Housing Discrimination in DC

Discrimination Under DC Human Rights Act

“In amending the [Human Rights Act] in 1997, the legislature emphasized its `broad scope' and the fact that its coverage is wider than Title VII.” (See Jackson v. Bd. of Elec. and, 999 (2010) A.2d 89, 124-25; Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'n (2003) 830 A.2d 874, 887.)

“The District's human rights law has long been praised for its broad scope The law bans discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. It protects people from discrimination based on characteristics covered in federal civil rights law — race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin, and disability — as well as other characteristics not covered under federal law, such as sexual orientation, marital status, and family responsibilities.” (See id.)

Landlord Retaliation Against Tenant

“It is unlawful for a landlord to take retaliatory action against a tenant who exercises certain legal rights, including the right to complain to the government about violations of housing regulations.” (See Bridges v. Clark (2013) 59 A.3d 978, 982; D.C.Code § 42–3505.02(a), (b)(2) (2010); D.C.Code § 42–3505.02(b).)

“When a landlord sues a tenant for possession of rental property, the tenant is entitled to judgment if the suit has been brought in retaliation for the exercise of such legal rights.” (See id.)

“If the landlord's suit is initiated within six months after the tenant has exercised such legal rights, the suit is presumed to be retaliatory.” (See id.)

“The tenant is therefore entitled to judgment unless the landlord presents clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case and Burden of Persuasion for Housing Discrimination Claims

“Everyone agrees that, in cases such as this where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, the court must employ the burden-shifting approach outlined in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) [interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].” (See See Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2004) 849 A.2d 951, 962-63.)

“To establish a reasonable accommodation defense under the Fair Housing Act, the tenant must demonstrate that:

1. she suffered from a ‘handicap’ (or ‘disability’),
2. the landlord knew or should have known of the disability,
3. an accommodation of the disability may be necessary to afford the tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her apartment,
4. the tenant requested a reasonable accommodation, and
5. the landlord refused to grant a reasonable accommodation.”

(See Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2005) 884 A.2d 1109, 1129.)

“Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the landlord to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for seeking eviction.” (See Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2004) 849 A.2d 951, 962-63.)

“If the landlord makes that showing, the burden then shifts back to the tenant to demonstrate that the landlord's reason was a pretext for discrimination.” (See id.)

“At all times, however, the ultimate burden of persuasion as to discrimination remains with the tenant.” (See id.)

Discrimination Under the Federal Fair Housing Act

“The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against a tenant in the provision of services or facilities of a residential dwelling based on the tenant's handicap, including mental impairments.” (See Rutland Court Owners v. Taylor (2010) 997 A.2d 706, 710; 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), -3604(b).)

“Discrimination in this context includes failing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary [for the individual] to use and enjoy a dwelling.” (See id; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).)

“The District of Columbia Human Rights Act employs virtually the same language as that found in the federal Fair Housing Act, substituting the word ‘disability’ for ‘handicap’ while incorporating verbatim the federal wording for discrimination based on a refusal to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled.” (See D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.21(a), -1402.21(d)(3)(B) (2001); Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2005) 884 A.2d 1109, 1115 n.1.)

“Under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord is only obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a tenant if a request for the accommodation has been made.” (See Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. (2005) 884 A.2d 1109, 1122.)