Category: Landlord Representation
Clear ResultsLandlord Representation
HUD’s Assistance Animal Reset: Where is Federal Enforcement Heading?
If there is one fair housing topic that has generated a disproportionate amount of litigation, complaints, training questions, and frustration over the past decade, it is assistance animals. For years, housing providers operated under HUD guidance that recognized both trained service animals and untrained emotional support animals (ESAs) as qualifying for reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). However, that framework has now been disrupted. HUD's May 22, 2026, enforcement memorandum represents the most significant federal policy shift on assistance animals in a decade. But perhaps even more importantly, it signals where HUD appears to be headed next. Looking Back: HUD’s Trajectory Before May 2026 To understand the significance of HUD's recent actions, it is helpful to review the prior trajectory. In 2013, HUD issued guidance clarifying that untrained assistance animals (specifically, ESAs) should be treated as reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, even though ESAs were not recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2020, HUD issued detailed guidance on how to evaluate assistance animal requests. This guidance became the primary resource used by housing providers, disability advocates, attorneys, and fair housing investigators. That guidance expressly recognized that assistance animals were not limited to trained service animals and could include emotional support animals that provided therapeutic benefit to a person with a disability. In direct response to HUD’s guidance, housing providers revised policies, created accommodation procedures, waived animal fees, and trained staff based on HUD’s framework. By 2024, the prevalence of quick and cheap online certifications for animals to be considered ESAs exploded. Fraud and misuse escalated, and it became increasingly difficult to verify the authenticity of a resident’s request for a reasonable accommodation to allow an ESA, which created ambiguity for both landlords and tenants. Then, in September 2025, HUD abruptly rescinded its prior 2013 and 2020 guidance documents. While the agency did not replace those materials with a new substantive framework, the rescission served as an early indicator that HUD was reconsidering its position on assistance animals and the applicability of ESA-related accommodations. HUD’s New 2026 Enforcement Standard In May 2026, HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) announced that it would immediately change how it investigates and prosecutes animal-related accommodation complaints. According to the new memorandum, HUD will pursue FHA enforcement actions only when the animal has been “individually trained to perform work or perform tasks directly related to the complainant’s disability.” HUD explicitly adopted the ADA analysis that the assistance animal must be a trained service animal; however, HUD clarified that, unlike the ADA, the animal need not necessarily be a dog. In a shocking overhaul of prior guidance, HUD indicated that it is unreasonable to require a housing provider to waive pet policies for an untrained ESA. Source: AS-Trainor-Enforcement-Guidance-Assessing-Requests-for-the-use-of-an-animal-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-the-fair-housing-act.pdf This is not a reinterpretation of past guidance. It is a substantial policy shift that narrows the scope of consideration when an animal-related reasonable accommodation request is received. Indeed, the agency expressly stated that comfort, companionship, emotional support, and similar therapeutic benefits do not constitute disability-related work or tasks. This shift means that untrained emotional support animals no longer fall within HUD’s enforcement priorities. Source: AS-Trainor-Enforcement-Guidance-Assessing-Requests-for-the-use-of-an-animal-as-a-reasonable-accommodation-under-the-fair-housing-act.pdf Looking Ahead: What HUD Appears Likely to Do Next The May 2026 memorandum may ultimately be remembered not for what it did immediately, but for what it foreshadowed. HUD has publicly announced its intention to engage in formal notice-and-comment rulemaking regarding assistance animals under the Fair Housing Act. The agency specifically indicated that it is considering regulatory changes that would align the FHA assistance-animal framework with the ADA’s service-animal model. If HUD follows through, the rulemaking process would represent the first significant regulatory overhaul of these standards in decades. While predicting agency action is always risky, HUD’s direction appears clear. This administration has repeatedly emphasized concerns regarding fraudulent ESA documentation, inconsistent standards, and the growing number of fair housing complaints involving emotional support animals. FHEO made a point of appending to its memo two examples of no reasonable cause determinations issued in April 2026 for complaints involving untrained ESAs. Whether the proposed regulation survives public comment, litigation challenges, and eventual judicial review remains to be seen. What About DOJ? Housing providers should be cautious about assuming that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will immediately mirror HUD's new position. Historically, DOJ has continued pursuing FHA disability-discrimination cases involving assistance animals and accommodation requests. In August 2024, DOJ entered a significant settlement involving allegations that a cooperative housing provider refused to accommodate a resident's emotional support animals and retaliated after she sought assistance. The resulting consent decree included substantial monetary relief and ongoing compliance obligations. Source: Southern District of New York | U.S. Attorney’s Office Obtains Settlement Of Fair Housing Act Case Compensating Discrimination Victim Threatened With Eviction For Maintaining Support Animals | United States Department of Justice More broadly, DOJ continues to emphasize accommodations for ESAs in housing and pursue disability-discrimination enforcement cases (including those involving ESAs). Although DOJ may eventually align more closely with HUD's regulatory direction, we have not yet seen any comprehensive DOJ announcement signaling a wholesale abandonment of ESA-related FHA enforcement. A Local and Regional Focus Matters More Than Ever HUD's enforcement priorities, guidance, and interpretation of the regulation have changed. However, the Fair Housing Act itself has not changed. Congress has not amended the statute, and HUD has not yet completed the formal rulemaking process required to create binding regulations. Complainants remain able to bring private lawsuits, and courts across the country remain free to interpret the FHA differently. In other words, reduced HUD enforcement risk does not necessarily mean reduced litigation risk. The greatest mistake a housing provider can make right now is adopting a nationwide policy based solely on HUD's memorandum. Many state and local fair housing laws contain stricter disability protections than federal law. State agencies, local human rights commissions, and fair housing organizations are not bound by HUD's internal memorandum and may continue pursuing ESA-related claims. This means a policy that presents relatively little risk in one jurisdiction could create substantial exposure in another. For multifamily operators, developers, and housing providers, the best approach is to analyze assistance-animal requests through both a federal and local-law lens and on a case-by-case basis. HUD has made its position increasingly clear. The agency appears committed to aligning FHA assistance-animal standards with the ADA's trained-service-animal model. But until rulemaking is complete and courts weigh in, housing providers should focus less on what HUD hopes the law will become and more on what the law requires today in the jurisdictions where they operate.
July 7, 2026
Landlord Representation
What DC's Fair Housing Practices Amendment Act of 2025 Means for Landlords and Tenants
The DC Council is moving forward with legislation that could reshape how landlords charge tenants — both during a tenancy and after a tenant moves out. The Fair Housing Practices Amendment Act of 2025 (Bill 26-126) amends the long-standing Rental Housing Act of 1985 and, if enacted, will introduce new notice requirements, restrict certain fees, and limit how utility costs are passed along to renters. Here's a plain-language look at what the bill does and what it could mean for you, whether you own rental property or rent your home in the District. A New Process for Charging Tenants After Move-Out One of the bill's central changes adds structure to how landlords pursue money owed after a tenancy ends. Under the new rules, when a tenancy terminates, the housing provider must first ask the departing tenant for a forwarding mailing or email address so that required notices can be delivered. Within 45 days of the tenancy ending, the landlord must notify the tenant in writing — either in person or by certified mail to the tenant's last known address — of any alleged unpaid amounts. Those amounts may include unpaid rent, damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, or charges for removing items the tenant left behind. Critically, the notice can't simply assert a dollar value. It must include documentation supporting the claim, along with a statement informing the tenant of their right to dispute it, and the landlord's contact information. Tenants then have 30 calendar days from the date of service to dispute the charges and provide evidence that the amount is inaccurate or has been wrongly attributed to them. If a tenant does so, the landlord must respond in writing within 10 days. And before any unpaid amount can be sent to a debt collector, the landlord must be able to show that the tenant was served with the required notice at least 60 days earlier. For landlords, the practical takeaway is clear: documentation and timing matter more than ever. No More Service or Administration Fees for Utilities The bill also amends a portion of the Rental Housing Act to prohibit landlords from charging tenants — before move-in, during the tenancy, or after move-out — for services the landlord is already legally required to provide. These are services tied to the implied warranty of habitability and to Titles 12 and 14 of the DC Municipal Regulations. The legislation specifically calls out fees related to utilities, trash, locks, and administrative fees for third-party billing as examples of charges that would no longer be permitted. While housing providers can still charge tenants for utilities based on usage, housing providers are forbidden from adding service or administration fees onto tenants' ledger. Limits on Billing Tenants for Common-Area and Vacant-Unit Utilities Beginning January 1, 2027, landlords — and any third party they contract with — will be prohibited from separately billing tenants, outside of monthly rent, for utilities accrued by a building's common spaces or vacant units. The bill defines common spaces broadly to include lobbies, leasing offices, business centers, pools, and fitness centers. "Utility" is likewise defined to cover electricity, gas, sewage and wastewater service, water, and internet or telephone usage. Importantly, the bill does not ban all utility cost-sharing. It expressly preserves the use of a Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS), which allocates master-metered utility costs among tenants using a formula, such as one based on square footage, occupancy, or number of bedrooms. In other words, landlords can continue to distribute a building's actual metered utility costs among occupied units. What they cannot do is make tenants pay specifically for empty units and shared amenity spaces. What This Means for You If you own or manage rental property in the District, now is the time to review your lease agreements, fee structures, and move-out procedures so you're prepared well before the amended provisions take effect. Procedures regarding security deposit disposition and sending unpaid rent to collections will need to be updated and standardized. Every situation is different, and the way this legislation applies will depend on the specific facts of your lease and circumstances.
