Since the bombing attack at the Boston Marathon in April 2013, social media sites have been swamped with anti-Islamic sentiment. This is reminiscent of what happened just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In the years since 9/11, the Department of Justice has investigated more than 800 incidents involving threats, assaults, acts of vandalism and violence against Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, South Asians, and others who are perceived to be Middle Eastern.
Discrimination based on national origin is illegal. National origin discrimination means treating people differently because of ancestry, ethnicity, birthplace, culture or language. The law prohibits communities from denying equal housing opportunities to someone because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people with a particular national origin. Examples of discriminatory conduct include:
- Refusing to rent to people whose primary language is not English;
- Offering different rental rates based on ethnicity;
- Steering prospective renters to or away from certain areas because of their ancestry; and
- Refusing to provide the same service level or amenities because of a resident’s national origin.
A recent case provides an example of illegal activities in this area: [State vs. Villatree Apartments, July 2011] – the owners and managers of Villatree Apartments agreed to pay $227,500 as the result of allegations of discrimination against an Egyptian couple. The community was accused of complicating the application process to discourage the couple from renting and inspecting their unit and belongings without justification while they were in the process of moving in. The community ignored the couple’s requests for repairs and initiated eviction proceedings after the couple complained.
With regard to immigration status, HUD has made clear that all individuals are protected under fair housing law – regardless of immigration status. HUD does not take immigration status into account when investigating fair housing complaints and notes that it is illegal to threaten to report anyone to immigration authorities because they have filed a discrimination complaint.
To ensure that there is no discrimination based on national origin, housing operators should remember the following:
- Keep personal opinions out of the leasing process;
- Don’t exclude applicants because of racial, ethnic, or religious background;
- Beware of linguistic and email profiling;
- Apply consistent application policies – in U.S. vs. Pine Properties, January 2008, the owners and managers of an apartment community in Massachusetts agreed to pay $158,000 to settle allegations of discrimination against Cambodian Americans. These applications were required to have employment and/or credit verified before they were even shown an apartment; this was not required of other applicants. They also needed to make an appointment to see an apartment, while interested white prospects were shown apartments immediately. In HUD vs. Peachtree Apartments, July 2012, owners were accused of requiring that Hispanic prospects provide documentation of immigration status, while this was not required of non-Hispanic prospects.
The company agreed to make $10,000 in donations to fair housing organizations, provide translation services and market housing opportunities to persons with limited English proficiency.
- It is not generally illegal to screen for immigration status, and is required for federal housing programs. However, it must be done for everyone and check state and local law before implementing such a policy (CA. law bans asking about an applicant’s immigration status, and New York City has added fair housing protection based on “alienage or citizenship status.” This means that communities may not ask for an applicant’s country of citizenship or whether he is a U.S. citizen.
- Don’t engage in unlawful steering;
- Consistently apply community rules; and
- Don’t ignore complaints of discrimination or harassment – (U.S. vs. San Francisco Housing Authority, January 2004) – Housing Authority had to pay $200,000 to six Iraqi residents who were victims of verbal abuse, racial slurs, threats, assaults, vandalism and robbery at the hands of other residents. The Authority knew of the problem and did not address it.