Lexplug logoLexplug

Smith v. Avanti

District Court, D. Colorado
249 F.Supp.3d 1194 (2017)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Refusing to rent a dwelling to prospective tenants because they have children (familial status), or because of a parent's transgender status and the parents' same-sex marriage (sex stereotyping), violates the prohibitions against discrimination in the federal Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.


Facts:

  • Defendant Deepika Avanti owned and managed several rental properties in Gold Hill, Colorado.
  • In April 2015, Avanti advertised a townhouse for rent on Craigslist.
  • Tonya and Rachel Smith, a married couple with two minor children, responded to the advertisement. Rachel Smith is a transgender woman.
  • In her initial inquiry, Tonya Smith informed Avanti about her family structure, including that Rachel is transgender.
  • After the Smith family viewed the property, Avanti sent Tonya Smith an email refusing to rent to them, citing concerns from other tenants about their children and noise.
  • In a subsequent email, Avanti stated that she and her husband wanted to keep a 'low profile' in the community.
  • When Tonya Smith asked for clarification, Avanti replied that the Smiths’ 'unique relationship' and 'uniqueness' would jeopardize her 'low profile'.
  • Avanti also mentioned in the email that she had consulted a 'psychic friend' who had a 'transvestite friend'.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Smith family (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Deepika Avanti (Defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
  • The complaint alleged five claims for relief for housing discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
  • Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking the court to rule on the issue of Defendant's liability.
  • Defendant did not file a response to the motion.
  • The case is before the District Court to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion.

Locked

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 family based on one parent being transgender, the parents' same-sex relationship, and the presence of minor children violate the prohibitions against sex and familial status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Moore, J.

Yes, the landlord's refusal to rent violates the Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The court held that discrimination based on familial status and sex stereotyping is unlawful in housing. First, the defendant explicitly stated in writing that she would not rent to the Smith family because of their children, which is a direct violation of the FHA's and CADA's prohibitions on familial status discrimination. Second, drawing on Title VII precedent, the court found that discrimination based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes constitutes sex discrimination. The defendant's refusal to rent based on the Smiths' 'unique relationship' (a same-sex marriage) and Rachel Smith's transgender status constitutes illegal discrimination based on sex stereotypes. Finally, the defendant's conduct is also a direct violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which explicitly prohibits housing discrimination based on 'sexual orientation,' a term defined by the statute to include transgender status.



Analysis:

This case is significant for its application of the 'sex stereotyping' theory, established in the employment context by Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, to a housing discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act. It demonstrates how federal protections against 'sex' discrimination can be interpreted to cover discrimination against transgender individuals and same-sex couples, even before a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the matter. The decision also highlights the role of state laws, like Colorado's CADA, which can provide more explicit and broader protections for LGBTQ+ individuals than federal statutes of the time. This serves as a key example of the legal pathways used to expand civil rights protections through judicial interpretation of existing statutes.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Smith v. Avanti (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"