Fair Housing and Lending Discrimination: Disparate Treatment, Disparate Impact, and Enforcement

Summary. Housing discrimination is rarely announced. This article explains what the Fair Housing Act prohibits and who it covers, how disparate treatment and disparate impact claims are actually proved, why tester standing exists, what accommodations and modifications require, the accessible design rules for newer multifamily housing, how lending discrimination is regulated and surfaced, and the four enforcement paths available.

Here is what housing discrimination looks like in practice, which is almost never what people expect.

A woman calls about an apartment and is told it was just rented. Twenty minutes later a different woman calls about the same unit and is told it is available and asked when she would like to see it. A family with three children is quoted a higher deposit than a couple. A man using a wheelchair asks whether he may install a grab bar at his own expense and is told the lease does not allow alterations. A voucher holder is told, politely, that the property "doesn't participate." A borrower with identical income and credit to a neighbor is quoted a rate a quarter point higher. An appraiser walks a house, notices the family photographs, and returns a valuation nineteen percent below what the same house appraised for six weeks later when a different family staged it.

None of those involves a slur. All of them are potentially unlawful. And every one of them is difficult to detect from the inside, which is why fair housing law has developed an unusual enforcement apparatus — testers, statistical evidence, administrative agencies with investigative powers, and a private right of action with fee shifting — designed to find conduct that the person harmed by it usually cannot see.

Part I: What the Act covers, and who

The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended, is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Its declared policy is "to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States."

The seven federally protected characteristics: race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. Sex has been construed to include sexual orientation and gender identity in HUD's enforcement position and in a growing body of case law drawing on Title VII reasoning. Familial status means households with children under 18, pregnant persons, and those in the process of obtaining custody — subject to a narrow exemption for qualifying housing for older persons.

State and local law adds more, and often adds the ones that matter most in practice: source of income (which makes voucher refusal unlawful), age, marital status, military or veteran status, criminal history in some cities, immigration status, and lawful occupation.

The core prohibitions are at 42 U.S.C. § 3604:

Refusing to sell or rent, or refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making housing unavailable.
Discriminating in terms, conditions, or privileges, or in the provision of services and facilities — different rent, different deposit, different rules, different maintenance response.
Discriminatory advertising — any notice, statement, or advertisement indicating a preference, limitation, or discrimination. This is a strict standard: the test is what an ordinary reader would understand, not what the advertiser intended, and it reaches "perfect for a single professional" and "no children" alike.
Misrepresenting availability — the "just rented" answer above.
Blockbusting — inducing sales or rentals by representations about the entry of protected-class persons into a neighborhood.
Disability discrimination, including refusal of reasonable accommodations and modifications, and the design and construction requirements (Part V).

Section 3605 reaches residential real estate-related transactions — the making and purchasing of loans, and the selling, brokering, and appraising of residential real property. This is the provision that makes lending and appraisal discrimination a fair housing matter, not merely a lending matter.

Section 3617 makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person exercising or enjoying a fair housing right, or aiding another in doing so. It is the retaliation provision and it reaches harassment by a landlord, by an HOA, and in some circuits by neighbors where the housing provider fails to act.

Exemptions exist and are narrow. The most cited are the sale or rental of a single-family home by an owner who owns no more than three such homes and who does not use a broker or discriminatory advertising, and rooms or units in an owner-occupied dwelling with no more than four units — the "Mrs. Murphy" exemption. Neither exemption applies to the advertising prohibition, and neither applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1982, which reaches racial discrimination in property transactions with no exemptions at all.

Part II: § 1982 and the Reconstruction statutes

Before the Fair Housing Act there was 42 U.S.C. § 1982, enacted in 1866, guaranteeing all citizens the same right "to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property" as white citizens.

For a century it was assumed to reach only state action. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) — decided two months after the Fair Housing Act was signed — the Supreme Court held that § 1982 bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that Congress had power to enact it under the Thirteenth Amendment as legislation abolishing the badges and incidents of slavery.

Why it still matters. Section 1982 has no administrative exhaustion requirement, no statutory exemptions, and in most jurisdictions a longer limitations period than the FHA's. It reaches only race (and, through § 1981, contract-based race and ancestry claims), and it requires intent — but where race is the issue, pleading it alongside the FHA costs nothing and preserves options.

