avenue apartments, and no evidence that the location of the property actually segregated non-Caucasians on the basis of race. (Pl. Dep., pp. 200-03.) Plaintiffs bare assertion that the apartment was segregated is insufficient to survive summary judgment and must be dismissed.

Section 3604(a) prohibits using impermissible criteria such as race, color, or familial status in real estate transactions, and a fair-housing claim may be pursued under disparate-treatment or disparate-impact theories.

Marbly v. Home Properties of New York · filed 2002-04-23(a)

A federal housing discrimination claim may be established by proving either disparate treatment and discriminatory intent, or disparate impact. ... Federal fair housing law prohibits using impermissible criteria such as race, col- or, or familial status in real estate transactions. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604(a)-(c) prohibits discriminatory refusals or denials of housing, discrimination in housing terms and services, and discriminatory housing notices; conclusory allegations of mistreatment because a tenant is a single woman, without discriminatory conduct attributable to the defendant, do not state a claim.

Poindexter v. Haskell, Town of · filed 2025-09-10(a), (b), and (c)

The only allegation Plaintiff offers in support of her gender discrimination claim is the conclusory assertion that the Town targeted her because she was a single female. In reference to the officers who visited her home, Plaintiff alleges that she “perceived that the officers mistreated her because she was a single female who lived in the home alone.” Dkt. No. 11 at 8. She also points to the fact that the events giving rise to this litigation occurred after her boyfriend moved out, thus implying her newly single status prompted the Town’s actions. Even construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, these allegations fail to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act or the Oklahoma fair housing laws. The Plaintiff does not point to any discriminatory conduct attributable to the Town. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1501 (10th Cir. 1995).

Section 3604(f)(9) places the burden on a public entity asserting a direct-threat defense to prove that the disabled person's tenancy would threaten the health or safety of others.

Dadian, George v. Village of Wilmette · filed 2001-10-18(f)(9)

The FHAA provides that "nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals." 42 U.S.C. sec. 3604(f)(9). ... Based on these statements, we conclude that a public entity that asserts the reason it failed to accommodate a disabled individual was because she posed a direct threat to safety bears the burden of proof on that defense at trial. ... And we hold that the district court did not err in imposing the burden of proof on the Village to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board denied the Dadians a front driveway permit because Mrs. Dadian posed a direct threat to the safety of others.

Section 3604(f)(9) places on a public entity asserting a direct-threat defense the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disabled individual poses a direct threat to the safety of others.

George Dadian and Astrid Dadian v. Village of Wilmette · filed 2001-10-18(f)(9)

We find the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9) and the reasoning of courts interpreting the direct threat provisions under Titles I and III of the ADA persuasive. And we hold that the district court did not err in imposing the burden of proof on the Village to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board denied the Dadians a front driveway permit because Mrs. Dadian posed a direct threat to the safety of others.

Section 3604(f)(9) provides landlords and sellers an affirmative defense to housing discrimination claims; it does not give municipalities or neighbors a claim to challenge group-home siting.

Township of West Orange v. Whitman · filed 1998-04-29(f)(9)

Finally, the Court finds convincing the State Defendants’ argument that § 3604(f)(9) is intended to establish an affirmative defense available to landlords and sellers of property in actions against them to enforce the FHAA, not to provide a basis for claims such as those asserted by the municipality and neighbors here.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodation of a disability-related service animal, and the animal must be individually trained to perform work or tasks for the disabled person.

Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua · filed 2003-07-11(f)(3)(B)

The Court agrees with and adopts the ADA definition for purposes of the reasonable accommodation requirement of § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(b) does not cover the denial of a zoning variance that reduces a seller’s property value.

Edwards v. Media Borough Council · filed 2006-04-28(b)

The FHA is not implicated in the Borough’s decision to deny Edwards a variance, because a variance is not one of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling” contemplated by the statute.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits a municipality from denying a dwelling-related permit because of the disability of the intended residents; intentional disparate treatment may be shown when the record supports an inference that disability, rather than stated zoning reasons, motivated the denial.

Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City Of Middletown · filed 2002-02-05(f)(1)

The FHA 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." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... "All three statutes apply to municipal zoning decisions." ... Based on this evidence, then, a reasonable juror could refuse to credit the defendants' stated reasons for denying RECAP a special-use permit and find that the real reason was discrimination based on the identity of RECAP's clients. ... We therefore hold that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants on each of the three statutory claims.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability, and that prohibition applies to municipal zoning decisions.

United States v. Village of Hinsdale · filed 2021-03-18(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 [disability].” ... Both statutes apply to municipal zoning decisions. ... A plaintiff may prove a violation of the FHA or ADA by showing: 1) disparate treatment; 2) disparate impact; or 3) a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a handicap of the buyer, renter, or an associated person.

