When an interracial couple wanted to rent a house in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, the landlord welcomed them and signed a one-year lease. But when the couple informed the landlord they needed to move and presented a black family to sublease the house, he balked.
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination, the landlord
asked the couple if the prospects were white. After learning he would be renting to a black family, the landlord allegedly stated that he “did not want too many blacks at the property”
while expressing concern that “the neighbors would not want to see too many blacks there.”
The landlord rejected the prospects and refused to return the couple's security deposit or provide an explanation after they moved out.
A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case to determine if the landlord should be held liable for violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) discrimination ban based on race, color, and national origin.
The landlord rejected the prospects and refused to return the couple's security deposit or provide an explanation after they moved out.
A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case to determine if the landlord should be held liable for violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) discrimination ban based on race, color, and national origin.
1 comment:
Why is an administrative law judge even wasting taxpayers dollars on this? The landlord should be held liable for discrimination, return the orgininal couple's deposit, and be charged a hefty fee to be paid to the white couple and the black family they had selected to sublet the property.
Post a Comment