Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC
666 F.3d 1216 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) do not apply to the selection of roommates who share a single living unit because applying the statute in this context would raise serious constitutional concerns regarding the right to intimate association.
Facts:
- Roommate.com, LLC (Roommate) operates an internet-based business that helps individuals find roommates.
- When users create a profile, the website requires them to answer questions about their sex, sexual orientation, and whether children will be living with them.
- The website asks users to list their preferences for a roommate's characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, and familial status.
- Based on the user-provided profiles and preferences, Roommate's system matches users with potential roommates and allows them to search for roommates based on these characteristics.
Procedural Posture:
- The Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego (FHCs) sued Roommate.com, LLC in federal district court, alleging violations of the FHA and the California FEHA.
- The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that Roommate was immune under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
- The FHCs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed in part, holding Roommate was not immune for creating its discriminatory questionnaires and matching system.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the FHCs, issued a permanent injunction against Roommate, and awarded attorney's fees.
- Roommate, the defendant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 the anti-discrimination provision of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a "dwelling," apply to the selection of roommates to share a single living unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kozinski
No, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act do not apply to the selection of roommates. The FHA's reach turns on the meaning of a "dwelling," which the court interprets as an independent living unit, meaning the statute's prohibitions stop at the front door. Reading the statute to regulate relationships inside the home would raise serious constitutional problems by infringing on the fundamental right of intimate association. This right, which protects highly personal relationships, applies to roommates due to the intimate nature of sharing a home. To avoid these constitutional difficulties, the court adopts the narrower construction of "dwelling" that is fairly possible from the text and excludes roommate selection from the FHA's reach. Because the underlying act of choosing a roommate is not unlawful, Roommate's facilitation of that choice is also not a violation of the FHA.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Ikuta
No, the Fair Housing Act does not apply to the sharing of living units, but the court's reasoning regarding the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is flawed. While I concur with the majority's conclusion on the FHA, I dissent from its application of the constitutional avoidance canon to the FEHA. Unlike the FHA, the FEHA is not ambiguous because it includes a specific exemption for sex-specific roommate advertisements. This express exemption implies that the legislature intended to prohibit roommate discrimination based on other protected characteristics, such as race or religion. Because the state statute is unambiguous, the court cannot use an interpretive canon to rewrite it and should have remanded the issue for the district court to address the constitutional question directly.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the Fair Housing Act, establishing that federal anti-discrimination law does not regulate an individual's choice of a roommate. The court prioritized the constitutional rights of intimate association and privacy within the home over the FHA's broad anti-discrimination mandate in the context of shared living arrangements. This precedent clarifies that the FHA primarily targets commercial housing transactions between landlords and tenants, not personal relationships between cohabitants. Future legal disputes will likely focus on distinguishing between a landlord renting out separate rooms (covered by the FHA) and individuals seeking to share a single, unified living space (not covered).
Unlock the full brief for Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC