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

1,091 chars

On March 2,1994, the defendant advertised the rental of a house on Lindley Street in Bridgeport. That same day, Hanson,8 a single parent of two minor children residing in Bridgeport, inquired about the rental but was turned away when she identified herself as a person whose income was derived from section 8 assistance and the federal aid to families with dependent children program (AFDC). 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.9 She was told *768that “the landlord did not qualify for section 8 because the landlord required two months’ rent as security and section 8 would not allow two months’ security as the landlord understood the program.” Shortly thereafter, an employee of a local fair housing office, posing as a prospective tenant relying on section 8 rental assistance, received a similar reply.10 One month later, Roper, a single parent of three children, inquired about renting the same property. 11 When she disclosed that she had no income other than section 8 housing assistance,12 she was informed that she would need an annual income of $38,000 in order to qualify to rent the house.13

Other Sections in This Document (133)

Full Text