No, it is not illegal for the landlord to reject him for bad credit. The law says landlords can't automatically reject someone just because they use a government voucher to pay rent. However, that doesn't take away the landlord's right to make sure a tenant is likely to pay their share of the rent. Pasquince had a history of not paying rent before, which is a major red flag for any landlord. Since Brighton Arms checks everyone's credit and already rents to other people with vouchers, it was clear they weren't discriminating against him for using a voucher. They were just following a normal, fair business practice to avoid tenants who don't pay their bills.

Yes, it was okay for Brighton Arms to say no to John's rental application because of his history of not paying bills. Landlords are allowed to check if a person usually pays their bills on time before deciding to rent to them. This is fair and legal, even for people who get government help with rent. The judge found Brighton Arms was not unfair to John just because he gets government help. Brighton Arms has other renters who get this help too, and they check everyone the same way. Even though a law about this changed, landlords can still look at bill payment history. The government's own rules say this is allowed for people with rent help. John could not prove Brighton Arms was just using his bill history as an excuse to treat him badly for getting rent help.

No, a landlord does not violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) by rejecting a Section 8 applicant based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory assessment of their poor credit history. The court reasoned that creditworthiness is a well-established, legitimate business criterion for landlords when evaluating any prospective tenant. The 2002 amendment to the LAD, which incorporated prohibitions on source-of-income discrimination, did not explicitly eliminate a landlord's right to consider credit history, and the court will not presume a legislative intent to change established law without a clear mandate. The court found that federal law and agency guidance from HUD explicitly permit landlords to screen Section 8 tenants based on factors like rent payment history and creditworthiness. Here, Brighton Arms' rejection of Pasquince was not a pretext for discrimination, as evidenced by its consistent application of credit checks and the fact that it already housed numerous Section 8 tenants. Pasquince's specific credit report, which included a prior eviction and unpaid rent, provided a logical and reasonable basis for the landlord to conclude he might not fulfill his portion of the rent obligation.

Yes, Brighton Arms Apartments lawfully rejected John Pasquince's rental application based on his poor credit history, because creditworthiness is a legitimate, non-discriminatory criterion for evaluating prospective tenants, including those receiving Section 8 housing assistance. I find no evidence that Brighton Arms used creditworthiness as a pretext to discriminate against Pasquince based on his Section 8 status. Brighton Arms has Section 8 tenants and maintains written standards for assessing credit history, which were applied to Pasquince's application. The 2002 amendment of the LAD statute, including the deletion of a reference in the repealed N.J.S.A. 2A:42-100 to creditworthiness, does not change the ability of landlords to use creditworthiness as a selection criterion. Federal law and HUD guidelines explicitly recognize the right of landlords to perform credit checks on prospective Section 8 tenants. Pasquince failed to prove Brighton Arms' reliance on his poor credit history, which included a prior eviction and unpaid rent and utility bills, was merely a pretext for discrimination.

Pasquince v. Brighton Arms Apts.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot