As reported by aparment owners association of america

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the owners and managers of an apartment complex for discriminating against Black tenants over felony and criminal history background checks, according to a release.

The suit alleges that Suburban Heights Apartments near St. Louis “engaged in a pattern or practice of race and/or color discrimination against prospective Black tenants by banning tenants with any past felony conviction and certain other criminal histories, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.” The felony ban was in place regardless of how old the felony was or the nature of the offense, the suit says.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and alleges that, during their respective periods of ownership or management of the property from at least November 2015 to January 2024, “the defendants publicized and enforced a categorical ban on tenants with felony convictions and certain other criminal histories, regardless of how long ago the conviction occurred.

“This policy excluded prospective tenants based on their criminal histories, which are known to have significant racial disparities, and which are not accurate proxies for actual underlying criminal activity nor reliable predictors of future criminal activity. By choosing to use that policy, the defendants likely deterred prospective Black tenants from applying to rent and excluded them from housing opportunities at Suburban Heights Apartments,” the Justice Department says in the release.

Suburban Heights is a residential multifamily-rental apartment complex located at 5512 Mable Ave. in Kinloch, Missouri. It contains approximately 102 rental units in six two-story buildings.

“Rental-property owners and managers that ban tenants with a criminal history risk running afoul of the Fair Housing Act,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the release. “This lawsuit should send a clear message to housing providers that certain criminal-history bans on people seeking to put a roof over their heads are not just unfair but unlawful.”

The allegations were based, in part, on evidence generated by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as prospective renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to remedy the harms caused by the defendants’ policy, a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest, and a court order barring future discrimination.

Source: Rental Housing Journal

** On the other hand, in the world of good business practices and common sense, what felonies are ok to reject for?**

NE, for our company, we have a zero acceptance policy for anything to do with children (felony or misdemeanor or whatever) no matter how long ago it occurred.

Child endangerment, child abandonment, child whatever is a hard pass.

We also are a hard pass on any violence- felony or misdemeanor.

We accepted an older gentleman in his late 70s who had multiple felonies for drunk driving in his youth. He was an excellent tenant until he simple became too old to take care of himself and he moved to a type of assisted living situation.

Several years ago, we had a group of unrelated adults apply that had multiple felonies for all sorts of things including stealing a post office money order machine. We were not able to approve them because of their poor previous landlord references.

I imagine there would have been other things as well, but in our process, the first time we hit a "no", we notify the applicants that we will put their application on hold until they clear up whatever it is. We don't complete the rest of the screening until they clear up whatever so as to not waste our time.

In all our years, only 2 people have ever corrected the "no" and gotten back to us. Both times it was a balance owed to the local electric company.

I heard about this earlier in the month. It is a significant deviation where DOJ is pursuing it rather than HUD. This will affect every state not just the left leaning ones. I know more than one free legal services that serve those where Government overreach is happening has offered to step up and represent them through the court system. I'm pretty sure this is one of those topics that will end up at the Supreme court in the next 2-3 years.

I am all about eliminating discrimination but with this approach everything landlords use to screen could be deemed by someone to be discriminatory. That would include income amount, credit score, employment, even criteria used in an in-home inspection could be claimed to be discriminatory. In my humble opinion the Justice Department has lost their ever lovin minds.

**with this approach everything landlords use to screen could be deemed by someone to be discriminatory. That would include income amount, credit score, employment, even criteria used in an in-home inspection could be claimed to be discriminatory.**

Were the property managers to consider how long ago the criminal behavior and the seriousness of charges, they would have been in violation of fair housing standards.

I too would like to get more detailed information about how these people were disqualified.

Also believe that the DOJ should not be the agency in charge of this. Maybe they are the best qualified. But lately all I hear about them is the weaponization.

I am happy that, at least for now, I am able to DQ a person with a violent criminal past. Personally I do not care about the color of their skin. Never have. Having all my stuff online and not in person helps to keep me safe from the accusations of color discrimination.

S i d's 5 Easy Steps to Never Get in Trouble With Fair Housing

1) Never post online any criteria that will automatically disqualify someone for background. "No felonies" for example. Govt agencies have "bots" scraping the internet looking for things like this, and they will find you, and now you've painted a big target on your behind.

2) Maintain your screening criteria in-house. In my state, I am NOT required to publish my screening criteria anywhere, so if I do I'm basically serving myself up on a platter to an aggressive, free tenants' right lawyer.

