Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2019)

Citation: Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2019)
Parent Document: Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2019)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2019-12-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4684833/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,689 chars

7 Although we need not and do not rely on it to resolve this appeal, HUD’s
interpretation of the FHA more broadly imposes liability on landlords arising out of
tenant‐on‐tenant harassment based on race or other protected characteristics even
without a showing of intentional discrimination. In 2016 HUD published a final rule
(the “Rule”) amending its rules for discriminatory conduct under the FHA. See Quid
Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory
Housing Practices Under the Fair Housing Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 63,054 (Sept. 14, 2016)
(codified at 24 C.F.R. pt. 100). The Rule defines hostile environment harassment in
violation of the FHA as referring to “unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or
pervasive as to interfere with: The availability, sale, rental, or use or enjoyment of a
dwelling; the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental, or the provision or
enjoyment of services or facilities in connection therewith; or the availability, terms, or
conditions of a residential real estate‐related transaction.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600(a)(2).
HUD’s regulations, as clarified by the Rule, specifically provide that a landlord may be
liable under the FHA for “[f]ailing to take prompt action to correct and end a
discriminatory housing practice by a third‐party” tenant where the landlord “knew . . .
of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it.” 24 C.F.R.
§ 100.7(a)(1)(iii). We express no view regarding this formulation.
18
1 plausibly and adequately alleges that the KPM Defendants engaged in

Other Sections in This Document (882)

Full Text