Part III: Proving disparate treatment

Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination: the protected characteristic caused the different treatment. Direct evidence is rare, so most cases run on the familiar burden-shifting framework — the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the defendant articulates a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, and the plaintiff shows that reason is pretext.

The four practical proof methods:

1. Comparators. The most powerful evidence in a housing case is a similarly situated person outside the protected class who was treated better. A different applicant with worse credit approved; a different tenant whose repair was made in two days; a different buyer shown the house.

2. Testing. Trained testers, matched on every relevant characteristic except the protected one, make inquiries and document what they are told. Testing is the backbone of fair housing enforcement, and the Supreme Court blessed the standing of testers in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), holding that a person given false information about housing availability has suffered injury under § 3604(d) regardless of whether they intended to rent. The Court also recognized organizational standing where an organization's counseling and referral services were frustrated by the defendant's practices.

3. Statistical patterns. Occupancy data, application and denial rates, lending data by census tract, and the composition of the applicant pool compared to the qualified population.

4. Deviation from ordinary practice. A landlord who follows written criteria for everyone else and improvises for one applicant has produced the evidence.

Standing is broad. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972) held that existing tenants may sue over the loss of the social and professional benefits of living in an integrated community — the "aggrieved person" definition extends "as broadly as is permitted by Article III." Municipalities may sue too, though Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, 581 U.S. 189 (2017) held that a city's claim for lost tax revenue and increased municipal expenses must satisfy a proximate cause requirement demanding "some direct relation" between the injury and the conduct.

Who is liable. Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) held that FHA liability follows traditional agency principles: a corporation is vicariously liable for its agents acting within the scope of authority, but an officer or owner is not personally liable merely by virtue of position. The practical implication is that brokerage and management companies bear the exposure for what their agents do, and should train and supervise accordingly.

Part IV: Disparate impact

A facially neutral policy that disproportionately burdens a protected class may violate the Act without any intent to discriminate.

Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015) settled that disparate impact claims are cognizable, reasoning from the Act's "otherwise make unavailable" language and from Congress's ratification of unanimous lower-court authority in the 1988 amendments. But the opinion is as notable for its limits as its holding, and defendants quote them constantly:

A plaintiff must show a robust causal connection between the specific policy and the statistical disparity. A statistical disparity alone does not make out a prima facie case.
The defendant must have a valid interest opportunity — housing authorities and private developers must be given leeway to state and explain the reasons for their practices.
Remedial orders should, where possible, eliminate the offending practice rather than impose racial quotas.

The burden-shifting framework in HUD's rule at 24 C.F.R. Part 100: the plaintiff shows the practice causes a discriminatory effect; the defendant shows the practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest; the plaintiff shows that interest could be served by a less discriminatory alternative.

Where impact claims live in practice: blanket criminal-record exclusions; blanket eviction-record exclusions; minimum-income multipliers applied to voucher holders on the full rent rather than the tenant's share; occupancy standards stricter than local code, which burden families with children; zoning and land use decisions restricting multifamily or group housing; and, increasingly, algorithmic tenant screening and pricing tools whose inputs correlate with protected characteristics.

Criminal-record screening deserves particular attention because it is where a great many otherwise careful landlords are exposed. The defensible approach is an individualized assessment: consider the nature and severity of the offense, the time elapsed since it occurred, its relationship to safety at the property, and evidence of rehabilitation — and do not consider arrests that did not lead to conviction at all. A categorical, indefinite bar is the fact pattern most likely to draw a complaint.

Part V: Disability — the most litigated area

Disability is the most frequent basis of fair housing complaints, and the obligations extend well beyond not discriminating.

Reasonable accommodations are changes to rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The classic examples: an assistance animal despite a no-pets policy; a reserved accessible parking space; a rent due date matched to a benefits deposit; permission for a live-in aide; a transfer to a ground-floor unit; an exception to a guest policy. The landlord must grant the request unless it imposes an undue financial and administrative burden or requires a fundamental alteration of the operation.

Reasonable modifications are physical changes to the premises — a ramp, grab bars, widened doorways, lowered counters, a roll-in shower. In private housing the tenant pays, and the landlord may, where reasonable, condition permission on restoration of the interior at the end of the tenancy. In federally assisted housing, the provider generally bears the cost.

