50 Years After the Fair Housing Act, Tenants Are Still Fending Off Landlords’ Sexual Demands
Fifty years ago today, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, which at long last protected Americans from discrimination when purchasing or renting a home.
At least that was the plan. But for too many people, the fight for fair housing is not over.
Ongoing bias against African-Americans at the hands of banks, landlords, and local governments is half a century later. Women, including women of color, also continue to grapple with unequal treatment. They are frequently subjected to sexual harassment while trying to keep a roof over their heads, a violation of the FHA that flies under the radar.
Sexual harassment by landlords, superintendents, and other housing staff plays out in many ways in. They have demanded sex in exchange for rent reductions or , entered without permission or notice, sexually them, and moved to tenants who rejected their sexual advances. Property managers have also housing applicants unless they complied with sexual demands. Harassment in housing affects all types of people, but it disproportionately harms .
While there has been limited research done on the prevalence of sexual harassment in housing, a recent released disturbing results. Professor Rigel Oliveri surveyed low-income women in Columbia, Missouri, and found that 10 percent had experienced significant sexual harassment by landlords. Most were young women of color. The harassment ranged from a landlord who entered a tenant’s bedroom at night to masturbate while she was sleeping to a landlord’s persistent demands for sex.
The study also revealed that low-income women who had not obtained a housing subsidy were more vulnerable to sexual harassment compared to those that did. The women with rental assistance could refuse their landlords’ sexual demands and still afford to pay their rent. Those without subsidies, who were also economically struggling, were usually forced to move when they rejected the harassment.
Housing managers who sexually harass one tenant frequently target many more. For example, Yolanda Boswell’s real estate manager in Montgomery, Alabama, repeatedly tried to coerce her into having sex with him and then raised her rent when she refused. After the ACLU, Legal Services Alabama, and the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center filed a lawsuit on Ms. Boswell’s behalf, we learned that the manager had also sexually harassed several other women, leading the Department of Justice to pursue an additional . Ultimately, a federal judge called out the Montgomery Housing Authority, noting that several of the victims had informed their housing counselors but that “in every case, the women’s concerns were ignored.”
The judge’s rebuke points to a broader issue: Tenants and housing applicants too often face pressure to remain silent about sexual harassment, and they encounter hostility or dismissal when they do report it.
Part of the problem is that protections against sexual harassment in housing generally have lagged behind those in the workplace. While most large employers have taken some measures to address sexual harassment on the job, far fewer real estate management companies and other housing providers have acknowledged the issue. In fact, public housing authorities and other agencies that administer housing programs to record or report on sexual harassment complaints.
There is legal recourse, however.
The and similar state laws provide applicants and tenants who are harassed with the ability to seek compensation and reforms in housing management. They can seek representation to file their own lawsuit in court or assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Department of Justice. Notably, the Justice Department recently launched a major encouraging people to come forward with their reports of sexual harassment in housing. This builds on an important issued by HUD in 2016 to explain how the FHA bars harassment in housing.
Housing providers should take these basic steps to protect applicants and tenants from sexual harassment and to prevent themselves from getting sued:
Adopt and publicize a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and violence. The policy should identify the forms that sexual abuse can take, how the housing provider will respond to complaints, and the resources available in the community for those seeking help.
Partner with local groups that promote fair housing and support survivors of sexual violence to implement best practices and provide education to residents and staff.
Provide all staff members with training on the policy and the resources available to those who report sexual harassment.
Thoroughly investigate any complaint of sexual harassment and take appropriate action. This includes providing accommodations for those who have experienced harassment and disciplining or firing employees who commit sexual abuse against applicants or tenants.
The FHA guarantees Americans the right to access housing without being subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or assault. If you have been sexually harassed by your landlord or housing staff, . The information you provide will be kept confidential unless we obtain your permission to share it with others.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090