June 16, 2026
Landlord Representation
HUD’s New Fair Housing Governance Strategies: Accountability, Detection, and Interagency Strategic Targeting
HUD’s unending flurry of announcements, proposed rulemaking, and press releases is neither subtle nor accidental. Over the past 18 months or so, HUD’s announcements have coalesced around three themes likely to shape the next several years of federal housing policy. First, accountability will be operationalized. HUD’s willingness to impose monitorship and assume control of PHAs indicates that compliance failures will increasingly be met with intervention, rather than incremental guidance. Second, civil rights compliance and enforcement remain in flux. As HUD advances regulatory changes and courts inevitably weigh in (over the years to come), housing providers must prepare for a period of doctrinal instability. Third, enforcement will be both targeted and strategic. By selecting high-profile investigations, HUD can influence industry behavior beyond the immediate parties, effectively regulating through example. Taken together, these reflect a deliberate recalibration of federal housing governance, one that blends fair housing enforcement with a renewed emphasis on operational accountability, explicit civil-rights policy, and interagency coordination. The result is a framework that is less about suggested guidance and more about institutional posture: HUD is signaling how it intends to govern, enforce, and intervene for the foreseeable future. From Oversight to Intervention: HUD Reignites Direct Federal Control HUD’s recent actions against local public housing authorities demonstrate a shift from general oversight to direct intervention. The February 2026 placement of the Manhattan Housing Authority into federal monitorship introduced a familiar but newly emphasized tool: the imposition of HUD-appointed “Cure Monitors,” enhanced oversight of procurement and financial controls, and the threat of escalation to full federal possession. That threat materialized mere months later. In May 2026, HUD declared the Little Rock Housing Authority in “substantial default,” dissolved its governing board, and assumed full possession of its programs and assets after finding material violations of a prior recovery agreement. On their face, these actions are rooted in statutory authority (which has long been available to HUD). However, their recent deployment and the speed with which monitorship escalated into possession suggests a revived willingness to unlock this authority. The administrative message is clear: recovery agreements are no longer aspirational. They are enforceable benchmarks, and failure to meet them may trigger immediate consequences. If HUD is prepared to step into the role of operator, the risk of noncompliance becomes substantial. Redefining Civil Rights: From Enforcement Pause to Framework Reset Parallel to this enforcement posture, HUD has undertaken a second, more ideological project: redefining key civil rights concepts within its regulatory framework. In 2025, HUD halted enforcement of aspects of the 2016 Equal Access Rule, signaling a departure from prior interpretations of nondiscrimination obligations in HUD-funded programs. By 2026, that pause had evolved into a proposed rulemaking effort to revise terminology across HUD regulations — removing “gender identity” from interpretations of “sex” and refocusing program requirements on “biological truth.” HUD is not simply deprioritizing enforcement; it is attempting to rewrite the regulatory vocabulary through which compliance is measured. That shift carries consequences not only for shelters and supportive housing providers (where the immediate impact is often most pronounced) but also for any multifamily operator navigating layered federal, state, and local nondiscrimination obligations. The result, at least in the near term, is regulatory fragmentation. Federal program requirements may diverge from state or local law, forcing housing providers into a position of having to simultaneously comply with potentially conflicting regimes. The challenge becomes less about choosing sides and more about engineering policies that can withstand the counterpressure of competing bodies (federal vs. state). The Selective Spotlight: Fair Housing Enforcement Through High-Profile Investigations If HUD’s regulatory proposals define its internal posture, its public-facing enforcement priorities are equally illustrative. The agency’s 2026 decision to open a Fair Housing Act investigation into a planned development in Texas — based on allegations of religious and national origin discrimination — reflects a renewed willingness to bring high-visibility cases that test the boundaries of community identity and exclusivity. The Fair Housing Act has long prohibited discrimination based on those two protected traits. What is notable here is not the legal theory but the emphasis: HUD is scrutinizing how developments are conceived, marketed, and structured, not merely how individual applicants are treated. Allegations involving targeted messaging, financial structures tied to religious institutions, and tiered access mechanisms illustrate HUD’s expansive view of what may constitute discriminatory conduct. This investigation may serve a dual function. It is both an enforcement action and a signaling device, communicating to the market that branding strategies and community frameworks will be evaluated through a fair housing lens, even at the conceptual stage. Interagency Alignment These developments do not exist in isolation. HUD’s participation in broader federal initiatives — including task force activity and coordination with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security — reflects an increasingly strategic enforcement model. This model prioritizes data sharing, coordinated investigations, and multi-agency responses to alleged systemic issues, whether framed as mismanagement, discrimination, or public safety concerns. The practical effect is: issues that once unfolded within a single agency may now trigger parallel scrutiny across multiple federal actors. A Forward-Looking Assessment The way HUD deploys its authority — combining intervention, redefinition, and selective enforcement — signals a more assertive and unpredictable regulatory environment. For multifamily stakeholders, the lesson is less about any single announcement and more about the pattern they form. HUD is not merely administering housing programs; it is actively shaping the conditions under which those programs (and, perhaps, the broader housing market) operate. The prudent response is not reactionary compliance, but anticipatory governance: aligning policies, partnerships, and practices with federal (and state) requirements.
June 3, 2026
Landlord Representation
Avoiding FLSA Pitfalls When Offering Onsite Housing and Rent Discounts
Onsite housing and rent discounts are common benefits in the property management industry, but federal wage-and-hour litigation makes clear that these arrangements can create significant Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exposure if they are not carefully structured. The central question courts ask is not how the benefit is labeled, but whether onsite living primarily benefits the employer and whether it results in unpaid or underpaid work. When housing benefits blur into compensation or operational control, employers face heightened risk of overtime liability, off‑the‑clock claims, and retaliation allegations. Keep Housing Truly Voluntary Housing benefits pose the least FLSA risk when employees are free to live onsite by choice rather than necessity. Requiring onsite residence as a condition of hire or continued employment strongly suggests that the arrangement exists for the employer’s benefit. Employers should ensure that employment offers, policy documents, and actual practices make clear that living onsite is optional and that declining housing has no effect on wages, scheduling, or job security. Separate Housing Benefits from Compensation Rent discounts must remain clearly distinct from wages. When discounts vary by job title, seniority, or responsibility, courts are more likely to view the housing as compensation rather than a fringe benefit. Uniform discounts—or discounts that are demonstrably unrelated to performance or availability—are easier to defend. Employers should avoid structuring housing benefits in ways that resemble pay incentives or substitutes for overtime compensation. Avoid Creating Implicit On‑Call Obligations Employees who live onsite are often perceived—by management or by tenants—as naturally available after hours. Even absent a formal on-call policy, this expectation can give rise to compensable work time. Employers should clearly define work hours, limit after-hours requests, and avoid relying on employees’ proximity as a substitute for staffing. Where on-call work is required, it must be clearly documented and compensated in accordance with the FLSA. Use Arms-Length Leasing Practices Treating employee residents the same as non-employee tenants reinforces the non-compensatory nature of housing benefits. Requiring standard rental applications, background checks, and lease agreements supports an arms-length relationship and reduces the argument that housing is a condition or incident of employment. Special treatment, guaranteed units, or waived leasing requirements undermine that distinction. Pay for All Time Worked—Including After Hours After-hours responses to maintenance calls, tenant complaints, or emergencies frequently constitute compensable work time. Employers should implement reliable timekeeping procedures that allow employees to record this work and should train supervisors to avoid discouraging accurate reporting. Failure to capture and pay for after-hours work remains one of the most frequent sources of FLSA liability in the property management context. Evaluate Whether Rent Discounts Affect the Regular Rate When onsite living primarily benefits the employer—by ensuring immediate coverage, enhanced security, or continuous availability—the value of a rent discount may be required to be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. Employers should evaluate housing arrangements holistically and seek legal guidance before excluding rent discounts from overtime calculations, particularly where onsite residence is expected or strongly encouraged. Bottom Line Onsite housing can be a lawful and effective benefit, but only when it functions as a voluntary perk rather than an operational necessity. When housing is mandatory, compensation-linked, or tied to unpaid availability, FLSA risks increase substantially. Careful program design, clear policies, and consistent compensation practices are essential to minimizing wage-and-hour exposure.
