24 C.F.R. § 100.70

Other prohibited sale and rental conduct

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

(a) It shall be unlawful, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, to restrict or attempt to restrict the choices of a person by word or conduct in connection with seeking, negotiating for, buying or renting a dwelling so as to perpetuate, or tend to perpetuate, segregated housing patterns, or to discourage or obstruct choices in a community, neighborhood or development.

(b) It shall be unlawful, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, to engage in any conduct relating to the provision of housing or of services and facilities in connection therewith that otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings to persons.

(c) Prohibited actions under paragraph (a) of this section, which are generally referred to as unlawful steering practices, include, but are not limited to:

(1) Discouraging any person from inspecting, purchasing or renting a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of persons in a community, neighborhood or development.

(2) Discouraging the purchase or rental of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, by exaggerating drawbacks or failing to inform any person of desirable features of a dwelling or of a community, neighborhood, or development.

(3) Communicating to any prospective purchaser that he or she would not be comfortable or compatible with existing residents of a community, neighborhood or development because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(4) Assigning any person to a particular section of a community, neighborhood or development, or to a particular floor of a building, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(d) Prohibited activities relating to dwellings under paragraph (b) of this section include, but are not limited to:

(1) Discharging or taking other adverse action against an employee, broker or agent because he or she refused to participate in a discriminatory housing practice.

(2) Employing codes or other devices to segregate or reject applicants, purchasers or renters, refusing to take or to show listings of dwellings in certain areas because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or refusing to deal with certain brokers or agents because they or one or more of their clients are of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(3) Denying or delaying the processing of an application made by a purchaser or renter or refusing to approve such a person for occupancy in a cooperative or condominium dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(4) Refusing to provide municipal services or property or hazard insurance for dwellings or providing such services or insurance differently because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(5) Enacting or implementing land-use rules, ordinances, procedures, building codes, permitting rules, policies, or requirements that restrict or deny housing opportunities or otherwise make unavailable or deny dwellings to persons because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 78 FR 11481, Feb. 15, 2013; 85 FR 60332, Sept. 24, 2020; 85 FR 64025, Oct. 9, 2020; 88 FR 19500, Mar. 31, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Cox v. City of Dallas Texas, 430 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cox v. City of Dallas Texas, 430 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “§§ 1364 (a),(b), and violation of federal housing regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.70 (b),(d)(4). The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the FHA and federal housing regulations claims.”

Anna Harris v. Edna Itzhaki Rafael Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “80 (b)(5)); (2) discourage any person from inspecting or renting a dwelling because of race ( 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (c)(1)); (3) discourage the rental of a dwelling because of race by exaggerating drawbacks or failing to inform any person of desirable features of a dwelling or of a…”

Ojo v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 565 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “021(b); 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (d)(4); see also Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc.”

Shahid Shaikh v. City of Chicago, Julia Stasch, & David Saltzman, 341 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “1977) (finding statutory obligation under Fair Housing Act to refrain from zoning policies that effectively foreclose the construction of lowcost housing within municipality; remanding to determine whether that obligation was violated); 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (b) & (d)(4) (2003). 2…”

Nat'l Fair Hous. All., Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 208 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (b). 4 The regulation also sets out four specific types of activities prohibited by section 100.”

Thomas C. Baumgardner v. The Sec'y, United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., on Behalf of Blanton B. Holley, 960 F.2d 572 (6th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “24 CFR 100.70(b); 16 3. discouraging any person from inspecting or renting a dwelling because of sex.”

Fair Hous. Cong. v. Weber, 993 F. Supp. 1286 (C.D. Cal. 1997). · cites it 4× “familial status,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (c)(4), § 804(a) prohibits “refus[ing] to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise mak[ing] unavailable or denyfing], a dwelling to any person because of .”

Gourlay v. Forest Lake Estates Civic Ass'n, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (M.D. Fla. 2003). · cites it 3× “15 See 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 . As part of that regulation, HUD listed examples of prohibited conduct.”

Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cnty., Pennsylvania, 983 F.2d 1277 (3rd Cir. 1993). “2d 286 (1974); see also 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (1991) (making it unlawful "to discourage or obstruct choices in a community, neighborhood or development”).”

Nat'l Fair Hous. All. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 294 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (a). Such acts "include, but are not limited to: (1) discouraging any person from inspecting, purchasing, or renting a dwelling .”

Burrell v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 226 F. Supp. 2d 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 . These regulations identify, among other acts, “[rjefusing to provide .”

Inland Mediation Bd. v. City of Pomona, 158 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “17 IMB’s arguments are based on four sections of the HUD regulation that interprets § 3604(a): a) 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (d)(4); b) § 100.70(a); c) § 100.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(a) — 2 cases

Fair Hous. Cong. v. Weber, 993 F. Supp. 1286 (C.D. Cal. 1997). “familial status,” 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (c)(4), § 804(a) prohibits “refus[ing] to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise mak[ing] unavailable or denyfing], a dwelling to any person because of .”

McCallister v. Nelson, 411 S.E.2d 456 (W. Va. 1991).

— 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(b) — 3 cases

Shahid Shaikh v. City of Chicago, Julia Stasch, & David Saltzman, 341 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2003). “1977) (finding statutory obligation under Fair Housing Act to refrain from zoning policies that effectively foreclose the construction of lowcost housing within municipality; remanding to determine whether that obligation was violated); 24 C.F.R. § 100.70 (b) & (d)(4) (2003). 2…”

Thomas C. Baumgardner v. The Sec'y, United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., on Behalf of Blanton B. Holley, 960 F.2d 572 (6th Cir. 1992). “24 CFR 100.70(b); 16 3. discouraging any person from inspecting or renting a dwelling because of sex.”

Shaikh, Shahid v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2003).

— 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(c)(1) — 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.