42 U.S.C. § 3606
Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services
After
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton County
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
“§3605 (Fair Housing Act; Discrimi- nation in Residential Real Estate-Related Transactions) 42 U. S. C. §3606 (Fair Housing Act; Discrimi- nation in the Provision of Brokerage Services) 42 U.”
Dixon v. the Hallmark Companies, Inc. (2010)
“Alternatively, the Dixons assert a claim for housing discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 3606 . Section 3606, which is entitled “Discrimination in the Provision of Brokerage Services,” provides: [I]t shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in…”
Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe (2019)
“§ 3617 , "[i]t shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed .”
Webster Bank v. Oakley (2003)
“§ 3604 , as well as 42 U.S.C. § 3606 , 22 *562 which proscribes discrimination in the provision of brokerage services.”
Hall v. Lowder Realty Co., Inc. (2001)
“” 42 U.S.C.A. § 3606 . Hall contends that defendants violated this provision by referring African-American clients to her on *1315 account of race and assigning her listing referrals in only predominantly African-American areas of Montgomery.”
Eva v. Midwest National Mortgage Banc, Inc. (2001)
“By the actions described above, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs because of sex in the making of real estate-related transactions in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3606 (a)-(b)(l) and (b)(2). (Doc.”
Favors v. MAQ Management Corp. (1990)
“As regards the Fair Housing Act claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3606 , Defendants contend that the statute does not extend its protections to the hiring process.”
Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Ass'n v. King (2006)
“§ 3605 (unlawful to discriminate in residential real estate transactions); 42 U.S.C. § 3606 (unlawful to discriminate in provision of brokerage services); 42 U.”
United States v. Southern Management Corporation (1992)
“We hold that 42 U.S.C. § 3606 does not per se exclude from its embrace every person who could be considered a drug addict.”
Pandozy v. Segan (2007)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 3606 . Pandozy’s claim under §§ 3605 and 3606 fails because he does not allege that Beek-man or Tobey were engaged in “residential real estate-related transactions,” or that they provided a real estate listing or brokerage service, or that he was denied…”
Colquitt v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (2015)
“421 and 42 U.S.C. § 3606 . In her First Claim Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated § 659A.”
Johnson v. County of Chester (1976)
“§ 3605 , or in the provision of brokerage services, 42 U.S.C. § 3606 . Section 3612(a) of the Fair Housing Act contains a specific grant of jurisdiction to the district courts to entertain civil actions to enforce the rights granted under that Act, without regard to amount in…”
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.