April 20, 2026
Landlord Representation
Deregulation Is Not Immunity: How Fragmented Federal Enforcement Is Reshaping Fair Housing Compliance
One of the most overlooked developments in 2026 is how enforcement has splintered across federal agencies—each operating independently of HUD’s policy posture. HUD’s rescission of numerous guidance documents and the federal government’s recalibration of civil rights priorities do not eliminate risk for housing providers. Instead, the landscape has shifted and spider-webbed across multiple agencies, a few of which are outlined below along with their impact on multifamily housing. HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) HUD OIG operates under a statutory mandate untethered from HUD’s guidance priorities. Its recent semiannual report* reflects aggressive audit and enforcement activity, including: 64 administrative sanctions Over $219 million in questionable spending Nearly $600,000 recommended for better use of funds OIG audits routinely examine tenant files, eligibility determinations, and internal controls. Poor site-level documentation by housing providers can trigger repayment demands and referrals. Social Security Administration (SSA) The SSA has ramped up investigations into identity fraud in housing, issuing subpoenas and, in some jurisdictions, executing search warrants connected to benefit misuse and rental fraud schemes. Property management companies may soon find themselves caught in SSA investigations due to fraud perpetrated by applicants who use misappropriated or manufactured documents. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Verification HUD has recently proposed increasing citizenship and immigration verification requirements for occupants in federally assisted housing, seemingly, promptly after compiling a joint eligibility report with DHS. HUD’s February 2026 proposed rulemaking would require eligibility verification for all household members regardless of age, effectively ending prorated assistance for mixed‑status households. This push in enforcement carries serious fair housing risks. While housing providers must follow federal eligibility rules precisely, selective enforcement, retaliation, or national‑origin discrimination remain unlawful under the Fair Housing Act. Providers must ensure uniform application and airtight communications with residents. HUD’s Criminal Screening Rules Changed—The Risk Didn’t HUD’s withdrawal of several guidance documents—most notably its criminal screening and assistance animal guidance—reflects a policy shift, not a legal repeal. The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) remains the governing statute and courts have previously upheld judicial decisions grounded in disparate impact, reasonableness, and evidentiary justification. Criminal screening remains one of the most common fair housing complaints, particularly because criminal history policies may disproportionately affect certain protected classes. However, HUD has formally rescinded its 2015–2022 criminal screening guidance, including its Office of General Counsel memoranda emphasizing individualized assessments and discouraging reliance on arrest records. In addition, HUD has signaled a renewed focus on safety in federally assisted housing and stricter enforcement of criminal activity at these properties (e.g., “one strike” rules). However, housing providers should not misread the recent rescission as a green light for blanket bans on criminal history. Courts, and state-level administrative enforcement agencies, continue to rely on the same legal frameworks that underpinned the rescinded guidance. Judicial decisions still reject universal criminal history bans, require a logical nexus between a criminal conviction and potential housing risk, and scrutinize whether a policy is necessary to achieve a legitimate interest. Providers that assume HUD’s silence equals judicial approval do so at their peril. Practical Considerations for Applicant Criminal Screening Avoid blanket exclusions based on “any conviction” Tie disqualifying convictions to specific, defensible housing risks Consider the offense severity and recency of the conviction Document individualized decision‑making and review mitigating evidence Ensure screening vendors follow lawful, jurisdiction‑specific processes Most enforcement actions do not originate in boardrooms; they begin with frontline interactions in leasing offices. Preparing for the Next Enforcement Cycle—Not Just This One The safest compliance posture in 2026 is continued adherence to existing statutes and regulations, not shifting with agency guidance. Providers should assume that every decision may one day be reviewed by a different agency, or a different administration. Strong policies grounded in law, evidence, and consistency future‑proof operations against political change, regulatory whiplash, and reputational harm. Sub‑regulatory guidance can be rescinded quickly by HUD, but it can be reissued just as easily by a future administration. Conduct occurring today will still be evaluated under existing statutory and case law standards. Providers that loosen policies now may face substantial exposure later through private litigation, changes to state and local enforcement, or renewed federal scrutiny. Change is the name of the game in 2026. Risk has shifted, not vanished. Housing providers that confuse deregulation with immunity may face harsh consequences when enforcement resurges. *Semiannual Report to Congress For the Period April 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025
April 13, 2026
Landlord Representation
Navigating DC's Rental Act: Changes in Eviction
In Episode two of The DC Rental Act in Three Minutes, Offit Kurman attorneys Brian Dorwin and Gwen Roy Harrison examine key changes to eviction procedures under the new Rental Act, with a focus on public safety cases. They explain how, under the prior law, landlords were required to issue a 30‑day notice with an opportunity to cure—and often had to wait for repeated misconduct—before filing an eviction. In situations involving violent or dangerous behavior, this left landlords and residents with limited immediate protection. The Rental Act introduces a major shift: a 10‑day notice to vacate with no cure provision for tenants alleged to have committed a dangerous crime or crime of violence. Landlords are no longer required to wait for a criminal conviction before acting, allowing for faster responses to serious threats. Brian and Gwen also note that many questions remain. Because the Act took effect so quickly and reshaped nearly every part of landlord‑tenant court, DC Superior Court and agencies are still interpreting how these provisions will work in practice. Early rulings in 2026 will be critical in shaping how the law is applied.
April 9, 2026
DC Rental Act in Three Minutes
Understanding DC Protective Orders Under the RENTAL Act
The DC RENTAL Act has reshaped how protective orders work in eviction cases—making them faster, more consistent, and far more beneficial for housing providers. A protective order requires tenants to pay rent into the court registry rather than directly to the landlord, ensuring continued payment while a case is pending. Before the RENTAL Act, landlords often faced long delays. Tenants could raise even minor disputes, pushing protective‑order hearings months out and slowing down the eviction process. Now, judges are expected to issue preliminary protective orders at the very first hearing. Tenants may still request a Bell hearing or raise defenses, but they must begin making monthly payments immediately until the court adjusts the amount. Since the Act took effect, DC courts have been issuing protective orders more reliably at initial hearings—resulting in steadier payments and fewer procedural setbacks for landlords.
April 2, 2026
DC Rental Act in Three Minutes
The DC RENTAL Act in Three Minutes: A New Series
In this kickoff episode of The DC RENTAL Act in Three Minutes, Offit Kurman attorneys Brian Dorwin, Gwen Roy Harrison, and Rob Donahue introduce the sweeping legislative changes that took effect in Washington, DC on January 1, 2026. The DC RENTAL Act—passed just one day earlier—marks one of the most significant shifts in landlord tenant law the District has seen in years. The team explains why this reform was long overdue. In 2024 and 2025, DC became an outlier in delinquencies and strained landlord tenant relationships. Affordable housing projects were destabilized, and many multifamily owners faced foreclosure or default. The RENTAL Act is the City Council’s attempt to correct course and bring greater balance and predictability to the system. Over the coming weeks, Brian, Gwen, and Rob will break down the Act’s most impactful components, including changes to court procedures, protective orders, TOPA, public safety evictions, and the new 10- and 30-day notice requirements. Because the law took effect so quickly, DC Superior Court is already interpreting it in real time—meaning early rulings are emerging, but many questions remain open. This series will help property owners, managers, and industry professionals understand how the RENTAL Act is being applied today and what to expect as litigation and guidance continue to develop throughout 2026.
March 25, 2026
Landlord Representation
After the Layoff: Rebuilding Trust and Avoiding Legal Landmines
A reduction in force is one of the hardest decisions any organization makes. Even when the business case is clear, the human impact is not. Jobs are lost. Teams are disrupted. And the employees who remain are left trying to process a complicated mix of relief, anxiety, and uncertainty. For employers, the work does not end when the layoff notices go out, or the separation agreements are signed. In many ways, the real challenge begins the next morning when the remaining workforce logs in and asks the same quiet question: what happens now? From a labor and employment perspective, the post-layoff period is where culture, communication, and legal risk collide. Organizations that handle this moment thoughtfully can rebuild trust and stabilize their teams. Those that do not may find themselves facing declining morale, increased turnover, and avoidable legal exposure. The employees who remain are often referred to as “survivors,” and that description is not far off. Survivor’s guilt is common. Employees may feel uneasy about colleagues who lost their jobs while they remained. At the same time, many are wondering if they will be next. The instinct for some leaders is to move on quickly and return to business as usual. That approach rarely works. Silence invites speculation, and speculation almost always fills the gap with worst-case assumptions. The first step toward rebuilding trust is clarity. Employees do not expect leadership to promise that layoffs will never happen again. They do expect honesty about why the reduction occurred and what the path forward looks like. When leaders explain the business realities behind difficult decisions, employees are more likely to view the process as legitimate, even if they wish it had not happened. Transparency also means explaining how decisions were made. Without sharing confidential information, employers should communicate the factors used to evaluate roles and determine which positions were eliminated. When employees understand the reasoning, they are less likely to assume the process was arbitrary or unfair. Managers play a critical role in this moment. Frontline supervisors are usually the first people employees turn to with questions and concerns, yet they are often the least prepared for those conversations. Employers should provide managers guidance on how to address the layoff, answer common questions, and recognize signs of burnout or disengagement on their teams. At the same time, organizations need to take a realistic look at workload. One of the most common mistakes after a reduction in force is assuming the remaining employees can simply absorb the work of those who left. In the short term, teams often step up heroically. Over time, however, sustained overload leads to frustration, mistakes, and eventually departures. Rebuilding trust means acknowledging this reality and adjusting priorities where necessary. Recognition matters as well. Employees want to know their contributions are seen and valued, especially during periods of uncertainty. Celebrating small wins, inviting employee input, and acknowledging extra effort can go a long way toward restoring a sense of stability. But rebuilding morale is only part of the equation. The period following a reduction in force also comes with a number of legal landmines that employers should not ignore. One of the biggest risks is inconsistent messaging. If leaders offer different explanations about why the layoff occurred or how decisions were made, employees may begin to question whether the stated business reasons were genuine. Confusion and mixed signals can quickly fuel discrimination or retaliation claims. Employers should make sure leadership, HR, and managers are aligned on what will be communicated and how. Another key issue is whether the layoff had a disproportionate impact on certain employee groups. Even when a reduction is driven by legitimate business needs, the selection criteria can sometimes result in unintended disparities affecting protected groups. Conducting an adverse impact analysis before implementing a reduction is a critical step that many employers overlook. Age-related issues deserve particular attention. When employees aged 40 and older are asked to sign releases in exchange for severance, employers must comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. That means using clear language and providing the appropriate review and revocation periods. In group termination situations, employers must also provide specific disclosures regarding job titles and ages of individuals selected and not selected for the program. These requirements are technical, and cutting corners can undermine the enforceability of the agreement. Retaliation is another common flashpoint. Employees who previously raised concerns about discrimination, harassment, pay practices, or workplace safety may claim they were selected for the layoff because they spoke up. That does not mean they cannot be included in a legitimate reduction in force, but it does mean the employer should have well-documented, objective business reasons for the decision. Employers should also be mindful of wage-and-hour issues that may arise after layoffs. When teams shrink, but expectations stay the same, remaining employees may start working off the clock, skipping breaks, or accumulating overtime that managers quietly hope will go unreported. That dynamic can quickly lead to wage claims. Reviewing timekeeping practices and reminding managers of their responsibilities can prevent small issues from becoming larger ones. Severance agreements themselves can also create problems if they are drafted too aggressively. Overly broad confidentiality or nondisparagement provisions may run afoul of employee rights to discuss workplace conditions or participate in protected activity. The goal should be a thoughtful, compliant agreement, not language that attempts to silence employees entirely. Another surprisingly common mistake occurs when leaders try to reassure employees by making promises they cannot guarantee. Statements like “this was a one-time event” or “there will be no more layoffs” may calm nerves in the moment, but they can create credibility problems if circumstances change. Honest, measured communication is always safer than absolute assurances. Finally, employers should remember that documentation matters. Casual comments in emails or internal messages can look very different when reviewed months later by a government agency or a court. Descriptions of employees lacking “energy,” not fitting the “new culture,” or being “close to retirement” may seem harmless in conversation, but can quickly become problematic in litigation. The bottom line is that a reduction in force is not just an operational decision, it is a defining moment for an organization’s culture and leadership. Employers that communicate clearly, train managers thoughtfully, and review decisions through both a business and compliance lens are far better positioned to move forward. Just as important, they signal to the employees who remain that they are valued partners in the company’s future. And in the aftermath of a layoff, that message matters more than ever.
