Vt. Human Rights Comm'n, HV19-0018, Investigative Report & Reasonable Grounds Determination

rao
Interview with Mr. Deery, 611312019.
t4t Id.
ra2
Florentino v. Nokit Realt-y Corp., 906 N.Y.S.2d 689,696 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).
A3 Id,
raa
Interview with Ms. Taylor, 611712019.
ra5
Interview with Ms. Taylor,7l17l20l9.
ta6
Id.
t47
Id.
ra8
Interview with Mr. Deery, 611312019.
14e
Id.
l50 Rosar.io v. Diagonal Rcalty. 8 N.Y.3d 1ss,76 r (N.Y. 2008)
authority in order to be able to process the tenant's section 8 voucher.lsl A Connecticut court
opinion explained its reasoning for refusing to accept a landlord's administrative burden
argument, stating, "[w]e should not read into a remedial statute an unstated exception that would
undermine the legislature's manifest intent to afford low income families access to the rental
housing market."l52

In this case, Mr. Deery admitted in both his response and his interview that his refusal to
continue to rent to Ms. Weygant was because she received section 8. While there appears to be
minimal precedence on the issue, the VFHPAA statute is clear that it is unlawful to refuse to rent
to someone because a person is a recipient of public assistance. Furthermore, guidance from
other circuits indicate that a refusal to follow procedures related to Section 8 vouchers equates to
discrimination on the basis of public assistance. Mr. Deery's arguments that he was allowed to
stop accepting Section 8 either because of the number of rooms Ms. Weygant required or
because of the administrative burden of accepting direct deposit is no defense and therefore, does
not relieve him of his obligations under the VFHPAA.

Findine: Mr. Deery stated that he took adverse action against Ms. Weygant because she is
a member of a protected class.

CONCLUSION - PUBLIC ASS TANCE DISCRIMINATION