Civil Rights and Housing Advocates Rally at Supreme Court in Support of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

On January 21, 2015,  as oral arguments began, representatives from organizations which filed amicus briefs, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, rallied in front of the Supreme Court about the case Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

With this case, the justices will probably decide this summer on a key component of the Fair Housing Act,   disparate impact,  a theory which safeguards the right to a fair shot for everyone. Where you live determines where you work and how you get there, your access to healthcare, and the school your child attends. Unfortunately, policies and practices still exist that – intentionally or unintentionally – keep some people out of housing they can afford simply because of who they are.

While the country has made great strides in advancing fairness in the housing sector, segregation persists and there is still more work to be done. Everyone benefits from a housing market free from discrimination where the full participation of all Americans is possible.Additionally, from a business standpoint the disparate impact theory helps us maintain open markets free from discrimination – a critical component to the prosperity of America’s future. Discrimination disrupts our economy, causing inefficiency and instability by constraining the full economic participation of all hard-working Americans.

Examples of Disparate Impact:

• An apartment complex only allows people with full-time jobs. This bars disabled veterans and other people with disabilities who may not be able to work full-time, even though they can afford the apartment. The complex could instead consider all income to assess someone’s ability to afford rent.

• A city decides to prohibit all housing that would be affordable to working-class people, and that has the effect of excluding most or all people of color in that region. If the city cannot show a valid reason for its policy, or if a more fair and effective alternative is available, then the policy would have to be set aside under the disparate impact approach.

• A lender has a policy of allowing its loan officers to overcharge consumers at the loan officer’s discretion. The result is that women are charged higher prices than their male counterparts-even though both have the same credit profiles. In a case like this, the lender would have to abandon the discretionary pricing policy and take steps to insure that women are not over-charged for lending products and services.