42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(b) permits a claim for discrimination in housing transaction terms even when the borrower receives a loan.

Jones v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2019-07-25(b)

Nevertheless, the plain language of the statutes illustrate that the denial of a loan is not always the dispositive factor; rather, discrimination in the terms, conditions, or any aspect of a credit transaction is still actionable under the ECOA and FHA.

Section 3604(b) does not make a property manager liable for national-origin discrimination merely because it knows of a dispute between tenants.

Hall v. Shipley · filed 2019-08-07(b)

Although the complaint form also alleges that Plaintiff “reported” to the property management company that he was being harassed by another tenant, being aware of a squabble between tenants is not the same thing as affirmatively engaging in Anglophobic discrimination in violation of the FHA.

Section 3604(b) does not impose liability on a landlord for tenant-on-tenant harassment based solely on the landlord’s ordinary powers over tenants.

Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. · filed 2021-03-25(b)

Rather, we conclude as a matter of law that the ordinary powers of a landlord do not establish the substantial control over tenants necessary to impose liability on landlords under the FHA for tenant-on-tenant conduct.

Section 3604 does not make a company owner individually liable for the company’s housing discrimination solely through the company’s liability; imputing that liability to the owner requires a basis to pierce the corporate veil.

Brown v. Pfeiffer · filed 2020-10-20

Because Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not include a claim for piercing the corporate veil, Plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim for the liability of Fruen’s business entities to be imputed to Fruen individually.

A supervisor may be personally liable under § 3604(b) if she participates in or ratifies a violation.

Ellis-Barr v. CP/DB Housing Partners XIII, L.P. · filed 2020-08-21(b)

Williams contends that she cannot be held individually liable for any of these sections of the FHA. The Court does not agree. Although the Fourth Circuit does not appear to have addressed the issue of whether there is individual liability under the FHA, other circuits and district courts have held that, although a supervisor generally cannot be vicariously liable for an FHA violation committed by a junior employee, the supervisor may be directly liable if she participated in the violation or ratified it, as Williams allegedly did.

An officer is not personally liable for a company’s FHA design and construction violations solely because of the officer’s ownership or management role; individual conduct must support liability.

FAIR HOUSING RIGHTS CENTER IN SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. SJ LOFTS, LLC · filed 2021-07-07(f)(3)(C)

FHRC has not so alleged; instead, the allegations against Stillwell are derived solely from his position as an owner and director of Lion and the Streamline Entities. Therefore, to the extent the Amended Complaint attempts to hold Stillwell either vicariously liable or individually liable for the alleged wrongdoing of Lion or the Streamline Entities, FHRC’s claims fail.

Section 3604(f) requires a plaintiff claiming disability discrimination to plead facts showing a qualifying disability.

Johnson v. East Tawas Housing Commission · filed 2021-03-19(f)

Absent a showing that he is disabled within the meaning of the FHA, ADA, or Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff cannot state a federal claim for relief.

Section 3604(b) requires facts showing that alleged rental discrimination occurred because of a protected characteristic; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Scutt v. Norton · filed 2021-06-22(b)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding Defendants’ conduct insufficiently demonstrate that they caused the purported harm because of her gender or religion, or any other protected ground.

Section 3604(a) requires facts plausibly showing that an eviction was because of a protected characteristic; a tenant’s subjective belief alone is insufficient.

Scutt v. Dorris · filed 2020-12-14(a)

Plaintiff again alleges only conclusory allegations—without facts—regarding her subjective belief that Lin and Chen evicted Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s religion and/or status as a “transgender/LGBT” person.

Section 3604 affords no relief when a plaintiff does not allege housing discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

Ogando v. Napolitano · filed 2025-09-24

The ECOA prohibits discrimination in credit transactions, and the FHA, along with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., prohibits discrimination in housing. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, disability, and/or because the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program. 15 U.S.C. § 1691; 42 U.S.C. § 3604. However, Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of any of these characteristics, and therefore these statutes cannot provide the relief Plaintiff seeks.

Section 3604 does not require a housing applicant to disclose a handicap during an interview.

Hirschmann v. Hassapoyannes · filed 2005-12-01(f)(1)

However, because the Fair Housing Act expressly prohibits inquiry of an individual’s handicap, it is illogical to impose on the applicant a concomitant duty to disclose that handicap.

Section 3604(b) requires facts connecting allegedly discriminatory housing terms or services to a protected characteristic.

McKee v. Busey Bank · filed 2023-11-28(b)

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing she was treated differently due to her age or race. As a result, liberally construing plaintiff’s complaint, her FHA claims of race and age discrimination against defendant fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 3604 requires facts suggesting that a landlord’s treatment of a tenant was connected to a protected characteristic.

El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc. · filed 2021-06-28(b), (f)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not expressly allege any facts suggesting a violation of the FHA. ... If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the pleading should include specific facts regarding Robinson-Zenon’s treatment of Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff’s disability, race, and national origin.

Section 3604(b) requires plausible facts showing housing discrimination because of a protected characteristic, such as race.

Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC · filed 2022-06-27(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege any plausible facts suggesting that any defendant subjected him to discrimination or retaliation in housing on the basis of any impermissible factor, he fails to state a claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(a) requires allegations that a person was denied housing and that their protected class was a motivating factor in the denial.

