Soules v. U.S. Department Of Housing & Urban Development

967 F.2d 817 (2nd Cir. 1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Soules (P) was a single woman who lived with her mother and twelve-year-old daughter in Buffalo, New York. Downs (D) was a Realtor who listed, managed, and rented properties under the moniker Professional Realty Service (PRS). Because of Health Department rules the lease application form that PRS used asked the number and ages of children who would be occupying the premises because the law required separate bedrooms for children of different sexes over five-years-old. D employed a part-time worker, Eileen Anderson, to assist her in showing properties and taking lease applications. When D conducted interviews, she asked the same questions on the lease form and would generally not reveal locations to those applicants who appeared unlikely to qualify. In March 1989, D signed an agreement with Campise in order to rent out an upstairs unit owned by Campise to a lessee who could live harmoniously with the downstairs tenants, the D'Amaros (Mr. D'Amaro suffered from poor eyesight and diabetes). Mr. Campise was loyal to the D'Amaros because they took care of his mother who used to live in the upstairs unit until her entry into a nursing home. D put the apartment in the paper and P responded. P left several messages and D did not return the calls. Eventually, P reached D, and then D asked questions from a standard lease form, and P got upset because D asked P how old her child was. D explained the situation and told P that the lower tenant did not want an upstairs resident that made too much noise. D got really defensive, and even though P continued to question, D ceased volunteering information about the apartment. P then contacted HOME, a nonprofit organization that seeks to ensure that all persons receive equal housing opportunities. HOME then sent a number of shills to D with false stories about renting the apartment. D agreed to show the apartment to the tester without the seven-year-old son. Eventually, P met with Downs who showed P a less appealing apartment and not the one listed in the paper. D lied to P about the availability of apartments where P was in fact looking. D did offer the apartment to another family that she had had prior dealings with even though they did have children. Eventually, the apartment was rented to a single woman who had no children under the age of eighteen. P brought an action under Fair Housing section 3604(a) and (c) in that it was unlawful to refuse to rent after making a bona fide offer because of familial status and it was unlawful to advertise an apartment that indicates a preference based on familial status. Familial status was defined to include one or more individuals who have not yet obtained the age of 18 years being domiciled with a parent or guardian. The administrative judge ruled against P and P appealed.