DiLiddo v. Oxford Street Realty, Inc.
876 N.E.2d 421, 450 Mass. 66, 2007 Mass. LEXIS 733 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Massachusetts G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10), a landlord may not refuse to rent to a housing subsidy recipient based on an objection to a mandatory requirement of the subsidy program, such as a standard form lease provision. A landlord’s good-faith economic reason for the objection does not constitute a valid defense.
Facts:
- Lori DiLiddo, who was disabled, received a temporary housing voucher from the state's Alternative Housing Voucher Program (AHVP).
- DiLiddo located an apartment managed by Oxford Street Realty, Inc. (Oxford), and its principal, Jeffrey W. Indeck.
- Oxford initially agreed to rent the unit to DiLiddo and accepted a fee, fully aware she would be using her AHVP voucher.
- The AHVP program required all participants to use a standard form lease.
- Indeck reviewed the mandatory AHVP lease and objected to several provisions, particularly one that allowed a tenant to terminate the lease with one month's notice upon securing permanent housing.
- Believing this provision was an unreasonable financial burden, Indeck refused to sign the required AHVP lease and withdrew the offer to rent the apartment to DiLiddo.
Procedural Posture:
- Lori DiLiddo filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) alleging housing discrimination by Oxford Street Realty and Jeffrey Indeck.
- MCAD issued a finding of probable cause against Oxford.
- Oxford elected to remove the case from MCAD to the Superior Court for a judicial determination.
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on behalf of the complainant, filed a civil action against Oxford and Indeck in Superior Court, and DiLiddo intervened as a plaintiff.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Oxford and Indeck, and denied the plaintiff's motion.
- DiLiddo, the plaintiff-intervener, appealed the Superior Court's judgment.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeal from the intermediate appellate court on its own initiative.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's refusal to rent to a housing subsidy recipient, based on an economic objection to a mandatory termination provision in the subsidy program's standard lease, violate the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10)?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
Yes, a landlord's refusal to rent to a housing subsidy recipient based on an objection to a mandatory program requirement violates G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10). The court determined that the standard form lease, including its termination clause, is a 'requirement' of the AHVP program within the plain meaning of the statute. The court's reasoning relied heavily on the legislative history of a 1990 amendment to the statute, which was enacted specifically to overrule the precedent from Attorney Gen. v. Brown. That amendment removed the word 'solely' and added the phrase 'because of any requirement of such... housing subsidy program,' making it clear that discrimination based on the terms of a program is just as unlawful as discrimination based on a person's status as a recipient. The court concluded that a landlord’s personal assessment of a requirement's economic reasonableness or a lack of discriminatory 'animus' is not a defense, as the statute itself defines such conduct as discriminatory. The court also rejected the defense of acting on the advice of counsel, because the statute does not require willful or intentional violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens protections for housing subsidy recipients in Massachusetts by closing a major loophole. It clarifies that landlords must accept the terms of a government subsidy program as a whole and cannot reject tenants by picking and choosing which programmatic rules they are willing to follow. The ruling establishes a broad interpretation of the term 'requirement' and explicitly rejects economic inconvenience as a valid defense, reinforcing that the legislature has already balanced the interests of landlords and tenants. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for landlords to use pretextual objections to program rules as a means of discriminating against voucher holders.
