Chapter: Which of the following is NOT a protected class under the Montana Human Rights Act, which is similar to Federal Fair Housing Laws? (EN)

Chapter: Which of the following is NOT a protected class under the Montana Human Rights Act, which is similar to Federal Fair Housing Laws? (EN)

I. Understanding Fair Housing Laws and Protected Classes

Fair housing laws, both at the federal and state level, are designed to prevent discrimination in housing-related transactions. These laws aim to create equal opportunity and access to housing for all individuals regardless of certain protected characteristics. Discriminatory practices can include, but are not limited to: refusing to rent or sell housing, setting different terms or conditions, falsely denying that housing is available, and harassment.

The core concept underlying these laws is the principle of equal access. This principle posits that housing, as a fundamental need, should be accessible to all individuals without arbitrary and discriminatory barriers. This principle is rooted in ethical considerations and is legally enforced to promote a more just and equitable society.

II. The Federal Fair Housing Act: A Foundation

The foundation of fair housing law in the United States is the Fair Housing Act (FHA), formally Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended. This federal law prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation, although specific interpretations and enforcement can vary)
• Familial Status (presence of children under 18)
• National Origin
• Disability

The FHA serves as the benchmark against which state fair housing laws are often compared. Many states, including Montana, have enacted their own fair housing laws that may expand upon the protections offered at the federal level.

III. The Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Housing Discrimination

The Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits discrimination in various areas, including housing, employment, public accommodations, and education. The portion pertaining to housing closely mirrors the intent and scope of the federal Fair Housing Act, while potentially adding specific protections relevant to the state.

A. Protected Classes under the MHRA (in the context of housing):

The MHRA, similar to the federal FHA, protects against discrimination in housing based on:

1. Race: This encompasses ancestry and ethnic origin, extending beyond simple skin color. The concept of race is complex and socially constructed, however, the law protects individuals against discriminatory practices based on perceived or actual racial identity.

2. Creed (Religion): This protects individuals from discrimination based on their religious beliefs and practices. The protection extends to all aspects of religious expression, including wearing religious attire and observing religious holidays, provided that these do not create an undue hardship.

3. Sex: This includes gender identity and sexual orientation. The interpretation and enforcement of this provision have evolved, with a growing consensus acknowledging that discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination. The understanding of sex, scientifically, involves biological factors (chromosomes, hormones) as well as gender identity, a person’s internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither.

4. Marital Status: This prevents discrimination against individuals based on whether they are married, single, divorced, widowed, or separated. This protection ensures that individuals are judged based on their individual qualifications and characteristics, rather than their marital status.

5. Age: The MHRA protects individuals of a certain age from housing discrimination. Typically, this protection focuses on protecting older adults.

6. National Origin: This protects individuals from discrimination based on their country of origin, ancestry, or linguistic characteristics. The law recognizes that language barriers and cultural differences should not be used as justifications for housing discrimination.

7. Familial Status: This mirrors the FHA, protecting families with children under the age of 18 from discrimination. This aims to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to families with children or imposing unreasonable restrictions based on the presence of children.

8. Disability: Both the FHA and MHRA protect individuals with disabilities from housing discrimination. This includes both physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Landlords are required to make reasonable accommodations to allow individuals with disabilities to access and enjoy their housing. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) influences the interpretation of “disability” within the context of housing.

B. Identifying Unprotected Classes:

A key aspect of understanding fair housing law is recognizing what characteristics are not protected. These can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some characteristics commonly raised but often not explicitly protected include:

1. Source of Income: While some states and localities have laws protecting against discrimination based on the source of income (e.g., Section 8 vouchers, Social Security), this is not a federally protected class under the FHA, and its status under the MHRA needs to be specifically verified by reviewing the legislation.

2. Occupation: Individuals cannot be discriminated against in housing simply because of their job or profession, unless there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason related to the job (e.g., concerns about safety due to the nature of the job). However, occupation is generally not explicitly listed as a protected class.

3. Credit History: While poor credit history can legitimately affect a landlord’s decision to rent to someone, this is not, in itself, a protected class. A landlord can deny housing based on poor credit but must apply the same standards to all applicants, regardless of their protected characteristics.

4. Criminal Record: Similar to credit history, a criminal record is not a protected class. Landlords can consider criminal history but must do so carefully, ensuring that any policies are applied consistently and do not have a disparate impact on protected classes. Policies must be directly related to safety and security.

5. Political Affiliation: Housing discrimination based on political beliefs is generally not prohibited by the FHA or the MHRA.

IV. Disparate Impact and Discriminatory Effects

Even if a policy appears neutral on its face, it can still be considered discriminatory if it has a disparate impact on a protected class.

• Disparate Impact: A discriminatory effect of a seemingly neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms members of a protected class. To prove disparate impact, one typically needs to demonstrate a statistically significant disparity. For example, if a landlord has a policy of requiring all tenants to have a credit score of 700 or higher, and this policy disproportionately excludes individuals from a particular racial or ethnic group, it could be considered discriminatory even if the policy itself doesn’t mention race or ethnicity.

  The statistical significance can be assessed using hypothesis testing. For instance, a Z-test can be used to compare the proportion of individuals from a protected class who are denied housing under the policy to the proportion of individuals from outside that class who are denied housing.

  $$Z = \frac{(p_1 - p_2)}{\sqrt{p(1-p)(\frac{1}{n_1} + \frac{1}{n_2})}}$$

  where:

  • $p_1$ is the proportion denied from the protected class
  • $p_2$ is the proportion denied from outside the protected class
  • $p$ is the combined proportion of those denied
  • $n_1$ is the number of individuals from the protected class
  • $n_2$ is the number of individuals from outside the protected class

  If the absolute value of Z exceeds a critical value (e.g., 1.96 for a 5% significance level), the difference is considered statistically significant, potentially indicating disparate impact.

V. Conclusion

Understanding the nuances of both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Montana Human Rights Act is essential for ensuring fair housing practices. While the FHA provides a baseline of protections, states like Montana can expand upon these protections. Identifying which characteristics are not protected, and recognizing the potential for disparate impact, are crucial aspects of complying with fair housing laws and promoting equal opportunity in housing. Always consult the specific language of the relevant statutes and consult with legal counsel for specific guidance.