Chestnut Hill NY, Inc. v. City of Kingston · filed 2024-07-15(f)(1)

The FHA 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 or any person associated with that buyer or renter. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... These provisions are applicable to municipal zoning decisions. ... To show disparate treatment, a plaintiff must allege facts allowing a plausible inference “that animus against the protected group was a significant factor in the position taken by the municipal decision-makers themselves or by those to whom the decision-makers were knowingly responsive.” ... Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged facts that allow a plausible inference of disability-based discrimination in connection with the denial of its special use permit. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim is denied.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental, or otherwise making unavailable or denying, a dwelling because of a handicap, and applies to municipal zoning ordinances.

Maher · filed 2025-10-20(f)(1)

Under the FHA, 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... These statutory provisions apply to municipal zoning ordinances.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) places the initial burden on the plaintiff to show that a requested accommodation is necessary to give handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, then shifts the burden to the defendant to show that the accommodation is unreasonable.

Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment · filed 2002-03-15(f)(3)(B)

We think that under S 3604(f)(3)(B) the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the requested accommodation is necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, at which point the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the requested accommodation is unreasonable.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) places the initial burden on the plaintiff to show that a requested accommodation is necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, after which the defendant must show that the accommodation is unreasonable.

Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board Of Adjustment Of The Township Of Scotch Plains · filed 2002-03-15(f)(3)(B)

We resolve this question by adopting a burden-shifting analysis, in which the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that its requested accommodations are "necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] [an] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling," 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), at which point the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the requested accommodations are unreasonable.

Section 3604 housing discrimination claims require a prima facie showing of discrimination, followed by the defendant's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and the plaintiff's proof of pretext.

Joseph A. Hughes, Jr. v. Deerpath Apartments Medallion Management · filed 1994-05-11

Hughes was first required to make a prima facie showing of discrimination; if met, the defendants would have to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for their decision to terminate Hughes's tenancy, and Hughes then would have to establish that the articulated reason is pretextual. The allegations of discrimination based on Hughes's mental disability are conclusory and do not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact that the basis for the termination of tenancy, harassment of other tenants, was pretextual.

A tenant's Section 3604 discrimination claim fails at summary judgment when the owners give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for seeking eviction and the tenant raises no factual question about discriminatory motive.

Farrell v. Cassano · filed 2002-04-29

Here, defendants met their burden of production by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for seeking to evict Farrell. Farrell thus had to raise a question of material fact as to whether a discriminatory motive fueled the eviction. The record is bereft of any evidence supporting his discrimination claims.

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) requires a reasonable-modification plaintiff to prove that the requested modification is reasonable and necessary.

Charles Hollis, Jr. v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass'n · filed 2014-07-29(f)(3)(A)

The ultimate burden to prove both the reasonableness and the necessity of the requested accommodation or modification rests always with the plaintiff.

Section 3604(a) and (b) prohibit race-based discrimination in homeowners insurance because insurance can make a dwelling unavailable or constitute a service connected with its sale or rental.

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 2002-07-09(a) (b)

In prohibiting activities that would “deny or otherwise make unavailable” housing on account of someone’s race, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to prohibit discrimination in the provision of homeowners insurance, a prerequisite to home ownership for most people in the country. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Congress’ prohibition of discrimination in the provision of services related to the sale or rental of a dwelling extends to the provision of homeowners insurance. The application of the FHA to homeowners insurance is fully consistent with the statute’s purpose in eliminating discrimination resulting in segregated housing and lack of equal housing opportunities. The Court finds that HUD’s interpretation of section 3604 as set forth in its regulations is a permissible construction of the FHA, and, accordingly, that the scope of section 3604 extends to the provision of homeowners insurance.

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) requires permitting a reasonable modification when it may be necessary to give a person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises; an allowed side- or back-yard fence could satisfy that requirement even if the requested front-yard fence was denied.

Loren v. Charles M. Sasser, Jr. · filed 2002-10-17(f)(3)(A)

For the specific reasons of preventing Janke from wandering from the premises, prohibiting her guide dog from biting anyone entering onto the premises, and enabling Newbold and Janke the ability to be outside unsupervised, a chain-link fence on the back or side of the house would accomplish the same purposes by providing an opportunity to be outdoors safely within the deed restrictions of the subdivision. While a chain-link fence on the back or side yard of their property may not be appellants’ preference, it nevertheless would be a reasonable accommodation for the asserted needs of the handicapped appellants. We conclude that the district judge properly granted summary judgment to appellees on Counts I and II relating to the front-yard, chain-link fence because appellants have not established a genuine issue of material fact to show that appellees discriminated against them in violation of the Fair Housing Act by denying their application for a front-yard, chain-link fence, when a reasonable accommodation, compliant with the deed restrictions of the subdivision, was available to serve the stated purposes of appellants.