March 12, 2026
Landlord Representation
HUD’s New Citizenship Verification Mandate: What HUD-Assisted Housing Providers Must Do
In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a surprise directive announcing immediate verification of citizenship and eligible immigration status for all households receiving federal housing assistance. Owners, public housing authorities, and managers of HUD‑assisted properties are now subject to a 30‑day deadline to identify and correct documentation gaps—or face potential consequences. HUD already issued the same mandate directly to Public Housing Authorities nationwide in late 2025. At Offit Kurman, we have been closely monitoring this development and advising affordable housing providers on what this mandate means, how to comply, and how to protect against significant legal risk during implementation. Why HUD Issued This Directive HUD recently executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to align their data systems—specifically HUD’s Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system and DHS’s SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program. They combined the two into a new joint registry called the EIV-SAVE Tenant Matching Report. After conducting their own preliminary audits, the agencies assert they identified: Households receiving assistance without verified eligibility Non‑citizen household members with inconsistent or missing SAVE records Deceased residents listed as active in EIV files Who Must Comply If your property participates in a HUD‑assisted program, the mandate applies. This includes: Public Housing Authorities Section 8 Project‑Based properties Section 202, 236, 221(d)(3), 811 HUD Multifamily assisted housing programs What HUD Requires You to Do Immediately HUD expects these affordable housing providers to: Review and verify the citizenship or immigration status of all assisted household members Correct discrepancies identified in the EIV-SAVE Tenant Matching Report Prorate assistance applied to mixed‑status households Document every step along the way and ensure electronic and paper files align This mandate is a significant operational challenge, but it is manageable with structure, consistency, and careful communication. The biggest risks lie not in HUD’s verification requirements, but in missteps during resident interactions, potential selective enforcement, or insufficient documentation. Remember: National origin and race/color are protected classes under the Fair Housing Act, which is federal law. Your jurisdiction may have additional protected classes to be aware of. Housing providers should keep in mind that communication with all residents should be neutral, factual, uniform, non-threatening, and non-political. Housing providers who respond quickly, apply the process uniformly, and preserve clear records are well‑positioned to navigate this change successfully.
March 12, 2026
Landlord Representation
Landlord Liability for Tenant Safety: Lessons from the Jason Billingsley Case
In recent years, courts have taken a closer look at what landlords must do to keep tenants safe, especially when property owners give employees access to residents’ homes. A major example is the civil case that followed the violent attacks committed by Jason Billingsley in Baltimore. The lawsuit, filed by survivors April Hurley and Jonte Gilmore, resulted in a jury awarding more than $21 million in damages against the landlord and related property management entities. The case provides a powerful study in landlord liability, negligent hiring, and premises safety law. In September 2023, Billingsley, who had been hired as a maintenance worker and given access to tenant areas, knocked on April Hurley’s door, identified himself as “maintenance,” and claimed there was a water leak in her kitchen that needed immediate attention. Once inside, Billingsley violently assaulted Hurley and Gilmore inside the apartment and set fire to the premises. Days later, he murdered tech CEO Pava LaPere in a separate incident. Billingsley ultimately pled guilty to two counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of first-degree murder, and was sentenced to life in prison. Hurley and Gilmore brought a civil lawsuit against the property owner and management company. Their argument was not that the landlords committed the assaults, but that their negligence made the assaults foreseeable and preventable. The case illustrates three central doctrines of landlord liability: Negligent Hiring Negligent hiring occurs when an employer or property owner fails to exercise reasonable care in selecting someone for a position that poses a risk to others. Maintenance workers typically have: Master keys Unsupervised access to private units Knowledge of tenant schedules and vulnerabilities In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the landlord failed to conduct a reasonable background check before hiring Billingsley. Given his prior violent criminal record, which included convictions for assault in 2009, 2011, and 2013, the plaintiffs contended that giving him access to tenants’ apartments created a foreseeable risk of harm. The defendants argued that Billingsley was not an employee. According to reporting by the Baltimore Banner, one of the management company’s owners testified that he met Billingsley at a bar and subsequently allowed him to reside in one of the complex’s apartments rent-free in exchange for completing “odd jobs” around the property. A jury agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that reasonable property managers would have investigated his background and that the failure to do so constituted a breach of duty. Premises Liability Under premises liability law, landlords owe tenants a duty of reasonable care to maintain safe conditions on the property. Traditionally, this doctrine covered physical hazards (e.g., broken stairs or inadequate lighting), but modern courts increasingly recognize that safety can include protection from foreseeable criminal acts. The key legal question is foreseeability: Was the harm reasonably predictable? Did the landlord’s conduct increase the risk? The jury concluded that giving a person with a violent criminal history unrestricted access to tenant homes made the harm foreseeable. Breach of Lease and Implied Warranty of Habitability Residential leases carry an implied promise that the premises will be safe and habitable. While this doctrine historically addressed structural conditions, plaintiffs argued that tenant safety includes reasonable screening of employees granted intimate access to living spaces. Although the negligent-hiring theory was central, contractual duties reinforced the broader argument that landlords must safeguard tenants’ security. Why the Verdict Matters The jury’s multimillion-dollar award sends a strong signal about evolving expectations for landlords: Access equals responsibility. The more access an employee has to private living spaces, the higher the duty of care. Background checks are not optional in high-risk roles. Courts may treat failure to screen as unreasonable when foreseeable harm results. Tenant safety extends beyond physical maintenance. Security policies and hiring practices can create liability. Importantly, this was a civil negligence case, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of proof was “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the jury had to find it more likely than not that the landlord’s negligence caused the harm. Broader Legal Implications The case may influence: Property management industry standards Insurance underwriting requirements Corporate risk policies for residential landlords Litigation strategies in negligent security cases Landlords are not insurers of tenant safety — they are not automatically liable for all crimes on their property. But when their own actions increase the risk of foreseeable harm, courts may impose substantial financial consequences. The litigation arising from the Jason Billingsley case demonstrates how landlord liability can extend beyond broken locks and dim hallways. When property owners place individuals in positions of trust and access without reasonable vetting, they may face significant civil exposure. The defendants have appealed the jury’s ruling, and the case is currently pending before the Appellate Court of Maryland. For landlords, the lesson is clear: tenant safety includes not only maintaining the building, but also carefully screening the people given keys to it.