Assistance animals are the single most common dispute. They are not pets: no pet fee, no pet deposit, no breed or weight restriction, and no species limitation for a service animal. The provider may request reliable documentation of a disability-related need only when the disability and the need are not obvious, and may not demand medical records, a diagnosis, or a specific certification — the registries selling "certificates" online have no legal significance in either direction.

The interactive process matters. A provider who receives a request and asks clarifying questions, offers alternatives, and documents the exchange is in a far better position than one who simply denies. A flat "the lease says no" is how these cases are lost.

Design and construction. Covered multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 must comply with the seven accessibility requirements of § 3604(f)(3)(C): accessible entrance on an accessible route; public and common areas accessible; doors usable by a person in a wheelchair; accessible route into and through the unit; light switches, outlets, and thermostats in accessible locations; reinforcements in bathroom walls for later grab bar installation; and usable kitchens and bathrooms. This obligation runs with the building. It is not cured by time, and liability can attach to the owner, architect, builder, and developer decades later.

Group homes and occupancy limits. In City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995), the Supreme Court held that a zoning provision defining "family" for single-family districts was not an exempt "maximum occupancy" restriction under § 3607(b)(1) — that exemption covers rules capping occupants per square footage or per bedroom for health and safety, not rules about who counts as a family. Municipal definitions of family, and conditional use requirements for group homes, remain a recurring source of litigation.

Part VI: Lending, appraisal, and the data

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (if the applicant can contract), receipt of public assistance income, or the good-faith exercise of Consumer Credit Protection Act rights. Note two features the FHA lacks: it covers all credit, not just housing, and it protects marital status, age, and public assistance income.

ECOA also requires an adverse action notice stating specific reasons for a denial or unfavorable change — a requirement that produces useful evidence, because a stated reason that does not match the file is pretext. Section 1691e provides actual damages, punitive damages up to a statutory cap, equitable relief, and attorney's fees.

Appraisal. Discrimination in appraising residential real property is prohibited by § 3605 and reachable under ECOA. The recurring pattern is undervaluation of homes in majority-minority neighborhoods, or of homes whose occupants are identifiable from photographs and personal effects. Lenders are required to maintain a reconsideration of value process; a borrower who believes valuation bias occurred should request reconsideration in writing, identify specific factual errors and better comparables, and preserve the report and the communications.

The data statutes. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., requires covered lenders to collect and publicly report loan-level application data including geography, applicant characteristics, and pricing. It creates no private cause of action, but it is the raw material for nearly every redlining and pricing-disparity investigation, and it is free to the public. The Community Reinvestment Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq., requires regulators to assess how well insured depository institutions meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, and to consider that record in approving mergers and branch applications.

Redlining — the practice of avoiding lending in particular neighborhoods based on their racial composition — is enforced today primarily through DOJ and regulator actions built on HMDA data, branch and loan officer placement, marketing footprints, and internal communications.

Part VII: The four enforcement paths

1. HUD administrative complaint. Filed within one year of the discriminatory act, at no cost, without a lawyer. Under 42 U.S.C. § 3610, HUD investigates, attempts conciliation, and determines whether reasonable cause exists. If it does, a charge issues and either party may elect to proceed in federal court; otherwise the case is heard by an administrative law judge under § 3612, which can award actual damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.

2. A substantially equivalent state or local agency. HUD refers complaints to certified FEPAs, which apply state law that often protects more characteristics and sometimes provides better remedies.

3. Private civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 3613 — within two years of the occurrence or termination of the discriminatory practice (tolled during HUD proceedings), in federal or state court, with no exhaustion requirement. Remedies: actual damages including emotional distress, punitive damages with no statutory cap, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The absence of a damages cap is why serious cases go here.

4. Department of Justice action under 42 U.S.C. § 3614, for a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights raising an issue of general public importance, with civil penalties payable to the United States.

Note the two deadlines and the difference between them. One year to HUD; two years to court. Filing with HUD does not lose the court option — the two-year period is tolled while the administrative proceeding is pending — but a person who waits and does neither loses both.

Part VIII: What compliance looks like

For a housing provider, lender, or brokerage, compliance is a small number of unglamorous practices done consistently.

