Pub. 3 2018 Issue 4

8 www.ctaahq.org T he Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to make housing decisions based on seven protected classes: race, color, sex, national origin, religion, handicap or familial status. While the federal law sets the minimum protections, states and localities can add additional protected classes. In recent years, largely in an effort to address the nation’s growing affordable housing shortage, a number of states and localities have made source of income a protected class, mean- ing a property owner cannot choose to reject an applicant based on where his income comes from as long as it is a lawful source (e.g., alimony, child support or other compensation). This also includes Section 8 housing subsidies. The issue can become problematic for apartment firms that have elected to not participate in the Section 8 housing vouch- er program and yet operate in areas where these sources of income protections exist. Recognizing the operational chal- lenges associated with taking a Section 8 voucher, Congress specifically made the program voluntary. However, these local sources of income protections effectively force apartment firms to reluctantly participate in the program or risk potential discrimination charges. There are many reasons why a private property owner may choose not to participate in the Section 8 program. It has been plagued with inefficiencies and onerous bureaucratic require- ments. Owners who participate are subject to often cumber- some program restrictions, such as repetitive unit inspections, resident eligibility certification and other regulatory paper- work. All of these make it more expensive for apartment firms to operate their communities. Apartment providers apply the same screening criteria and credit requirements to all applicants regardless of their par- ticipation in federal subsidy programs, and they should not be compelled to participate in a costly, bureaucratic contract with the federal government via the Section 8 program. With Congress continuing to introduce legislation to expand the number of protected classes, including source of income, the issue could potentially become increasingly more challenging for apartment firms to navigate. NMHC/NAA Viewpoint: The apartment industry supports efforts to eradicate housing discrimination. However, some states and local sources of income protections are effectively forcing apartment firms to participate in the voluntary Sec- tion 8 federal housing subsidy program. Lawmakers need to address this discrepancy to reflect housing providers' partici- pation choice. CT Law Regarding Source of Income Discrimination: The Connecticut Fair Housing Act includes a specific provision that prohibits discrimination based on lawful sources of in- come (Section 814c(7). Applicants who qualified to receive Section 8 housing assistance from the federal government were refused apartments because (1) they did not meet the landlord’s standard minimum income requirements and (2) the landlord insisted on the terms of its own standard lease, which deviated from the federal require- ments governing Section 8 leases. Although the defendant con- tended that requiring a landlord to accept the standard Section 8 lease would alter the voluntary nature of the federal Section 8 program, the court found nothing in the federal statute that prohibited a state from mandating participation, according to Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 251 Conn. 924, 742 A.2d 364 (Conn.1999). Fail- ure to accept a Security Deposit Guarantee Voucher can also be considered source of income discrimination. Fair Housing: Source of Income Discrimination