March 3, 2026
Landlord Representation
The HUD Administration One Year Review: Withdrawal of Fair Housing Guidance, Administrative Cutbacks, and the Implications for Housing Providers
Approximately one year into the second Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has taken notable steps to reshape the federal fair housing compliance landscape by withdrawing numerous guidance documents issued by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). While these actions do not alter the text of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) itself, they materially affect how housing providers, enforcement agencies, and courts may intepret and enforce the Act. This article examines the substance of HUD’s recent actions, distinguishes between guidance and law, and evaluates the short- and long-term implications for multifamily owners, landlords, managers, and developers. HUD’s Withdrawal of FHEO Guidance: Scope and Substance In September 2025, HUD issued a formal notice withdrawing a substantial number of FHEO guidance documents, effective immediately. These documents—some dating back more than a decade—had provided interpretive frameworks for applying the FHA and related civil rights statutes. Among the withdrawn materials was guidance on: Reasonable accommodations, including assistance and emotional support animals The use of criminal history in tenant screening National origin discrimination and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) considerations Fair housing implications of digital advertising practices Interpretations related to source of income and special purpose credit programs HUD emphasized that these prior guidance documents were non-binding policy statements rather than regulations. Nonetheless, many in the industry heavily relied on these documents. HUD has stated that the withdrawn guidance will no longer be relied upon internally or externally, signaling a meaningful shift in agency priorities. Guidance Versus Law What Changed It is critical to distinguish between interpretive guidance and legal obligation. The withdrawals removed HUD’s detailed, agency-level explanations of how it historically interpreted and enforced certain provisions of the FHA. As a result: Housing providers no longer have HUD-endorsed procedural benchmarks for evaluating certain fair housing issues Compliance frameworks once built around HUD guidance must now rest on statutory text and case law HUD enforcement appears narrowly (if not solely) focused on clear statutory violations and intentional discrimination What Did Not Change Equally important, the withdrawal of these guidance documents did not amend or repeal: The Fair Housing Act Obligations to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities Prohibitions against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability Nor does HUD’s action override state or local fair housing laws, many of which impose broader or more explicit requirements than federal law. HUD’s Enforcement Philosophy after Administrative Cutbacks HUD’s withdrawal of guidance reflects a broader administrative philosophy emphasizing regulatory restraint and reduced reliance on sub-regulatory interpretation. From an enforcement perspective, this suggests: Deprioritizing claims premised solely on noncompliance with previously issued guidance Greater reliance on statutory language and judicial interpretations Increased variability in how fair housing disputes may be evaluated across jurisdictions However, the absence of guidance does not eliminate enforcement risk. FHA complaints may still be filed with HUD, state agencies, or pursued through private litigation, where courts are not bound by HUD’s current enforcement preferences. Practical Implications for Housing Providers For multifamily owners, landlords, managers, and developers, the withdrawal creates both elasticity and uncertainty. First, many compliance programs mirrored HUD’s previous guidance as a best-practice standard. With those benchmarks removed, providers must reassess whether their policies are grounded in enforceable law or agency interpretation alone. Second, documentation and consistency become increasingly critical. In the absence of clear federal guidance, uniform application of policies and well-documented decision-making remain among the strongest defenses to discrimination claims. Third, state and local law take on heightened importance. In jurisdictions with robust fair housing statutes or active enforcement agencies, HUD’s retrenchment may have little practical effect on day-to-day obligations. Looking Forward: Stability Amid Political Change Presidential administrations are, by design, temporary. HUD guidance may be withdrawn, revised, or reissued as political leadership changes. Housing providers who recalibrate their practices solely in response to current administrative signals risk repeated disruption in the future, when new administrations reassess policy priorities. The shrewd path forward remains unchanged: Maintain consistent, legally grounded fair housing policies Ensure staff training reflects statutory and jurisdiction-specific requirements Monitor HUD developments without overreacting to short-term shifts Ultimately, durability—not oscillation with political change—offers the greatest protection against legal risk. Conclusion HUD’s withdrawal of FHEO guidance marks a significant moment in the history of fair housing enforcement. While the move reduces federal interpretive direction, it does not diminish the force of the Fair Housing Act or state and local laws. For housing providers, the path forward lies in steadfast adherence to existing legal requirements, consistency in policy application, and an awareness that today’s regulatory environment may look markedly different under a future administration. Fair housing law has endured across political cycles. Compliance strategies should be built to do the same.
February 12, 2026
Landlord Representation
2025 Fair Housing Trends Report: What We’re Seeing and Why It Matters
The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) is the nation’s largest nonprofit fair housing organization, leading investigations, enforcement, advocacy, and research to advance equal housing opportunity. It processes the majority of fair housing complaints nationwide and plays a significant role in shaping enforcement priorities. Each year, the NFHA publishes a comprehensive report on housing discrimination. It does this by drawing on data reported by private fair housing organizations, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), state and local Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). For housing providers and industry professionals, NFHA’s work provides a key indicator of current and emerging fair housing risks. The National Fair Housing Alliance’s newly released 2025 Fair Housing Trends Report offers one of the clearest empirical studies of how housing discrimination is showing up across the country. The newest data — based on 2024 complaints — reveals patterns, notable shifts, and emerging risk factors that could shape compliance, risk management, and enforcement strategies for housing providers, property managers, and compliance teams. Below are the central themes revealed in the 2025 Report. Overall Context and Complaint Volume In 2024, a total of 32,321 fair housing complaints were reported across the United States—a figure consistent with recent high levels of discrimination filings over the past 10 years. NFHA contends that these complaints may reflect only a portion of the actual discriminatory conduct, citing reporting barriers and challenges in detecting discrimination. Although federal agencies receive substantial attention, the majority of complaints are handled by private, nonprofit fair housing organizations. In 2024, these private entities processed roughly 74% of the complaints filed, significantly outpacing federal and state agencies. HUD accounted for about 4.85%, FHAP agencies about 20%, and the DOJ approximately 0.14% of complaints. This breakdown underscores the shifting enforcement landscape, reduced involvement, and reduced funding from federal agencies. What Types of Complaints Are Most Common? Disability Remains the Leading Complaint Disability discrimination continued as the most frequently alleged basis, accounting for more than 17,600 complaints (54.59%) in 2024. This continues a longstanding trend. These complaints are often driven by issues such as refusal to grant reasonable accommodations, physically inaccessible housing features, or refusals to modify policies for disabled tenants. Race, National Origin, Sex, and Retaliation Race, national origin, and sex were significant sources of complaints, accounting for 28% of all filings. Perhaps unsurprisingly, national origin complaints rose, which may reflect demographic shifts or emerging language access issues in communities across the country. Another striking development was the rise in retaliation complaints, which more than doubled. The National Fair Housing Alliance notes that many incidents that may have been coded as harassment in prior years are now being reported as retaliation. In addition, complaints based on familial status, color, and religion continue to appear, however, with much less frequency – accounting for (collectively) only 9% of all complaints. Locally Protected Classes: Rates Surging Interestingly, NFHA’s “Other” category accounted for 18% of all complaints filed in 2024, outpacing every other category except for disability. This “other” category comprises protected classes covered by state or local law (and not included among the seven federally protected classes). According to NFHA’s reporting, the other categories include (listed in order of prevalence of complaints): source of income, retaliation, age or student status, criminal background, victims of domestic violence, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, marital status, military status, and immigration status/citizenship. This highlights the importance of housing providers closely tracking protected classes in their jurisdictions and ensuring compliance with state and local fair housing regulations. This is particularly true given that we are seeing enforcement handled overwhelmingly by private or local fair housing agencies and not by governmental agencies. Geographic Patterns Around 36% of complaints were filed on the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest (11,796 complaints in HUD Regions 9 & 10). Around 30% of complaints (approximately 9,920) originated out of HUD Regions 1-4 on the East Coast (e.g., Florida to Maine). The reminder arose out of the central United States. However, the vast majority of those complaints (over 63%) are from Region 5 (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). That leaves very few coming from HUD Regions 6, 7, and 8 (about 11% of the national complaints filed). While disability discrimination dominates across all regions, the geographic distribution of other complaint types reveals meaningful shifts. States such as California, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania saw some of the largest increases in national origin complaints. These regional trends may reflect demographic changes, linguistic barriers, tenant-screening practices, and varying state and local protections that interact with federal fair housing law. Enforcement Outcomes: What Drives Action? Although the report does not label any category as “most successful,” the types of complaints that most frequently lead to findings, charges, settlements, or other enforcement action continue to be: Disability-related cases, including failures to provide reasonable accommodations and accessibility violations Retaliation, which has become more visible and more frequently substantiated Appraisal discrimination, an emerging area where complaints rose among private organizations HUD and FHAP agencies together issued 471 “cause" determinations or charges in 2024. The DOJ filed 44 cases, including significant actions involving sexual harassment in housing, discriminatory zoning decisions, lending discrimination, and accessibility issues. Many of these resulted in substantial monetary relief and mandated policy changes. Which Housing Sectors Generate the Most Complaints? Rental housing continues to dwarf all other categories. In 2024, more than 27,000 complaints — over 83% of all fair housing complaints — stemmed from rental housing transactions. This category has dominated for years and continues to be the most common source of discrimination complaints. Sales, mortgage lending, homeowners insurance, and appraisals make up much smaller slices of activity. Still, certain areas are gaining attention, especially appraisal discrimination and complaints involving homeowners associations (HOAs) and condominium associations. Systemic Issues Identified in this Year’s Report Funding Instability In February 2025, HUD terminated 78 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants — valued at more than $30 million in active funding — before litigation forced the agency to reverse course. Although some funding was reinstated, long-term consequences are likely if the enforcement system continues to lose capacity. High Monetary Costs The DOJ secured approximately $50 million in monetary relief during 2024. Cases included sexual harassment settlements, disability discrimination findings, zoning-related race discrimination, and accessibility violations. Several individual outcomes exceeded $500,000, and one settlement exceeded $38 million. Growing Backlogs Both HUD and FHAP agencies continue to struggle with “aged” cases — those pending for well beyond the 100-day timeline. By the end of 2024: HUD had more than 2,600 aged cases, and FHAP agencies had more than 8,100 aged cases. These delays leave tenants, property managers, and housing providers waiting months (or years) for resolution. Increasing Algorithmic and Technology-Driven Risks Artificial intelligence (AI) – powered systems — including tenant-screening software, dynamic pricing tools, and automated appraisal technologies — are introducing bases for discrimination complaints. Many of these tools operate as opaque, “black box” systems that housing providers may rely on without understanding potential fair housing implications. NFHA suggests that algorithmic discrimination may be one of the most serious emerging threats in the housing market. Bottom Line: What This Means for 2025 and Beyond The NFHA’s 2025 Trends Report delivers a clear message: fair housing enforcement mechanisms remain strained. For multifamily owners, managers, developers, and legal professionals, the implications are clear: Disability-based issues remain the most significant area of exposure National origin and retaliation complaints are rising and deserve attention Algorithmic tools used for tenant screening, pricing, and marketing should be carefully reviewed for compliance gaps Enforcement actions involving appraisals, HOAs, and accessibility will likely continue to grow Ultimately, this report underscores the ongoing need for proactive fair housing compliance, rigorous documentation, and thoughtful risk management as discrimination risks evolve in both traditional and technology-driven contexts.