Written criteria, published, applied identically to everyone, with deviations documented and justified.
Individualized assessment for criminal and eviction history, never a categorical bar.
A written reasonable accommodation policy, a named person to receive requests, a response deadline, and an interactive-process record for every request — granted or denied.
Advertising reviewed for words and images suggesting a preference. The safest formulation describes the property, not the ideal occupant.
Occupancy standards tied to local code, not stricter.
Training, documented, annually, for everyone who touches applicants — including part-time leasing staff and answering services.
Records retained: applications, screening results, waitlists, communications, showing logs, accommodation requests and responses.
Third-party tools audited. A screening algorithm or revenue-management pricing tool that produces a disparate outcome is your liability, not the vendor's, and "the software decided" is not a defense.
Self-testing, which several statutes protect with a limited privilege — check the scope before relying on it.

Part IX: How a testing investigation actually works

Testing is the reason fair housing law functions at all, because the person discriminated against usually cannot see what happened. They know only that the apartment was unavailable. Testing supplies the comparison.

The design. Two testers are matched on everything that could lawfully matter — income within a few percent, credit profile, household size, employment stability, move-in date, stated needs — and differ on the protected characteristic being tested. Each contacts the provider independently, within a short window, and follows a scripted inquiry. Neither knows the other's result.

What is recorded. Whether the call was returned and how quickly; what availability was stated; the rent, deposit, and fees quoted; what units were shown; what neighborhoods or other properties were suggested; what application requirements were described; the tone and length of the interaction; and any statement about children, animals, vouchers, or accessibility.

What the results look like. A single paired test rarely proves a case. A pattern across three to six paired tests, run over several weeks by different testers, is powerful — and it is powerful precisely because it controls for everything a defendant would otherwise argue. "The unit was rented" is a complete answer until the tester who called forty minutes later was offered a showing.

Who does it. Private fair housing organizations, many funded through HUD's Fair Housing Initiatives Program, and state and local agencies. DOJ conducts testing in pattern-or-practice investigations. Testers are trained, and their contemporaneous written reports — prepared immediately after each contact — are the evidence.

Its legal footing. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) established that a tester given false information about availability has suffered a cognizable injury under § 3604(d), and that an organization whose counseling and referral resources were diverted by the defendant's practices has standing in its own right. Providers occasionally argue that testers lack standing because they did not really want the housing; that argument was foreclosed forty years ago.

Lending and appraisal testing works the same way with matched borrower profiles, and it is how pricing disparities and differential steering to higher-cost products are documented. Appraisal testing — the same home appraised twice, with different occupants and personal effects — has produced some of the most striking results in the field.

A note for providers. If your staff would behave differently on a recorded, scripted call from two different people, you have a problem that training will fix more cheaply than litigation. Some jurisdictions and statutes protect voluntary self-testing with a limited privilege; check its scope in your jurisdiction before relying on it, and structure the program with counsel.

Part X: Damages, and why fee shifting drives the field

Fair housing cases are economically viable for one reason: the statute pays for them.

Actual damages include out-of-pocket loss — higher rent paid elsewhere, moving costs, application fees, storage, temporary lodging, lost wages from time spent, the cost of a longer commute — and emotional distress, which in these cases is frequently the larger component. Courts have long accepted that being told a home is unavailable because of who you are is a dignitary injury, and testimony from the plaintiff and from people who observed the effect is sufficient; expert psychological proof is not required, though treatment records help.

Punitive damages are available under § 3613 with no statutory cap, on a showing of malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights. This is the single most consequential difference between the private action and the HUD administrative route, and it is why serious cases are filed in court.

Injunctive relief can reach further than money: an order to rent to the plaintiff, to change written policies, to train staff, to report periodically, to retrofit for accessibility, or to fund an affirmative marketing program.

Attorney's fees are available to a prevailing party, with the familiar asymmetry — a prevailing plaintiff recovers ordinarily; a prevailing defendant only where the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. The lodestar analysis and the practical mechanics are the same as in any fee-shifting case; see Attorneys Fees and Costs and Preparing and Opposing a Fee Petition.

Civil penalties are available in HUD administrative proceedings and in DOJ pattern-or-practice actions, payable to the government rather than the complainant, and escalating for repeat violations.

For the defense, the arithmetic argues for early resolution in a way that surprises many providers: a $1,200 rent dispute can carry an uncapped punitive exposure and a six-figure fee award, and the conduct at issue was usually a leasing agent's improvisation on a Tuesday afternoon.

Part XI: Three situations, worked through

The returned call that never came. A Black couple inquires about a listed townhouse and is told it is under application. They ask to be notified if it falls through; no one calls. Two weeks later the listing is still active.