3) Everyone is always welcome to apply. If the applicant asks, "How are my chances for approval based on X, Y, and X?" my one and only response is, "Every person's situation is different, and we can't say until we see the whole picture on the formal application."

4) Denials need to be kept simple, because again, anything I SAY (or write or email or text) can and will be used against me. A simple, "We cannot approve your application at this time" is all I ever need do, and that needs to happen AFTER they submit their application. I do include an address if they want to request more specifics. In 20 years of landlording, and 100s of applicants, I haven't ever received even one letter.

5) Govt testers generally have limited resources to go after everyone, so they go after low-hanging fruit. If I follow the steps above consistently, I am not low-hanging fruit.

Sid, I agree with most of what you say except the Government testers having limited resources. If this were HUD I would agree but in this case it is DOJ. So, let me explain how this "weaponization" happens.

Person X applies for your property which you give your pat answer that you can't approve at this point. They then file a complaint with the Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. They decide to pursue it so they dispatch a Federal Officer, with a search warrant if you are likely not to comply, who shows up at your door and demands, or simply takes, the details in your records (including your computers and internet history). They find out you could not approve because of a criminal background and reports back to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then offers you some moderately painful deal hoping you are scared enough (facing huge legal bills, risk of much higher consequences) to settle without proceeding through the court system. You then become the poster child for setting the new national standard. The prosecutor (and his boss) in this case has all the power of the Department of Justice to make an example out of you. Whether or not they are correctly interpreting the law is immaterial, they hope you will settle, if you won't (based on recent past practice) they will push their full prosecutory weight behind trying to set this new standard of interpretation through the courts.

This gets tricky fast. The thing to remember is that they are NOT arguing that they are discriminating against felons. They are arguing that they are discriminating against people who are black because they are much more likely to be felons.

In other words, felons are not a protected class by federal law. They are arguing this is racial discrimination based on the likelihood of a black applicant being a felon.

To me, it always feels like a bit of a racist point of view. But, of course, there is truth to it in many areas. And it is even possible that black people committing the same crime as a white person are more likely to be found guilty of a felony. Which, of course, would be racism again.

So, it is indeed tricky. Even their argument feels so weird. Again, they are saying that you can't discriminate against felons not because they are protected -- but because they are more likely to be black (which is protected).

As far as pushing this to the Supreme Court... Based on other recent SC decisions, I really don't see that happening or going the way that they want if they push it that far. The current SC clearly leans right -- and I don't think conservatives would be the ones to block landlords from blocking felons from their properties. But that's just my guess.

John, I agree with your assessment that they are making this about discriminating against black people rather than felons.

The major issue I have is that if prosecutors are pushing harder on convicting black people of felonies as you are suggesting then why take it out on Landlords? By the way, almost all felonies are Federal crimes prosecuted under the DOJ laws so that seems very heretical. The only answer that makes sense is that Landlords have a weaker political position and they know that the they can not stop prosecuting the people who actually commit felonies (immaterial of race) or they will face significant social consequence and loss of confidence.

So stated another way DOJ is saying that because they pursue more cases against black people, they are not racist but landlords are. What sense does that make? That shouldn't pass anyone's ho-ho test immaterial of the Supreme court leaning left or right. Again, this prosecutor is hoping for a low-key settlement so they can establish this as the standard without having to face the reality of the judge and without loosing American confidence in the DOJ by having it gain too much attention.

I don't know about anyone else but I intend to point this out to my congressmen and ask him to inquire into this in a simple attempt to bring it into the light where the DOJ heresy shines. Not that I don't believe the Supreme Court will strike it down, but we shouldn't have to be in limbo for years waiting.

I just finished writing my congressmen on this issue. I strongly encourage each of you to spend 20 minutes writing to yours as well, that's how change happens. You can roll over and accept it or you can step up and help make a difference. I'm also reaching out to a legal foundation that I support and encourage them to take part in this case.

If you struggle with what to say to your congressman, here's some words that you can plagiarize and/or make your own with my permission.

I recently became aware of a DOJ lawsuit that was filed October 3, 2024 against a Missouri landlord citing what they believed to be discrimination against black people because they rejected applicants with a criminal history. When looking at the fair housing act, neither felons or others with a criminal history are covered. However, the DOJ is now citing that because black people have a higher likelihood of having a criminal record that it is discriminatory to reject applications from those with a criminal history.