Shultz v. Department of Justice · filed 2023-04-25(a)

To state a claim for discrimination under § 3604(a), a party must allege that (1) they are a member of protected class; (2) they were denied the sale or rent of a dwelling after making a bona fide offer, was refused negotiations concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, or that a dwelling ... was otherwise made unavailable or denied to plaintiff; and (3) plaintiff’s protected class was a motivating factor for the discriminatory conduct.

Section 3604(b) requires facts supporting a plausible claim that an adverse housing action occurred because of race; a bare belief of discrimination is insufficient.

Hall v. Crestwood Lake Section 8 Holding Corporation · filed 2024-08-19(b)

Here, Plaintiff asserts that she “believe[s] [she] was retaliated on because [she] was black,” but she alleges no facts supporting her belief that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, and nothing in the complaint or the attachments suggests that Plaintiff suffered an adverse housing action because of her race. Plaintiff therefore does not state a viable claim under the FHA.

Section 3604 requires a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination in housing to plead facts supporting a qualifying handicap.

Petramala v. Phoenix, City of · filed 2022-02-22(f)(1)

Without adequately alleging a handicap with non-conclusory factual allegations, Plaintiff has no claim under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or FHA.

Section 3604(f) requires a disability discrimination complaint to allege facts plausibly suggesting that disability motivated the denial of housing.

Gonzalez v. Tejada · filed 2024-01-02(f)

Plaintiff’s sole allegation relating to her housing is that Berkshire Hathaway denied her an apartment because her son has autism. ... Without additional factual support, Plaintiff’s single-sentence allegation is insufficient to suggest a “minimal inference of discriminatory motivation.”

A disability discrimination claim under Section 3604 requires facts identifying the adverse housing action and connecting it to the claimant’s disability.

Ballentine v. Bowery Residence Committee · filed 2025-07-29(f)(2)

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on “a handicap,” among other protected characteristics. ... However, he pleads no specific facts describing how he was punished and denied reasonable accommodations, or by whom, or how those adverse actions were “due to [his] disability” and “illnesses.” ... Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under the FHA and ADA.

Section 3604(b) does not cover a landlord’s suit for unpaid rent after a tenancy ends.

Leonard v. Nokel LLC · filed 2021-07-19(b)

First, defendants’ decision to sue McCant for unpaid rent falls outside the purview of the statute. The FHA prohibits a landlord from 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 therewith, because of race.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) permits special housing safety standards for people with disabilities when their specific needs and abilities warrant them.

Marbrunak, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. City of Stow, Ohio, Cross-Appellee · filed 1992-08-31(f)(3)(B)

The city is correct in its contention that the FHAA does not prohibit the city from imposing any special safety standards for the protection of developmentally disabled persons. It may impose standards which are different from those to which it subjects the general population, so long as that protection is demonstrated to be warranted by the unique and specific needs and abilities of those handicapped persons.

Section 3604(f)(1) applies to discriminatory denial of conduit bond financing for housing because the agency’s refusal can make housing unavailable.

United States v. Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency · filed 1996-01-16(f)(1)

In this way, the conduit bond financing agency makes housing unavailable no less than other actors with the power to block the sale or rental of housing. ... Defendant’s alleged misconduct falls more properly into the latter category, and therefore § 3604(f)(1) applies.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits housing rules that facially discriminate against people with disabilities, including rules targeting facilities that provide personal care services.

Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. City of Naperville · filed 1996-03-29(f)(1)

Like the ordinance in Horizon House aimed at “family care homes,” the RBCO provisions in the LSC discriminate on their face against handicapped individuals because their reach “coincides with the breadth of the definition of ‘handicap’ under the [FHAA].”

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing restrictions that single out people with disabilities; showing such differential treatment establishes a prima facie discrimination claim.

Human Resource Research & Management Group, Inc. v. County of Suffolk · filed 2010-02-17(f)

Accordingly, plaintiffs have proven their prima facie case under the FHA, and the burden shifts to Suffolk County to provide adequate justification for the disparate treatment of this disabled class of individuals affected by S.C.C. § 450.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits facial disability discrimination in zoning when the challenged terms treat people differently because of disability.

431 East Palisade Avenue Real v. City of Englewood · filed 2020-10-08(f)(2)

The mere fact that some general terms in the ordinance operate ... to disallow assisted living facilities and other terms expressly permit assisted living facilities as of right in another district, does not transform the ordinance into one that discriminates on its face.

Section 3604 does not give residents a right to choose where highways are sited.

Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening · filed 1999-04-05

We do not find in section 3604’s prohibitory language the positive entitlement that appellants seek. The Fair Housing Act does not grant to residents the right to have highways sited where they please.

Section 3604(a) and (b) do not reach a highway siting decision that neither makes a dwelling unavailable nor provides a housing-related service.

Winder v. Glendenning · filed 1999-04-05(a), (b)

With regard to section 3604(a), the agencies did not "make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person" within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. ... In selecting a site for the Route 50 Bypass around the City of Salisbury, defendants did not become providers of housing services within the meaning of section 3604(b).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a housing provider to give a disabled resident an extra parking space when it offers an accessible space and the resident shows no disability-related need for both.

Sporn v. Ocean Colony Condominium Ass'n · filed 2001-10-29(f)(3)(B)

These comments reveal that Sporn’s request for “reasonable accommodation” was really a request for accommodation coupled with a demand for special treatment. Thus, Sporn’s refusal to accept the Association’s proposed accommodation cannot provide the basis for an FHA discrimination claim.