(a) This subpart provides the Department's interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.
(b) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.
(c) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
(2) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.
(3) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.
(4) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.
(5) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.
(6) Retaliating against any person because that person reported a discriminatory housing practice to a housing provider or other authority.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 81 FR 63075, Sept. 14, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condo. As, 853 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 3617 ; see also 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(2) (2016) (setting forth examples of unlawful conduct, including interference with “enjoyment of a dwelling”).”
Gonzalez v. Lee Cnty. Hous. Auth., 161 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 22× “24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(3) (codifying Implementation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 54 Fed.”
Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Supporting the Blochs’ position is a HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(2), which prohibits “[t]hreatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race [or] .”
Angela Riley v. City of Kokomo, Indiana, Housi, 909 F.3d 182 (7th Cir. 2018).
“See 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(6). As Riley sees it, she has created a genuine dispute of material fact as to this issue by presenting evidence that she called HUD to report what she believed to be fraudulent activity and was told to contact HUD's civil-rights department.”
Lloyd v. Presby's Inspired Life, 251 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Pa. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 . Pursuant to those regulations, unlawful activity includes (1) “[Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act,” 24 C.”
Bloch v. Frischholz, 533 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “§§ 3604 , 3617, and one of the implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(2), the association's board had adopted a religious exception to the hallway rules and instructed the custodial staff to leave mezuzot, crucifixes, and other items of religious significance in place.”
United States v. Koch, 352 F. Supp. 2d 970 (D. Neb. 2004).
· cites it 4× “■ (quoting 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(2)). The court suggested that this regulation might be invalid, but concluded that the.”
Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, 932 F. Supp. 2d 683 (M.D. La. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, the regulations also prohibit “[i]ntimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part,” as well as…”
King v. Metcalf 56 Homes Ass'n, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Kan. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 contains HUD’s interpretation of the conduct that it considers to be unlawful under § 3617.”
Hall v. Lowder Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
· cites it 3× “other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(4), and “[r]etaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint .”
Ohana v. 180 Prospect Place Realty Corp., 996 F. Supp. 238 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
· cites it 3× “(“FHA”), and an implementing regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 . Presently before the Court aré Jackson’s and Phelps’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, as amended, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(1) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(2) — 5 cases
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(3) — 1 case
Hall v. Lowder Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D. Ala. 2001).
“other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 (c)(4), and “[r]etaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint .”
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.