You Need to Know about these Recent Discrimination Cases

Murder of a Seeing Eye Dog?

The attorney general has filed for equitable remedy on behalf of a blind tenant in East Wareham, who may have been discriminated against.

The specific charges filed are: 1.) requiring paperwork for a reasonable accommodation, 2.) asking for confirmation that blindness was the reason for the accommodation, and 3.) not following the company’s own policies and procedures.

The reporting done by WickedLocal and the press release by the Attorney General’s office is so unclear as to be sensationalist.

The landlord is allegedly responsible for putting down the tenant’s seeing eye dog. This is prima facie unbelievable. To “put down” an animal, at least one veterinarian and therefore some kind of civil process must have been involved. Otherwise they would have come out and said that the landlord killed the tenant’s dog.

It is possible this detail about the dog was inserted into the press release as a slur against the landlord, as a way to make the Attorney General seem more righteous. It is possible that a judge had the animal put down because it had bitten someone. The dog’s demise is not listed as a charge against the landlord.

As one MassLandlords commenter on Facebook observed, “This case should be investigated to make sure it does not set a dangerous president [sic] by removing judges’ ability to restrict disruptive service animals.”

MassLandlords was unable to locate the filing for the case (1684CV02324, Suffolk Superior Court).
We will keep you informed about whether the Attorney General prevails, and what happened to the dog.

A Mockery of Good Business Practice

At the other end of the state, Springfield Justice Dina Fein has broadened the law around subsidy discrimination.

The landlord refused to rent to a Section 8 tenant because the voucher was administered by the Berkshire Housing Development Corporation. This landlord rented to Section 8 from other administrators. BHDC had given her “negative experiences” in the past, and in the landlord’s view, it was likely to be “negative experiences” in the future.

MGL Ch. 151B Section 4 prohibits discrimination against any “individual who is a recipient of .. housing subsidies … because such individual is a recipient or because of any requirement of such …  housing subsidy program.” Apparently Judge Fein thinks “negative experiences” are a requirement of Section 8.

The case appears to remove any market pressure that could have been brought to bear on subsidy administrators. If left unaddressed, administrators would now be free to operate with impunity: refusing to take phone calls, not responding to emails, and still receiving government funds on the basis of placements without regard to tenancy success.

With the exception of HAP Housing in Springfield, subsidy administrators received mostly negative feedback in MassLandlords’ 2015 informal survey.

According to information received from Worcester Housing Authority staff in 2015, a tenant may only transfer their voucher to a more capable administrator if the current administrator agrees. Administrators have no reason to agree to transfer requests, and on the contrary, stand to lose revenue if the transfer happens.

MassLandlords volunteers determined that the Defense Fund was inadequate to appeal this case.

The law around subsidy administrators should be changed. Tenants should have freedom of choice in their voucher administrators. Landlords should have similar freedom to refuse to work with certain administrators, so long as there is at least one in administrator in their region with whom they would work.