January 21, 2026
Landlord Representation
December’s Enduring Legacy: From Emancipation to Equitable Housing
Every December, we are encouraged to reflect on a defining milestone in American constitutional and civil rights history – the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865. This amendment abolished involuntary servitude, legally closing the door on an era of slavery in which entire communities were denied autonomy, dignity, and the most basic conditions of safety and freedom. However, the abolition of slavery did not guarantee equal access to shelter, property, or equitable protections in the marketplace. Those rights have been shaped over more than a century of legislation, advocacy, and heated litigation. For those in the multifamily housing industry — owners, operators, managers, and developers — December offers a historical reminder and a practical moment to reexamine how this legacy informs modern-day obligations under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Understanding how far the law has evolved helps us understand why compliance is not simply a regulatory matter, but a continuation of a long and unfinished civil rights effort. A Brief History of Post-Emancipation Housing Exclusion Following formal emancipation, formerly enslaved people faced numerous additional hurdles. Although slavery was now outlawed, discriminatory practices (e.g., Black Codes, Jim Crow segregation, sharecropping systems, and violence) denied African Americans safe, stable, and equitable access to housing. In the decades that followed, local and federal policies entrenched segregation across society. Racially restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, government-backed redlining, and federal underwriting systematically barred Black families and other minorities from homeownership, quality rental housing, and opportunities for wealth accumulation. Many of these policies persisted well into the 20th century, long after they were socially discredited and, ultimately, legally banned. The Fair Housing Act exists because of this legacy. Housing professionals now operate within a framework designed to dismantle prior patterns of subversive discrimination. A Turning Point: The Fair Housing Act The Fair Housing Act was enacted in April 1968, amid national mourning following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Its passage marked a watershed moment — explicit recognition that discrimination in housing perpetuated systemic inequality and necessitated federal intervention. The Act prohibits discrimination in any housing-related transaction, including any action or inaction taken related to renting or selling housing, based on: Race Color National Origin Religion Sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation) Familial Status Disability Despite this landmark law, the housing marketplace shifted from overt exclusion to more subtle practices. Instead of engaging in explicit acts of discrimination based on the protected classes above, facially neutral policies were implemented that had either the intended or unintended effect of discriminating against people based on their protected class. Regulations, case law, and HUD guidance have continued to evolve in the years since the passage of the Fair Housing Act in response to modern iterations of discrimination that past lawmakers did not foresee. For example, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 was enacted in response to some of these changes. Further, HUD’s guidance has since incorporated “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” in its definition of unlawful discrimination in housing. Disparate treatment is an overt or explicit policy that dictates different terms, conditions, or services to someone because of their protected class. This is often the most obvious form of discrimination, because the policy on its face is discriminatory. On the other hand, disparate impact discrimination involves a seemingly neutral policy that has the unintended (or perhaps subliminally intended) effect of discriminating against a particular protected class because they are the ones most likely (or solely) to be negatively affected by the policy. Examples of disparate impact discrimination may include: criminal record screenings, credit screenings for victims of domestic violence, zoning barriers to supportive housing, disregarding disability accommodations, predatory marketing, or algorithmic rental determinations. Notably, in late 2025, HUD announced that it intends to cease all enforcement of disparate impact claims and focus solely on disparate treatment complaints. This could drastically shift the fair housing enforcement landscape and have unexpected repercussions for multifamily regulatory compliance. In sum, this is why the housing industry’s compliance obligations are dynamic and constantly changing. What Multifamily Professionals Can Learn From This Legacy Compliance Requires Adaptability & Intuition Discrimination does not have to be intentional to be illegal. A legally compliant and otherwise neutral policy can still have a discriminatory impact. Courts continue to scrutinize how tenant screening, occupancy limits, advertising strategies, and property safety policies may disproportionately harm certain protected classes. Owners and managers of multifamily properties should conduct annual disparate-impact audits and seek counsel if a policy is having biased results on a particular demographic. Accessibility Is a Civil Rights Issue Since the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, multifamily developers have been required to incorporate basic design and construction accessibility features. Increasingly, litigation and DOJ enforcement are focused on persistent non-compliance. Moreover, discrimination complaints based on “disability” status or failure to grant a reasonable accommodation continue to be the most prevalent, accounting for more than 50% of the complaints filed each year. Treat accessibility as a civil rights mandate, not a line-item cost. Stay Attuned to Evolving Protected Classes Recent interpretations make clear that sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression fall under the Fair Housing Act’s sex-based protections. Some state and local jurisdictions have codified these expressions into articulated protected classes. HUD’s enforcement priorities continue to expand as courts interpret the Fair Housing Act in light of broader civil rights movements. From the housing provider’s perspective, it’s clear that a broader interpretation of protected characteristics is the safer option. Risk Management & Reputation: Algorithms and AI Tools Are the New Frontier Automated tenant-screening products and digital advertising platforms may unintentionally replicate historical biases — repeating old patterns of exclusion with new technology. Owners should demand transparency from screening vendors and ensure human review before any adverse decision is issued, particularly given HUD’s guidance on criminal record screening and the push for an individualized assessment of a person’s criminal history. Investors and insurers increasingly view fair housing compliance as a key component of responsible operations. Violations, even for inadvertent screening errors, carry not only civil penalties but also reputational harm. In an increasingly competitive market, with a push for more transparency, eyes are on housing providers. Honoring December’s Legacy Through Fair Housing Leadership The abolition of slavery was the beginning of a transition toward civil rights, and the Fair Housing Act remains one of the strongest tools we have to dismantle the residual discriminatory structures that followed emancipation. For the multifamily housing industry, compliance is more than adherence to a regulatory framework — it is stewardship of the idea that housing should be safe, accessible, and free from discrimination for every person, regardless of their background. This December, as we reflect on our nation’s journey from emancipation to the present, the work is not finished. Each applicant screening decision, each accommodation request, each accessibility plan, and each interaction with a resident or prospect is part of our ongoing civil rights legacy.
