HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FINDS EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES
Listing Date: 11/12/2003 4:16 PM
The Vermont Human Rights Commission has determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that illegal discrimination occurred in the following cases. The Commission made these determinations based on findings from an investigation and hearing on the charges.
Thelma Columb and Dion LaShay v. Regional Affordable Housing Corporation / James Parker v. Regional Affordable Housing Corporation: The Charging Parties in these two cases claimed that Regional Affordable Housing Corporation (RAHC) of Bennington discriminated against them because of their disabilities. In one case, the Charging Party claimed that RAHC refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability by not moving him to another apartment as he had requested, and in the other case the Charging Parties claimed that RAHC failed to process their application for an apartment. Both claimed that the Executive Director of RAHC made inappropriate inquiries about their disabilities. The Commission concluded that RAHC made inappropriate inquiries about the parties' disabilities, including asking about their medications. The Commission also determined that RAHC's Executive Director in one case made statements discouraging people with disabilities from applying, and in another case refused a request to meet with the party's peer counselor to discuss a possible accommodation. These cases settled with payments to each of the complainants, revisions in RAHC's rental policies and practices, and RAHC's hiring of a fair housing consultant to conduct training for staff and board members.
Darcy Young v. Preston Property Management Inc.: Darcy Young alleges that Preston Property Management refused to rent an apartment to her because she received Section 8 housing assistance. The owner of the company did not deny the charge, but instead claimed that Section 8 is a voluntary program. The Commission determined that by rejecting all potential rental applicants who receive Section 8, Preston violated the provision of Vermont's Fair Housing law that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of receipt of public assistance, including federal housing assistance. As part of a settlement agreement, Preston agreed to assist the Charging Party in finding a new apartment, and to welcome future Section 8 participants as applicants.
Lori Ann Parks v. Kevin Baillargeon: Ms. Parks charged that Mr. Baillargeon, her landlord, made statements indicating that he did not want her living in an apartment with two children, and denied her an opportunity to renew her lease. Mr. Baillargeon claimed that he was trying to sell the apartment. The investigation found that Mr. Baillargeon had made statements similar to those alleged by Ms. Parks, and that, while he did attempt to sell the apartment, he did not inform Ms. Parks when he decided not to sell and subsequently rented the apartment to another party. The case is currently in settlement negotiations.
Dana Dellinger v. Oneal Demars: Ms. Delinger charged that Mr. Demars refused to rent an apartment to her because of her son, who is autistic. Mr. Demars claimed that he did not want to rent to Ms. Dellinger an apartment near other children, because her son might pose a threat of harm to those children. The Commission determined that if Mr. Demars had a legitimate concern about safety, he was required to take steps, pursuant to Vermont law, to determine the validity of the safety issue, and whether other measures short of denial of the apartment could have addressed any safety issues. The case was settled with an agreement by Mr. Demars to provide Ms. Dellinger with a letter of apology and a cash payment, and to alter his rental application practices.
Desiree Clark v. Louise Bianchi: Ms. Clark claimed that Ms. Bianchi evicted her from her apartment when she reported that her son had tested positive for lead in his blood. Ms. Bianchi claimed that she evicted Ms. Clark because of noise and other disturbances. The Commission determined that, while Ms. Clark was involved with some disputes with neighbors, the most significant dispute took place after the eviction notice was sent, and that the primary reason for the eviction was the lead paint report. The case was settled with an agreement by Ms. Bianchi to provide Ms. Clark with a positive letter of reference and a cash payment.
In the following cases, the Vermont Human Rights Commission reached settlement agreements before completing an investigation of alleged housing discrimination. In all of these cases, there has been no finding of illegal discrimination by the Respondents. (While the terms of these settlements and the names of the parties are public information, the names of the parties have been withheld here, in order to include details of the allegations that may not be public by state law.)
The Charging Party, a single mother with a young child, charged that the Respondent agreed to rent an apartment to her, but then asked her to leave the apartment several days later, after he learned that she had a minor child and received public assistance. The Respondent denied the charge. To settle the charge, the Respondent paid the Charging Party $300, and wrote a letter of apology to her.
The Charging Party claimed that the Respondent, her landlord, asked her to leave her apartment when he learned that her daughter was expecting another child. The Charging Party did, in fact, move out of the apartment. The Respondent denied that he asked her to leave. In a settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed to provide the Charging Party with an excellent letter of reference, and the he would not require the Charging Party to remove a swing set that she had installed for her grandchildren.
The Charging Party, who suffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, charges that her landlord and property management company filed to respond to her requests for advance notice before using certain chemicals and paints in or near her apartment. The Respondents denied the charges. The parties came to an agreement through mediation, detailing improved advance communication by the Respondent to the Charging Party about the use of chemicals, reduction in the use of fragrances by staff, steps to reduce smoking around her apartment, and to explore the options of moving the Charging Party to a different apartment.
The Charging Party, who has mobility problems, lives in a second floor apartment and is unable to climb stairs. She charged that the elevator in her building was broken, and that when she called to ask about repairs she was told that nothing could be done, forcing her to sleep in her car. In a settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed to repair the elevator, to pay for the Charging Party's hotel accommodations while the elevator was out of service, and to develop with the Charging Party a protocol for addressing any future elevator problems.
The Charging Party, who suffers from severe allergies, claimed that her landlord and property management company refused to honor her request for a reasonable accommodation for her disability, by not allowing her to have a window air conditioner and by failing to remove plants that aggravated her allergies. The Respondents denied the charge. In a settlement agreement, the Respondents agreed to install a window in the apartment that could accommodate a standard air conditioner.
|
