A Section 8 funding recipient’s repeated filing of lawsuits against landlords based on their replies to her rental inquiries on the Zillow website comes as no surprise to the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA).
A recent Los Angeles Times article describes how Alexys Watson, who receives a Section 8 voucher from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), filed dozens of civil claims in Los Angeles County Superior Court against area landlords. The claims are based on noncommittal or negative responses to her queries about whether the landlord accepts Section 8 tenants.
The lawsuits allege violations of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which bars discrimination in housing based on a tenant’s source of income. They seek $100,000 judgments.
“We see stuff like this all the time,” Daniel Yukelson, the AAGLA’s executive director and CEO, told the Southern California Record. “All this does is increase the costs of housing and forces independent owners out of business.”
In such situations, landlords will receive inquiries from prospective tenants one day, and the next day a lawsuit will be filed, according to Yukelson.
“The whole source of income was made a discrimination class in California law,” he said. “Unfortunately, the law is complicated, and it’s very nuanced. … What invariably happens is these are not fully adjudicated and… they end up being settled out of court.”
The process forces landlords to pay skyrocketing costs, anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000, to settle one of these cases, according to Yukelson, who said attorneys are simply looking to score quick settlements..
As individual property owners exit the housing business, the availability of affordable housing decreases, he said, adding that the state Legislature has failed to balance the needs of housing suppliers and renters.
But Watson’s attorney, Alexander Robinson, said the state’s efforts to prevent discrimination in housing have been inadequate.
“I don’t believe the (state) legislation is working to incentivize landlords to be more open to Section 8 recipients,” Robinson told the Record. “The legislation functions as a disincentive to Section 8 tenants. … The unwillingness by landlords to act on Section 8 is based on bias, stereotypes and racism.”
There have been settlements as a result of Watson’s lawsuits, since the cases revealed a clear violation of the law, he said, adding that more lawsuits would be filed as a result of landlords responding negatively to queries about their acceptance of Section 8 vouchers.
“Ms. Watson is currently looking for housing and is still encountering discrimination,” Robinson said.
An opinion handed down by the California Second District Appellate Court last month gives tenants additional leverage to seek redress through the civil court system. The appeals court ruled that tenants can sue landlords under state law even if they cannot show they sustained harm from violations of the tenant screening and background-check process.
The court found that lawmakers’ inclusion of a $10,000 minimum recovery provision gives standing to plaintiffs who have not suffered tangible harm from violations of the state’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.
But a recent New York state court decision concluded that laws barring discrimination on the basis of the source of tenant income, including Section 8 vouchers, are unconstitutional. That’s because the Section 8 program mandates that housing providers grant access to their properties and business records – in violation of the Fourth’s Amendment’s protections against government searches, the court ruled.
.