What to do: screenshot the listing with its date, write down the call time and the exact words used, and contact a fair housing organization the same week. The organization runs paired tests. If a matched white tester is offered a showing, the couple has a case that will not turn on anyone's recollection. Both clocks start now: one year to HUD, two to court.

The accommodation refused by policy. A tenant with PTSD requests an emotional support animal. The property manager responds that the community is pet-free, that the tenant may pay the $500 pet fee and the $50 monthly pet rent as an exception, and that a "certified" registration is required.

Three violations in one email. An assistance animal is not a pet, so no fee or pet rent may be charged; online "certification" may not be required; and the response is a denial dressed as an accommodation. The correct process was to request, if the disability and need were not obvious, reliable documentation from a provider with knowledge of the disability — and then to grant. The tenant should reply in writing, cite the accommodation request, and preserve the exchange. It is the whole case.

The appraisal that read the neighborhood. A homeowner refinancing receives an appraisal of $412,000, well below three recent nearby sales. She removes family photographs, and a friend of a different race stands in for the second appointment. The second appraisal is $487,000.

What to do: request reconsideration of value in writing, identifying the factual errors and the omitted comparables; preserve both reports, both appraisers' names, and the lender's communications; file with HUD and with the state appraiser licensing board; and consider a private action under § 3605 and ECOA. The paired appraisals are, in effect, a test — and they are the reason this pattern is now among the most actively enforced in the field.

Part XI-A: Harassment, HOAs, and the neighbors

Two areas of the Act get less attention than they deserve, and both turn on § 3617.

Harassment. The Act reaches both quid pro quo harassment — conditioning a tenancy, a repair, or a lease renewal on submission to sexual advances — and hostile environment harassment, which requires conduct severe or pervasive enough to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the dwelling, judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the complainant's position.

Sexual harassment by landlords and property managers is a persistent enforcement priority, and the fact pattern is depressingly consistent: a manager with keys, a tenant with few housing options and a family, and an arrangement offered in place of rent. The power asymmetry in housing is greater than in employment, because the person harassed cannot go home at the end of the day — home is where the harassment is. Providers should treat any complaint about a manager with the seriousness they would give an employment claim, remove the manager from contact with the complainant immediately, and document the investigation.

Third-party harassment. HUD's rule provides that a housing provider may be liable for failing to take prompt action to correct a discriminatory hostile environment created by another tenant, where the provider knew or should have known and had the power to correct it. Circuits differ on the contours, and a provider's power over a neighbor is real but bounded — but a landlord who receives repeated written reports of racial harassment by one tenant against another and does nothing is exposed, and a landlord who documents warnings, lease enforcement, and escalation is not.

Homeowners associations. An HOA is a housing provider for these purposes. Selective enforcement of rules against families with children, denial of a reasonable accommodation for a service animal or an accessible parking space, architectural committee decisions that block a ramp, and rules restricting religious display can all violate the Act — as can a board that permits a harassing environment it has authority to address. HOAs are frequently governed by volunteers with no fair housing training and a strong sense of the rules, which is precisely the combination that produces liability. See Homeowners Associations and Condominium Law.

Municipalities and land use. Zoning that excludes group homes, spacing requirements between them, conditional-use processes triggered only for supportive housing, and moratoria on multifamily development have all produced FHA litigation — under disparate treatment where the record shows animus in the hearings, under disparate impact under Inclusive Communities, and under the reasonable accommodation obligation, which applies to zoning decisions as well as to landlords.

Part XI-B: Algorithms, and the newest version of an old problem

The most consequential development in this field is that many decisions once made by a leasing agent are now made by software, and the software has the same exposure the agent did.

Tenant screening tools ingest credit data, eviction filings, criminal records, and increasingly third-party data of uncertain provenance, and return a score or a recommendation. Three problems recur. Eviction-filing data does not distinguish outcomes — a case dismissed, decided for the tenant, or settled looks like a case lost, and filing rates are not evenly distributed. Criminal-record matching is frequently wrong, particularly for common names, and a categorical rule applied to bad data produces exclusions no one intended. And the composite score conceals the reason, which is a problem both under the FCRA's adverse action requirements and under any disparate impact analysis, because a provider who cannot say why an applicant was declined cannot show the practice serves a substantial legitimate interest.