A violation of § 3604(f)(1) can support punitive damages without a separate showing that the discrimination was egregious or outrageous, if the seller acted with malice or reckless indifference to federal housing rights.

Preferred Properties, Inc. v. Indian River Estates, Inc. Duane J. Tillimon · filed 2002-01-09(f)(1)

We also conclude that a jury may award punitive damages for violations of the FHA, even if the defendant did not engage in egregious misconduct. Like 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, which was at issue in Kolstad, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 “does not require a showing of egregious or outrageous discrimination independent of the [defendant’s] state of mind.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535, 119 S.Ct. 2118.

Section 3604(c) requires a new trial when jury instructions demand proof of intentional discrimination and that error could affect the verdict.

McNamara v. F 48 · filed 1996-05-24(c)

But, taken as a whole, these instructions were just plain wrong. ... That is because the error was prejudicial. ... We, therefore, affirm the district court in all respects other than the verdict against the Taylors based upon their Fair Housing Act action under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). As to that portion of their claim we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Section 3604 does not invalidate local rooming-house licensing provisions solely because of discriminatory animus when there is no evidence that the provisions unduly burden residents.

New Jersey Coalition of Rooming and Boarding House Owners v. City of Asbury Park · filed 1998-07-30

Similar provisions for licensing, inspections, revocation, et cetera, existed under the state-administered regime, and we will not invalidate provisions of a statute whose only effect is to authorize local communities to assume an enforcement role at their election--even if there was discriminatory animus behind the legislation--without some evidence that the provisions were unduly burdensome.

Section 3604(a) does not cover current owners’ claims that discriminatory city services reduced their homes’ value or habitability, and § 3604(b) requires a connection between the services and the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Cox v. City of Dallas Texas · filed 2005-11-09(a), (b)

These cases buttress our conclusion that the simple language of § 3604(a) does not apply to current homeowners whose complaint is that the value or “habitability” of their houses has decreased because such a complaint is not about “availability.” ... The claims here do not assert the requisite connection between the alleged discrimination and the sale or rental of a dwelling - that is, § 3604(b) does not aid plaintiffs, whose complaint is that the value or “habitability” of their houses has decreased.

A discriminatory site selection claim under § 3604(b) cannot survive summary judgment on unsupported allegations about current tenants without evidence of discrimination when the site was selected.

Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND. · filed 2011-12-01(b)

Stevens failed to cite any evidence in the record that HASB engaged in any discrimination in the selection of the apartment site some forty-seven years before Stevens moved in. There is no evidence in the record regarding the racial make-up of the area at the time the complex was built, and no demographic evidence regarding the area outside of the complex at any time. At most, Stevens presents conclusory allegations unsupported by the record that the apartment complex currently houses mostly African-American tenants. Those conclusory allegations are insufficient to meet Stevens’ burden on summary judgment, and the court was correct to grant judgment in favor of the defendants on that claim.

Section 3604(f)(1) and (2) claims do not allege continuing violations when accessible parking spaces were assigned to other owners before the buyers purchased their home and the buyers’ lack of access is a continuing effect of that assignment.

Fishel v. Windsor Plaza Condo. Ass'n · filed 2014-12-31(f)(1), (f)(2)

In this case, the circuit court correctly determined that the Fishels did not allege continuing violations of Code §§ 36-96.3(A)(8) and (9) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1) and (2). The violations alleged by the Fishels — allowing disabled parking spaces to be assigned to residents as limited common elements without reserving a handicap-accessible parking space for the Fishels — occurred at one point in time. The Fishels’ not being able to use a disabled parking space is a continuing effect of having assigned all the handicap-accessible parking spaces to other owners before the Fishels bought their condominium.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race-based discrimination in housing services, including delayed or inadequate repairs.

273 Lee Ave. Tenants Ass'n v. Steinmetz · filed 2018-08-16(b)

FHA § 3604(b) prohibits race-based discrimination "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith."

Section 3604(b) allows a homeowner to sue a homeowners’ association for discriminatory maintenance services or limits on privileges associated with the home.

Mehta v. Beaconridge Improvement Ass'n · filed 2011-07-28(b)

The FHA grants homeowners a cause of action against homeowners’ associations for invidious discrimination or retaliation linked to the terms, conditions, or privileges accompanying their property.