24 C.F.R. § 100.600

Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or handicap may violate sections 804, 805, 806 or 818 of the Act, depending on the conduct. The same conduct may violate one or more of these provisions.

(1) Quid pro quo harassment. Quid pro quo harassment refers to an unwelcome request or demand to engage in conduct where submission to the request or demand, either explicitly or implicitly, is made a condition related to: The sale, rental or availability of a dwelling; the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental, or the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith; or the availability, terms, or conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction. An unwelcome request or demand may constitute quid pro quo harassment even if a person acquiesces in the unwelcome request or demand.

(2) Hostile environment harassment. Hostile environment harassment refers to unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to interfere with: The availability, sale, rental, or use or enjoyment of a dwelling; the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental, or the provision or enjoyment of services or facilities in connection therewith; or the availability, terms, or conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction. Hostile environment harassment does not require a change in the economic benefits, terms, or conditions of the dwelling or housing-related services or facilities, or of the residential real-estate transaction.

(i) Totality of the circumstances. Whether hostile environment harassment exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

(A) Factors to be considered to determine whether hostile environment harassment exists include, but are not limited to, the nature of the conduct, the context in which the incident(s) occurred, the severity, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the conduct, and the relationships of the persons involved.

(B) Neither psychological nor physical harm must be demonstrated to prove that a hostile environment exists. Evidence of psychological or physical harm may, however, be relevant in determining whether a hostile environment existed and, if so, the amount of damages to which an aggrieved person may be entitled.

(C) Whether unwelcome conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create a hostile environment is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the aggrieved person's position.

(ii) Title VII affirmative defense. The affirmative defense to an employer's vicarious liability for hostile environment harassment by a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to cases brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

(b) Type of conduct. Harassment can be written, verbal, or other conduct, and does not require physical contact.

(c) Number of incidents. A single incident of harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap may constitute a discriminatory housing practice, where the incident is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment, or evidences a quid pro quo.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condo. As, 853 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condo. As, 853 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 ( a) (2016). No party brought this regulation to our attention or asked this Court to rely upon it.”

Noah v. Assor, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2019). · cites it 5× “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 ; West , 164 F.Supp.3d at 1398 -1400 .”

Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 917 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (a)(2). As HUD explains in its amicus brief in this appeal, the Rule merely "formalizes HUD's longstanding view that, under the FHA, a housing provider may be held liable in certain circumstances for failing to address tenant-on-tenant harassment.”

Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2019). “” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (a)(2). HUD’s regulations, as clarified by the Rule, specifically provide that a landlord may be liable under the FHA for “[f]ailing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third‐party” tenant where the landlord “knew…”

West v. DJ Mortg., LLC, 271 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “2008); 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (effective October 14, 2016).”

Fedynich v. Lozano (E.D. Va. 2021). · cites it 9× “In the Amended Complaint, the Fedynichs bring eight counts: (1) Count I: Violation of the FHA (the “FHA Claim”); (2) Count II: Violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act Claim”); (3) Count III: Violation of 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 in creating a hostile…”

Evelyn Rivera v. Jimmy Ducharme et al., 2023 DNH 102 (D.N.H. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (a)(2). “A single incident of harassment because of [protected status] may constitute a discriminatory housing practice, where the incident is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment.”

Torres v. Rothstein (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 4× “2019) (collecting 10 cases); 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (HUD promulgating regulations on sexual harassment as a form of 11 discrimination).”

Jennifer L. Hernandez v. Alex DiBiaso & Michael Kusper (N.D. Ill. 2026). · cites it 4× “§ 3604 (c) and 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (a), respectively, as well as bringing several state law claims.”

Baker (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 3× “Quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment, 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 4 To state a claim for quid pro quo harassment, Mr.”

Myers v. Dist. of Columbia Hous. Auth. (D.D.C. 2022). · cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (a)(1) (2021). The Final Rule’s definition of “quid pro quo harassment” notably makes no reference to a requisite adverse housing consequence.”

Phan v. Hammersmith Mgmt., Inc. (D. Colo. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1981 and 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 , an anti- discrimination regulation issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to which Mr.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

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.