Jancik v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
44 F.3d 553 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A rental advertisement or statement violates § 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act if it suggests a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected characteristic to an objective ordinary reader or listener. Proving the landlord's subjective intent to discriminate is not necessary to establish a violation, though evidence of such intent is relevant.
Facts:
- Stanley Janeik, an apartment building owner, placed a newspaper advertisement for a one-bedroom apartment stating a preference for a 'mature person'.
- Suspecting a violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Leadership Council dispatched two 'testers', Cindy Gunderson (white) and Marsha Allen (African American), to inquire about the apartment.
- In a phone call with Gunderson, Janeik stated he did not want teenagers in the building and, after learning her surname was Norwegian, pointedly asked if she was 'white Norwegian or black Norwegian'.
- In a separate phone call with Allen, Janeik stated he did not want anyone moving in who was loud and had children or pets.
- Janeik also asked Allen about her race and other personal details, explaining that he needed to screen applicants.
- When Allen stated she did not have children or pets, Janeik responded, 'wonderful'.
- The following day, both testers were separately informed by Janeik's rental manager that the apartment had already been rented.
Procedural Posture:
- The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against Stanley Janeik.
- HUD's General Counsel issued a 'Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination'.
- The case was heard before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in an administrative proceeding.
- The ALJ found that Janeik had violated the Fair Housing Act, awarded damages and a civil penalty, and issued an injunction.
- The ALJ's decision became the final order of the agency.
- The ALJ subsequently granted the Leadership Council's petition for attorney's fees.
- Janeik filed a petition for review of both the final order and the attorney's fees award with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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:
Do a landlord's rental advertisement seeking a 'mature person' and his subsequent oral statements to prospective tenants indicating a preference against children and inquiring about their race violate § 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, Circuit Judge
Yes, the landlord's advertisement and oral statements violate § 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act. The court determines whether a statement 'indicates' a discriminatory preference by applying an objective 'ordinary reader' or 'ordinary listener' standard. Janeik's advertisement for a 'mature person' and his explicit statements to the testers that he did not want teenagers or tenants with children would clearly suggest a preference based on familial status to an ordinary person. While a landlord’s subjective intent to discriminate is not required to find a violation, the record contained substantial evidence of Janeik’s intent, such as his admission that he lied to prospective tenants about the proximity of schools. Regarding the racial inquiries, the court found that while such questions are not a per se violation, the context in which they were asked—amidst other impermissible screening statements and with pointed determination—indicated an intent to discriminate on the basis of race.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'ordinary reader' objective standard for § 3604(c) claims in the Seventh Circuit, aligning it with other circuits. The analysis emphasizes that context is paramount when evaluating whether a statement, particularly a question about a protected status, constitutes a violation. The ruling clarifies that even without an explicit discriminatory statement, a pattern of inquiries and comments can cumulatively signal an illegal preference to a reasonable person. This precedent strengthens the use of 'testers' in fair housing enforcement and puts landlords on notice that their spoken words, not just written ads, are subject to scrutiny under the Fair Housing Act.
Unlock the full brief for Jancik v. Department of Housing and Urban Development