December 17, 2025
Landlord Representation
VAWA Compliance: New 2025 HUD Forms & What You Need to Know
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has long provided essential housing protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. For housing providers operating federally subsidized housing programs (e.g., Section 8, public housing, and LIHTC), compliance is mandatory. In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released updated versions of several key VAWA forms, which now carry an expiration date of January 31, 2028. These new forms are required to be used by covered housing providers to ensure compliance with VAWA’s housing provisions. Additionally, it is worth noting that VAWA protections apply regardless of gender and are designed to promote safety, mitigate risk, and prevent displacement. Moreover, your state or local jurisdiction might have enhanced VAWA protections in addition to the federal requirements. Which Forms Changed in 2025? Form HUD-5380 – Notice of Occupancy Rights Under VAWA This document informs tenants and applicants of their rights under VAWA. The new form included several changes, such as clarifying the process and documents needed, expanding the definitions of “affiliated individual,” enhancing confidentiality provisions for housing providers to comply with, clarifying the instructions for residents, and adjustments to overall formatting for readability. Covered housing providers are required to provide Form HUD-5380 to residents or applicants at: (a) move-in; (b) with any notice of eviction or lease termination; and (c) when denying an application to a HUD-subsidized unit or program. To safeguard ongoing compliance, covered housing providers must use this updated form and ensure staff are trained on proper use and distribution. If you’re unsure whether your forms are current or need help implementing them, reach out for legal guidance. Form HUD-5381 – Model Emergency Transfer Plan (Optional but recommended) This form is optional, but it provides housing providers with a template for implementing emergency transfer procedures for survivors. Form HUD-5382 – Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking This form allows survivors to self-certify their experience and request protections under VAWA. Covered housing providers are required to provide this form upon a request from a resident and/or when a survivor seeks an emergency transfer or protection from eviction. Form HUD-5383 – Emergency Transfer Request Regardless of whether a resident is complying with their lease agreement, this form allows residents who qualify as victims under VAWA to request an emergency transfer to another unit for safety reasons. Residents can request such a transfer if they reasonably believe staying in the current unit poses an imminent threat to their safety and/or if a sexual assault occurred at the property within the past 90 days. Covered housing providers are required to keep this information confidential and separate from other documentation in the tenant’s resident file. Form HUD-5384 – Emergency Transfer Data Collection Form This new form introduces a data tracking component for housing providers, which expects property managers to maintain accurate records for compliance audits. In essence, this form seeks information on emergency transfer requests and outcomes to help HUD monitor response times and identify barriers to safety. Why These Updates Matter & Key Takeaways: Using outdated forms can jeopardize compliance and expose housing providers to risk. The updated forms reflect legislative changes from the VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2022 and are designed to streamline provider responsibilities. Immediately replace outdated HUD VAWA forms with the 2025 versions Ensure staff are trained on when and how to distribute these forms (even to applicants) Maintain the utmost confidentiality when handling VAWA-related requests from residents Update your leasing policies to align with VAWA protections Use translated versions of the HUD VAWA forms for applications and residents who use a primary language other than English
November 13, 2025
Landlord Representation
Rent Filings During the Federal Shutdown: What DC, VA & MD Landlords Need to Know
With the federal shutdown underway, landlords in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are asking: Should we pause filings for federal workers? The short answer — no, and here’s why. As the federal government shutdown begins, landlords across the region are understandably concerned about the potential impact on tenants who are federal employees or contractors. While certain state laws provide limited relief for furloughed tenants, landlords should not pause nonpayment filings or alter their standard procedures. Virginia Under Va. Code § 44-209, tenants who are federal employees, independent contractors for the federal government, or employees of companies under contract with the federal government may be eligible for a 60-day continuance of an unlawful detainer case for rent due after the shutdown began. To qualify, the tenant must: Appear in court on the initial hearing date, and Provide written proof that they were furloughed or otherwise not receiving wages or payments due to the shutdown. Importantly, this continuance applies only when the case is for nonpayment of rent, not for other lease violations. Landlords should continue to file nonpayment cases as usual; the court will decide whether a tenant meets the statutory criteria for a continuance. Maryland Under Md. Real Property § 8-401(d), courts may stay (temporarily pause) eviction proceedings for tenants who show that: The property is their primary residence They are a federal, state, or local government employee They were involuntarily furloughed without pay because of the shutdown The stay lasts for a period the court deems reasonable, generally not exceeding 30 days after the end of the shutdown, unless a longer delay is justified. Again, this is a court-granted stay, not a reason for landlords to delay filing. Washington, D.C. D.C. previously enacted the Federal Worker Housing Relief Act of 2019, which temporarily allowed furloughed workers to request up to a 90-day stay of eviction proceedings. That law expired in early 2020 and is no longer in effect. Today, landlords should note that under the D.C. Human Rights Act, treating tenants differently based on their source of income, including federal employment, may constitute discrimination. Overall Takeaway Landlords in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. should continue handling nonpayment matters in the normal course, allowing courts to determine whether tenants qualify for relief. Do not delay filings or make selective accommodations. Do allow the courts to apply the applicable continuance or stay provisions if a tenant demonstrates eligibility. Avoid differential treatment of tenants based on employment type or source of income. In short: issue notices, file as usual — we will handle the rest in court.
October 9, 2025
Landlord Representation
Federal Class Action Targets Common Add-On Charges in Virginia Leases: Pest and Community Fees Under Scrutiny
A federal class action lawsuit[1] is alleging that monthly pest fees and community fees are unlawful attempts to shift landlord obligations to tenants, in violation of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). If the plaintiffs are successful, the case could trigger industry-wide consequences and result in substantial liability for property owners and managers who use similar fee structures. Initial Recommendations Evaluate all recurring fees, such as pest control, trash, amenity, and community fees to determine whether they relate to obligations that are legally the landlord’s responsibility under Virginia law (e.g., habitability and maintenance of common areas). Distinguish between charges for required services and those for optional or additional tenant benefits. Remove or recharacterize unlawful fees. Eliminate any separate fees that relate to non-waivable landlord duties. Where appropriate, incorporate the cost of pest control and common area maintenance into the base rent rather than charging them separately. Clearly define any remaining fees. Avoid using overly broad or ambiguous language such as “programs deemed necessary by ownership,” which may be interpreted as deceptive or misleading under consumer protection laws. Further Details and Legal Background Plaintiffs’ Allegations Plaintiffs allege that landlords cannot charge tenants for costs of pest control, trash disposal, or common area maintenance. Plaintiffs allege these duties are non-waivable landlord obligations under Virginia Code § 55.1-1220, and that the charging of pest control, trash disposal, and other common area maintenance fees are deceptive representations in violation of Virginia Code § 59.1-200(14). Legal Basis Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) Virginia Code § 55.1-1220(A): Requires landlords to maintain pest-free premises and clean, structurally safe common areas. These duties may not be waived through the lease. Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) Virginia Code § 59.1-200(14): Prohibits misrepresentation or deception in consumer transactions, including residential leases. The lawsuit claims tenants were misled into believing that payment of the pest and community fees was required to receive services already required under Virginia law. Analysis Importantly, Virginia Code § 55.1-1220 does not explicitly prohibit landlords from charging for pest control and trash disposal fees, if such fees are authorized under the lease agreement. Plaintiffs are, therefore, making allegations based on implication and a broad reading of Virginia Code § 55.1-1220. It is not clear how the court may rule on the plaintiffs’ allegations. Regardless, plaintiffs’ allegations have merit based upon landlords’ obligations as defined under Virginia Code § 55.1-1220. Potential Impact This lawsuit signals an aggressive new approach to enforcing landlord-tenant law under both the VRLTA and VCPA. This case could set precedent for whether bundling landlord obligations into fees is inherently deceptive under the VCPA and unlawful under the VRLTA. Further, a ruling in favor of plaintiffs could lead to a wave of similar class actions across Virginia and other states. Offit Kurman will continue to monitor the case and provide further recommendations once the court issues a ruling. [1] Valencia Rios v. Belvedere NRDE, LLC and Pegasus Residential, LLC (E.D. Va. No. 3:25-cv-474)
August 12, 2025
Landlord Representation
New D.C. Law on Pet Fees & Policies – What to Know for October
The newly enacted Pets in Housing Amendment Act of 2024 D.C. law will impose significant new limits on pet-related fees and restrictions for rental housing providers. For leases starting on or after October 1, 2025: You may charge a refundable pet security deposit, but it must not exceed 15% of one month’s rent and must be kept separate from the standard security deposit. You may charge monthly pet rent, but only within strict limits:Up to 1% of the first full month’s rent per dog; and No more than 1% total for all other common household pets combined. You may not charge any fee, deposit, or rent related to a service or assistance animal, which is protected under federal and local disability laws. Reasonable pet policies (e.g., number limits) are still permitted, but must not be arbitrary or overly restrictive. For leases starting on or after October 1, 2026: You may not impose restrictions or charge fees based on a pet’s breed, size, or weight. Any pet-related charges or conditions must comply strictly with the limitations described above. These rules do not apply to leases that begin before October 1, 2025, but any lease renewed or newly executed on or after October 1, 2025, will be subject to the new requirements. We recommend reviewing your current lease templates, pet addenda, and fee schedules well in advance of these dates.
May 6, 2025
Landlord Representation
Navigating ICE and Law Enforcement: A Guide for Landlords and Property Managers
As immigration enforcement efforts evolve, landlords and property managers must prepare to respond appropriately when interacting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other law enforcement agencies. Understanding legal obligations, protecting tenant privacy, and establishing clear policies are important to ensuring compliance while minimizing legal and operational risks. Establishing Policies and Procedures One of the most important steps property managers can take is to develop a written policy outlining how to respond to law enforcement during interactions. Having a clear plan in place ensures that all staff members—whether property managers, leasing professionals, or maintenance teams—understand their role in these situations. A well-documented policy helps: Protect tenant privacy and confidentiality. Ensure legal compliance with federal, state and local laws. Maintain consistency in responses to law enforcement inquiries. Because property management staff frequently changes, a written policy ensures continuity in handling these situations, reducing the likelihood of errors or inconsistencies. Understanding Law Enforcement Agencies and Documentation When law enforcement officers arrive at a property, they may be from different agencies, including ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). Each agency may present different types of legal documents, and it is critical to understand the distinctions: Criminal Warrants – Issued by a judge, these warrants may grant law enforcement the right to access a property or obtain specific information. Civil (Administrative) Warrants – Issued by immigration officers rather than a judge, these do not automatically grant access to private property. I-9 Audits – Requests for employment eligibility documentation; typically, businesses have three days to respond. It is essential not to assume that any document presented requires immediate action. Instead, property managers should take the time to review the warrant, confirm its validity and consult legal counsel as needed. Protecting Tenant Confidentiality and Managing Risk Tenant privacy must be safeguarded during interactions with law enforcement. Property managers should follow these steps when responding to a request for information or access: Request a Copy of the Warrant – Always obtain a physical or digital copy before taking any action. Verify the Warrant’s Scope – Determine whether it is a criminal or administrative warrant and whether it grants law enforcement the right to enter the property. Follow Internal Protocols – Staff should notify the designated corporate or legal contact before responding to the request. Minimize the Disclosure of Information – Only provide what is legally required. Avoid Immediate Compliance – Taking a moment to review the request and consult legal counsel can prevent unnecessary disclosures. Centralizing Decision-Making A key part of risk management is ensuring that decisions regarding law enforcement interactions are made at a corporate or senior management level rather than on-site. Best practices include: Designating a specific contact within corporate or ownership to handle law enforcement inquiries. Training staff to refer all law enforcement requests to the designated corporate/legal contact. Establishing a clear chain of command so that no one makes a rushed or uninformed decision under pressure. Fair Housing Considerations In some jurisdictions, immigration or citizenship status is a protected class under fair housing laws. Locations such as Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, MD, and Prince George’s County, MD, have legal protections prohibiting landlords from inquiring about a tenant’s immigration status during the leasing process. Property managers should be mindful of these laws when handling law enforcement requests related to immigration enforcement. What to Tell Tenants Property managers should be cautious about providing legal advice to tenants. If tenants ask what to do in the event of an ICE visit, the best response is to direct them to legal aid organizations or immigration attorneys. Providing legal guidance could lead to liability if tenants misinterpret the information. Key Takeaways A clear, written policy helps your team respond consistently and appropriately when law enforcement arrives. Centralizing decision-making ensures that requests are escalated to the correct legal or corporate representative, reducing the risk of rushed or uninformed decisions. It’s also important to distinguish between different types of warrants—criminal warrants typically require immediate action, while administrative ones do not. Taking time to verify documents can help prevent legal missteps. Property managers should also be mindful of fair housing laws, which may prohibit asking tenants about their immigration status. And instead of offering legal advice, direct tenants to reputable legal resources. With immigration enforcement policies constantly evolving, staying proactive is key. Property managers can comply with the law by setting clear guidelines, training staff, and consulting legal counsel when necessary while protecting their businesses and tenants.
