Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)

Citation
Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Parent Document
Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Effective Date
1996-08-12

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text

808 chars
Safranek argues explicitly that the familial status of children will be unprotected if a landlord can charge the same rent for two adults and one child as for three adults, because then there will have been an increase “because of’ the child, even though there would have been exactly the same increase “because of’ a third adult. Safranek is right that this is a claim of first impression, perhaps because it is a claim of such breathtaking audacity that no one ever dared to raise it before. Certainly, no case, article, or treatise discussing “familial status” discrimination ever thought to contemplate the idea that treating a child the same as other persons could be discrimination. All of the cases and commentators discuss the opposite possibility: that a landlord would refuse to rent or charge more