C.F.R. » Title 24 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT › PART 100—DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT › Subpart A—General

24 C.F.R. § 100.7

Liability for discriminatory housing practices

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

(a) Direct liability. (1) A person is directly liable for:

(i) The person's own conduct that results in a discriminatory housing practice.

(ii) Failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by that person's employee or agent, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct.

(iii) Failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party depends upon the extent of the person's control or any other legal responsibility the person may have with respect to the conduct of such third-party.

(2) For purposes of determining liability under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, prompt action to correct and end the discriminatory housing practice may not include any action that penalizes or harms the aggrieved person, such as eviction of the aggrieved person.

(b) Vicarious liability. A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person's agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with agency law.

[81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 944 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(1) (the “HUD Rule”); see also Maj.”
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 917 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “" 8 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(1)(iii). We distill from the Rule, and from HUD's own reading of it, three elements that a plaintiff "must prove .”
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018). “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(1)(iii). HUD's rule mirrors the scope of employee liability under Title VII for employee-on-employee harassment.”
Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Corelogic Rental Prop. Solutions, LLC, 369 F. Supp. 3d 362 (D. Conn. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a). "A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person's agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with…”
Glenn Howard v. Hmk Holdings, LLC, 988 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2021). “, 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (describing liability for discriminatory housing practices); id.”
Jeremy Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Add., 104 F.4th 1128 (9th Cir. 2024). “24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(iii). The Morrises were homeowners.”
Metro. Fair Hous. Council of Okla., Inc. v. Pelfrey, 292 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (W.D. Okla. 2017). “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(1)(ii). "A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person's agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with…”
Kingston Mound Manor I. v. Keeton, 2019 Ohio 3260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “14, 2016) (promulgating 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (b))” as holding “that a principal is ‘vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by [its] agent or employee .”
Morris v. W. Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (D. Idaho 2019). “The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party depends upon the extent of the person's control or any other legal responsibility the person may have with respect to the conduct of such third-party.”
Chhang v. West Coast USA Props. LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 6× “105(a) contains an extensive list of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity 26 requirements that includes the FHA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff fails to point to 27 any authority that specifically imposes a duty on a PHA to take affirmative action against a 1…”
Fair Hous. Ctr. of Cent. Indiana, Inc. v. New (S.D. Ind. 2021). · cites it 4× “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(1)(iii). The Plaintiffs argue that this regulation is entitled to great weight and deference.”
Fair Hous. Ctr. of Cent. Indiana, Inc. v. New (S.D. Ind. 2021). · cites it 3× “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 (a)(iii). The Plaintiffs argue that their allegations clearly establish direct liability of the Association Defendants.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.7(a)(1)(iii) — 1 case
Chhang v. West Coast USA Props. LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). “105(a) contains an extensive list of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity 26 requirements that includes the FHA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff fails to point to 27 any authority that specifically imposes a duty on a PHA to take affirmative action against a 1…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 100.7(b) — 1 case
Chhang v. West Coast USA Props. LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). “105(a) contains an extensive list of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity 26 requirements that includes the FHA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff fails to point to 27 any authority that specifically imposes a duty on a PHA to take affirmative action against a 1…”
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.