Notice that under the federal Fair Housing Act discrimination in the sale or rental of housing "to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin" is prohibited.
The Act also prohibits advertisements for the sale or rental of housing that indicate "any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." Casebook p. 460.
Jancik deals with a case of discriminatory ads for rental housing.
The ad noted that a "mature person preferred." And one of the protected classes under FHA is "familial status" which is defined to mean families with children under the age of 18.
In addition to his ad, Jancik also asked the "tester" applicants about their race.
So the issue is whether his ad or his statements expressed a preference for mature adults or for tenants of a particular race.
The Court holds that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge that Jancik's ad and statements unlawfully expressed "a preference on both race and family statues" was supported by substantial evidence. Do you agree?
Notice the penalties Jancik was assessed by the ALJ (p. 465):
The ALJ awarded damages to the Leadership Council ($21,386.14)
and to Marsha Allen ($2,000), assessed a civil penalty of $10,000, and
enjoined Jancik from engaging in further acts of discrimination, all as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3). The Leadership Council subsequently
filed a petition requesting $23,842.50 in attorney’s fees[, which the ALJ
granted in full].
My math tells me this comes to a bit over $57000. About half of which went to the attorneys who brought the case.
Too much?
Too little?
About right?
Again, attorneys' fees are awarded to incentivize bringing these cases, and as a deterrent to those who violate civil rights laws such as FHA and RLUIPA.
What are your thoughts?