March 27, 2025
Landlord Representation
House Bill 984 – Removal of Squatters from Private Property
There was a viral sound/video clip that was circulating around social media sometime last year where a woman walks into what is presumed to be her house to find someone in her living room. She proceeds to ask the individual, “Who are you?” The individual responds by saying, “I’m Pam; who are you?” The woman then responds, saying, “I’m the owner of this house.” Anytime I come across a new article concerning squatters, this viral sound/video clip immediately pops into my head. Earlier last year, I addressed squatters in a blog post and the growing issues homeowners and landlords were facing regarding their vacant properties and squatters. When it comes to landlord-tenant law, one could argue that there aren’t many grey areas, but if there are any, squatters and squatters’ rights are definitely one, especially here in North Carolina. To many, squatters are a criminal issue as they are, in fact, trespassing; however, police, when called, often tell homeowners and landlords it’s a civil issue and that the squatter(s) will have to be evicted if they have been there for an extended period of time. However, filing a complaint in summary ejectment requires a landlord-tenant relationship, which is not present if the individual is squatting. So, landlords and homeowners are left with few options and little guidance as there are currently no laws that directly address this issue. Enter House Bill 984. House Bill 984 enacts a new article (Article 8) to be added to the North Carolina General Statute, Chapter 42. If passed, the bill would allow for the expedited removal of unauthorized persons from residential property. Property owners (or authorized agents) will be able to request that law enforcement removal person(s) unlawfully occupying the property if: (1) the requesting party is the property owner or an authorized agent of the property owner; (2) the property that is being occupied is a residential dwelling or property used in connection with a residential dwelling or is real property appurtenant to a residential dwelling, (3) an unauthorized person or persons have unlawfully entered and remain on or continue to reside in the private property, (4) the private property was not offered or intended as an accommodation for the general public at the time the unauthorized person entered, (5) the property owner or the authorized agent of the property owner has directed the unauthorized person or persons to leave the property, (6) the unauthorized person or persons are not tenants as defined in GS 42-59, (7) there is no pending litigation between the property owner and the unauthorized person or persons related to the residential property, and (8) no other valid rental agreement has been entered into or formed by the property owner and the unauthorized person or persons allowing them to occupy the private property. Property owners would complete an effective removal complaint form and submit it to the municipal police department, or with the county sheriff’s office or county police department (all depending on where the property is located). After verifying the complaint, law enforcement will have 48 hours to remove the unauthorized person(s) from the private property. If passed, this law would become effective October 1, 2024. I know with the passage of this law, property owners would be able to breath a huge sigh of relief. This bill would also help to curtail squatters as they may think twice about squatting, given the likelihood of them being arrested and charged would nearly be a guarantee. On June 6, 2024, House Bill 984 was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House and seems to be gaining traction. In the meantime, if you are a property owner with vacant properties you should routinely check your properties, have no trespassing signs conspicuously posted all around the property, and make sure the property is secured. Below, please find a link to House Bill 984: House Bill 984 (2023-2024 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly (ncleg.gov)
June 19, 2024
Landlord Representation
Upcoming Deadlines/Changes to DC Employment Law
The District of Columbia takes a very active approach to regulating the employer-employee relationship, which frequently results in new obligations being imposed on employers. These obligations can oftentimes be difficult for small and mid-market businesses to monitor. Despite this difficulty, the DC Government has become increasingly more aggressive in bringing enforcement actions against employers. Therefore, it’s essential to be proactive in identifying new obligations and ensuring compliance, thereby minimizing the likelihood of getting caught flat-footed and having to pay fines. Importantly, a few of these obligations and deadlines are quickly approaching. Wage Transparency Act[1] Beginning on June 30, 2024, employers with one or more employees in the District of Columbia will be required to disclose a greater amount of information to prospective job applicants. Specifically, employers will be required to list the anticipated compensation in all job listings by providing a good faith approximation of minimum and maximum salary or hourly pay. The Wage Transparency Act also mandates that employers disclose the existence of healthcare benefits that the prospective employee may receive prior to the initial interview. Moreover, the act prohibits employers from seeking a job applicant’s wage history and screening prospective employees based upon that information. Minimum Wage Increase[2] Earlier this year, the District of Columbia Department of Employee Services announced a minimum wage increase. On July 1, 2024, the D.C. minimum wage will experience a modest bump, jumping to $17.50. Additionally, the base minimum wage for tipped employees will increase to $10.00. These increases will affect all employers within the District of Columbia, regardless of size. Impending Deadline for Report to DDOT Displaying Compliance with Parking Cashout Law In 2020, the District of Columbia enacted the Parking Cash Out Law, which imposes notable obligations on employers with twenty or more employees that offer free or subsidized parking. Under the parking cashout law,[3] employers are required to offer either (a) a clean air transportation benefit in an amount equal to or greater than the parking benefit offered to employees, (b) a transportation demand management plan to reduce employee commuter trips made by car, or (c) pay a clean air compliance fee of $100 per month for each benefit who is offered a parking benefit. To monitor compliance, employers are required to submit a report to the District’s Department of Transportation (“DDOT”) every two years that shows the employer’s compliance. Additionally, employers that are exempt from this statute are also required to submit a report outlining the basis for their exemption. The first report was due to the DDOT by January 15, 2023, which means the deadline for the next report will be in roughly six months. Disclaimer: The contents of this blog should not be considered legal advice [1] Chapter 14A. Wage Transparency. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov) [2] GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COhttps://does.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/does/publication/attachments/DOES_OWH%202024%20Minimum%20Wage%20Increase%20Notice.pdfLUMBIA (dc.gov) [3] D.C. Law 23-113. Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2020. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov)
June 3, 2024
Landlord Representation
Housing Voucher Programs and What You Need to Know About Them
In previous newsletters, I have discussed inflation and the rising costs of housing statewide and the effects it has had on individuals, as well as the call for legislation concerning rent control and other renter protections. Keeping on trend, in this blog post, I will be discussing what has been termed “income source discrimination.” Income source discrimination is loosely defined as discriminating against an individual or group of people based on their source of income and is most commonly seen in the housing market and affects housing choice voucher recipients. Housing choice voucher programs are federally regulated and designed to provide housing assistance to low-income families, the elderly and disabled so they may obtain affordable and safe housing in the private market. Whether private landlords have to accept or participate in the programs varies from state to state. Most recently, in New York, a law providing that income source discrimination was found to be unconstitutional. In relevant part, the law stated: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell or lease a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or any agent or employee thereof: (1) To refuse to sell, rent, lease or otherwise to deny or withhold from any person or group of persons such a housing accommodation because of race, creed color…lawful source of income…or to represent that any housing accommodation or land is not available for inspection, sale, rental or lease when in fact it is so available.” In North Carolina, landlords are not required to accept Section 8 vouchers and may not find the process difficult and cumbersome. Some believe that it is simple, just not worth the hassle and are unwilling to comply with the requirements laid out by HUD (U.S. Housing and Urban Development) for those participating in the program. In 2022, the Charlotte City Council voted (9-2) to enact a policy that bans income source discrimination, making it the first city in North Carolina to do so. The policy ban imposes fines on those landlords who do not comply and only applies to complexes that receive city funding or subsidies. So, what do I do? As a private landlord in North Carolina, as previously stated, you are not required to accept Section 8 vouchers. However, please familiarize yourself with local city ordinances and policies, as they may provide something different depending on whether you receive funding from the city. As housing prices continue to rise, I believe that we will see more of a push for statewide legislation to be enacted to protect renters and ensure affordable housing is available for all citizens of this state. Is a private landlord’s refusal to accept a Section 8 voucher a violation of the Fair Housing Act? Could the argument be made that those who receive Section 8 vouchers are a part of a protected class and, in turn, should be afforded protections under the Fair Housing Act? Or does requiring private landlord to accept Section 8 vouchers violate their constitutional rights?
September 20, 2023
