Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763 (1999)

Citation: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763 (1999)
Parent Document: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1999-10-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7898215/commission-on-human-rights-oppo... ↗

Full Text

1,042 chars

The defendant followed a standardized policy in renting its properties. Once a vacancy had been advertised, the defendant’s employees6 responded to telephone inquiries by asking callers to identify themselves, their *767coresidents and their gross household income.7 Only if the caller’s answers were deemed satisfactory, and the caller agreed to pay both the first month’s rent and a security deposit of two additional months’ rent would the potential rental property be identified specifically and shown to the caller. If the defendant and the prospective tenant agreed to the rental, the defendant required the tenant to sign its own standard form lease. The defendant had kept rental units vacant for as long as six months rather than rent those units to persons it considered unqualified. The defendant never has rented any of its properties to any recipient of section 8 assistance, because prospective tenants receiving section 8 assistance consistently have been excluded from consideration in the initial telephone screening process.

Other Sections in This Document (133)

Full Text