Revenue management and pricing tools raise a different question: whether an algorithm that sets rents or concessions across a portfolio produces disparities by neighborhood or by protected characteristic, and whether coordinated use of a shared tool raises antitrust issues alongside the fair housing ones.

Advertising delivery is the third front. A housing advertisement can be lawful in its text and unlawful in its delivery if the platform's targeting or optimization limits who sees it by protected characteristic — a problem that produced a landmark settlement and a lasting change to how housing ads are permitted to be targeted. An advertiser who selects a narrow audience for a housing ad, or who lets a platform optimize delivery without housing-specific constraints, may be making housing unavailable within the meaning of § 3604.

Three practical rules for anyone deploying these tools.

The vendor's model is your liability. "The algorithm decided" is not a defense, and indemnity from the vendor does not reach a HUD charge or an injunction.
Demand testable outputs. You should be able to say, for any declined applicant, which factor drove the decision — both because adverse action notices require it and because you will need it to defend the practice.
Test the tool the way a plaintiff would. Run matched profiles differing only on a proxy for a protected characteristic — zip code, name, income source — and look at what comes back. If you would not want that comparison in a deposition, fix it before someone else runs it.

And a note on proxies. A model that never sees race can still produce racially disparate outcomes by relying on variables that stand in for it — zip code, school district, source of income, prior address history. Under Inclusive Communities the plaintiff must still show a robust causal link between the specific policy and the disparity, but the policy in question is the model, and modern discovery reaches its inputs.

Part XII: Frequently asked questions

Can a landlord refuse a housing voucher? Under federal law, generally yes — source of income is not a federally protected characteristic. Under the law of a great many states and cities, no. Check locally; this is the most common gap between federal and local law.

Do I have to allow an emotional support animal? As a reasonable accommodation, generally yes, unless it poses a direct threat or an undue burden. No pet fee or deposit may be charged, and breed and weight restrictions do not apply.

Can I limit how many people live in a unit? Yes, consistent with local occupancy code. Standards stricter than code, applied so as to exclude families with children, raise both disparate treatment and disparate impact exposure.

Is "no children" advertising illegal? Yes. Familial status is protected, and the advertising prohibition has no small-landlord exemption.

What if I only own one rental house? The Mrs. Murphy and single-family exemptions are narrow, do not cover advertising, do not apply if a broker is used, and do not apply to § 1982 race claims at all. Do not rely on them without checking the elements.

How do I prove I was discriminated against? Write down what happened immediately with dates, names, and exact words; preserve every message; note who else was treated differently; and contact a fair housing organization, which can arrange testing — the evidence that most often makes these cases.

Is there a cost to filing with HUD? None, and no lawyer is required.

Part XIII: For non-lawyers — what to do

Write it down today. Date, time, address, who you spoke to, exactly what was said. Memory degrades and the details are the case.
Preserve everything — texts, emails, voicemails, listings, screenshots, the application, the denial.
Note the comparison. Was someone else treated differently? Who, when, and how do you know?
Call a fair housing organization before doing anything else. They test, they investigate, and their services are free.
Calendar both deadlines: one year for HUD, two years for court.
If it is a loan or an appraisal, get the adverse action notice and the appraisal report in writing, and request reconsideration of value with specific comparables.
You do not need a lawyer to file with HUD, and you may not need to pay one for a court case — the FHA shifts fees to prevailing plaintiffs.

Primary authority

42 U.S.C. § 3601 — declaration of policy.
42 U.S.C. § 3604 — the core prohibitions, including disability accommodation and design requirements.
42 U.S.C. § 3605 — lending, brokerage, and appraisal.
42 U.S.C. § 3617 — interference, coercion, and intimidation.
42 U.S.C. § 3610 · § 3612 · § 3613 · § 3614 — the four enforcement paths.
24 C.F.R. Part 100 — HUD's implementing regulations, including the discriminatory effects standard.
42 U.S.C. § 1982 and Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).
Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972) · Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) — standing, including tester standing.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995) — the narrow scope of the maximum occupancy exemption.
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) — traditional agency principles govern FHA liability.
Texas Dep't of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015) — disparate impact, with safeguards.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, 581 U.S. 189 (2017) — municipal standing and proximate cause.
15 U.S.C. § 1691 · § 1691e — the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. (HMDA) · 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq. (CRA).