Abstract

Does the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) ban harassing statements to a minority family who has just moved into a predominantly white neighborhood? The FHA does contain an antiharassment provision (42 U.S.C. § 3617), and this certainly applies to firebombings and other types of physical assault designed to drive the family out of the area. But does § 3617 also outlaw purely verbal attacks? And if so, how egregious must the remarks be before a federal case should be made out of them? For example, would substituting "Niggers" for "people like you" in the above quote make a difference?

Today, more than forty years after the FHA's enactment in 1968, housing harassment remains pervasive. Harassment and retaliation claims continue to account for a significant portion of all FHA claims. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the agency primarily responsible for administering the FHA, well over a thousand § 3617 complaints were filed with HUD and state and local fair housing agencies in each of the past four years. A similar number of harassment claims are made each year to private fair housing groups. In one particularly egregious example of neighbor-on-neighbor harassment, a Latino family in 2009 was awarded over $500,000 in damages against one of its white neighbors, although the legal basis for this case was state law, not the FHA.

This Article analyzes the issue of whether § 3617 should be interpreted to outlaw invidiously motivated disputes among neighbors. Part II begins by examining § 3617's text and its relationship to the overall FHA. It then reviews § 3617 decisions in neighbor harassment cases, including Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n and Bloch v. Frischholz. This analysis shows that the scope of § 3617 is governed by the meaning of “interfere with” and the relationship of § 3617 to the prohibitions it references in §§ 3603-3606. These issues are further analyzed in Part III, which examines § 3617's legislative history and purpose, its interpretation by HUD and courts in other types of § 3617 cases, Supreme Court decisions in analogous Title VII cases, and the issue of whether interpreting § 3617 to outlaw a neighbor's verbal abuse would pose First Amendment problems. The Article concludes that applying § 3617 to neighbors' quarrels (i.e., making a federal case out of them) is appropriate in a much broader range of cases than Halprin, Bloch, and many other decisions have allowed.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2011

Notes/Citation Information

Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Spring 2011), pp. 865-931

Included in

Housing Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.