If this is the case isn't DOJ implicated in this as being discriminatory against black people in their prosecution of crimes? Why are they not prosecuting their own people for discrimination? In essence, it appears the DOJ is saying do as I say, not as I do. That's not right on any level. It's doubtful they couldn't stand the scrutiny and loss of public confidence if they allowed dismissal of charged based on skin color, that would be real discrimination. So, why then is it discriminatory for a landlord to exclude people with a criminal history which has nothing to do with skin color.

In the DOJ release they made the statement "criminal histories...are not accurate proxies for actual underlying criminal activity nor reliable predictors of future criminal activity." which I find an absolutely absurd statement. If that is the case then why are felon not allowed to run for public office, perform jury duty, own firearms, vote, or precluded from many other activities. And if the DOJ's argument that this landlords practice of precluding felons was discriminatory, why aren't these other laws being struck down or prosecuted by the DOJ?

There are many impacts on landlords that this interpretation will have. Those include: an increased potential financial loss, more likely property damage, expanded legal liability under tort laws, and mental anguish if an innocent person were injured or killed as a result of lower standards in tenant selection.

Thank you, MikeA.

Not critiquing, just asking. You wrote: " It's doubtful they couldn't stand the scrutiny ......."

MikeA, I get your point. I've looked closely at who the news article tells us the Feds are interested in: 102-unit apartment complexes. Little old S i d has his 24 units of residential housing. My guess is I'm not even a blip on their radar screen.

If they do get really bored and decide to come after me, I'll be ready with documentation to show "this and this and this" are the reasons why they were denied. I've noticed a pattern with these types: I have never yet had an applicant with a crappy criminal background who also had good credit, steady job/income history, and positive rental references who was also cooperative throughout the application process. In other words, I will give them a boat load of legal reasons why the person was denied: poor credit, unpaid bills, evictions, bad rental history, insufficient income, lack of job stability, and so forth. Any ONE of which is legal, sufficient reason to not approve someone's application. I usually have 3 or more reasons, only one of which is related to criminal background.

In summary, poor life choices are rarely compartmentalized.

Also, I'm familiar with the term disparate impact, which is what John mentions. The example I learned at a seminar presented by a local, highly successful professional property manager. He said if you had a criteria that says, "No renters under 5 foot 7 inches" that's not illegal per se, but since a lot of women are shorter, that creates a scenario where women would be generally discriminated against.

For background, I generally only deny based on convictions for violence against people (murder, assault, robbery) or property and/or sexual offenses (rape, registered offender). But again, I have that reason along with several others, always.

One more thing... the fact that I have records of renting to black people, women (68% of my tenants), LGBTQ+, Hispanic, Indian (country of, not American Native), etc people multiple times over many years should also make it a challenge for anyone to say I'm denying people simply for being members of protected classes.

I agree with Mike in CA

I do the same. I rely heavily on credit reports. I have a reasonable amount of suspicion that at least a couple of the appointments I have had were HUD hires.

Using DOJ's logic of using criminal records to evaluate being an indicator of bigotry then you can't use credit score or you could be the next targeted. The average black person has a 100 point lower score than an average white person.

Oh and by the way, black people have a much higher unemployment rate than others so you can't use a steady job as a criteria either.

Past evictions? same problem, over half of evictions are from black tenants so that would be discrimination as well.

Think your past history of having minority tenants will help? Nope, according to the filed complaint, it simply has to do with denying applicant approval and deterring those with certain criminal histories, they even state that the complex doesn't keep any records on which tenants are minorities.

While a smaller operator MAY be less at risk, it really boils down to who submits the requisite complaint to the DOJ and who's desk it makes it to there. If this is successful through the courts system then it won't end at criminal records, it will continue until every tool we use to verify tenants is unraveled. Even if it fails in the courts, which I think is likely, there will be significant consternation over the next 2-3 years by self conscious landlords awaiting the outcome. That's why we each need to write our congressmen in hopes that we can bring closure to this sooner than later.

If you want some interesting reading, including the specific criteria the complex used (sounds almost identical to Sid's) and the various testers they sent in, just follow the link below. It is interesting that some of the testers communicated via email or other methods where their race would not be evident. It only had to do with the fact that they use criminal history as a filter of applicants.

justice.gov/d9/2024-10/complaint_-_united_states_v_suburban_heights.pdf

Total witch hunt. Under their logic everything is discrimatory.

Does no one remember what happens to apartments when criminals and gangs take over.

This makes as much sense as Seattle.