(a) It shall be unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of—
(1) That buyer or renter;
(2) A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(3) Any person associated with that person.
(b) It shall be unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of—
(1) That buyer or renter;
(2) A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(3) Any person associated with that person.
(c) It shall be unlawful to make an inquiry to determine whether an applicant for a dwelling, a person intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented or made available, or any person associated with that person, has a handicap or to make inquiry as to the nature or severity of a handicap of such a person. However, this paragraph does not prohibit the following inquiries, provided these inquiries are made of all applicants, whether or not they have handicaps:
(1) Inquiry into an applicant's ability to meet the requirements of ownership or tenancy;
(2) Inquiry to determine whether an applicant is qualified for a dwelling available only to persons with handicaps or to persons with a particular type of handicap;
(3) Inquiry to determine whether an applicant for a dwelling is qualified for a priority available to persons with handicaps or to persons with a particular type of handicap;
(4) Inquiring whether an applicant for a dwelling is a current illegal abuser or addict of a controlled substance;
(5) Inquiring whether an applicant has been convicted of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance.
(d) Nothing in this subpart requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.
Notes of Decisions
LaFlamme v. New Horizons, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Conn. 2009).
· cites it 5× “” 24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (c). A landlord may inquire, however, whether an applicant is able “to meet the requirements of ownership or tenancy” and “whether an applicant is qualified for a dwelling available only to persons with handicaps or to persons with a particular type of…”
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 1998 ME 157 (Me. 1998).
· cites it 10× “§ 4582 was preempted by a federal regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (c) (1997), [2] promulgated under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.”
Twp. of West Orange v. Whitman, 8 F. Supp. 2d 408 (D.N.J. 1998).
· cites it 6× “24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (d). However, in the same section, they also establish: “It shall be unlawful to make an inquiry to determine whether an applicant for a dwelling, a person intending'to reside in that dwelling after it is .”
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 677 A.2d 540 (Me. 1996).
· cites it 5× “Cotton Mill filed a motion for a summary judgment seeking a legal determination that section 4582 is preempted by 24 CFR § 100.202 , 3 a federal *543 regulation implementing the FHAA.”
Campbell v. Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth., 175 F.R.D. 531 (D. Minnesota 1997).
· cites it 3× “In particular, Campbell claims the MPHA’s inquiries into past drug or alcohol abuse are prohibited by the FHAA and HUD regulations, published at 24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (c) (1996) . He further claims the MPHA discriminates against those with histories of pri- or drug or alcohol…”
LaFlamme v. New Horizons, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D. Conn. 2007).
· cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (c). In response, defendants argue that their procedure fits within exceptions to this prohibition, specifically that such inquiry is permissible in order to determine whether an applicant “is qualified for a dwelling available only to .”
Hirschmann v. Hassapoyannes, 11 Misc. 3d 265 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005).
“The regulations of the Fair Housing Act explicitly prohibit any inquiry into whether an applicant for housing has *270 a handicap, or the nature or severity of a handicap (24 CFR 100.202 [c]). As a corollary, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) takes…”
Tyrone White v. Bethesda Proj. Inc, 672 F. App'x 218 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“He clarifies that this suit concerns the FHA, and cites a HUD regulation—24 C.F.R. § 100.202—that prohibits disability discrimination with respect to the sale or rental of a “dwelling.”
Ryan v. Ramsey, 936 F. Supp. 417 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
“24 C.F.R. § 100.202 (c). (2). Consideration of Ryan’s Handicap by Defendants In the message Ramsey left on Ryan’s answering machine, Ramsey states that she had experienced problems with the “disability thing” before, with regard to a previous tenant named “Johnny.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.202(c) — 1 case
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 677 A.2d 540 (Me. 1996).
“Cotton Mill filed a motion for a summary judgment seeking a legal determination that section 4582 is preempted by 24 CFR § 100.202 , 3 a federal *543 regulation implementing the FHAA.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.202(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.