A few weeks back I posted here at MFI about the two most important words in Fair Housing for this year – disparate impact. I shared that the Supreme Court would be hearing a case (Gallagher v. Magner) this spring (it was actually scheduled for arguments on February 29th) and would rule on whether disparate impact should be part of fair housing law. Well, now that ain’t going to happen – the Supreme Court will not weigh in because the parties in the case have settled.
So why should you care? Why or how will this matter to you?
Well, I went to one of my most trusted attorney sources for her take on this. What did Terry Kitay have to say? Here goes: The fact that the Supreme Court won't be hearing this case means (to me) that the HUD proposed rule [on disparate impact] will become final without major edits, and there will a large spate of "discriminatory effects" cases around the country. I've already had clients tell me they've gotten letters from various advocacy groups accusing them of disparate impact discrimination based on their policies on criminal history, failure to accept Section 8, etc.
I had alerted you with my previous post to when I wrote: The industry may not be able to require criminal background checks (just as certain protected employment groups were unintentionally impacted by the “clean shaven” policy, certain protected housing groups are more likely to have criminal backgrounds). Could this be applied to income standards? Possibly, as certain groups earn less. (If I show you that I historically pay my rent on time, what does my income really matter?)
It could get really busy and pretty ugly out there – I’d like you to let me know through this blog what you might be hearing in the near future. And I will of course be sharing what I might hear as well.
“Uh Oh” indeed.