The state of California has enacted several administrative regulations and laws, which prohibit discrimination in California real estate. A single act of housing discrimination could be a violation of these state laws or regulations. For instance, Mr. George Custer’s discrimination against Mr. Running Bear invokes several state and federal laws. These acts include the real estate license law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Housing Financial Discrimination Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act among the federal laws (Haupt and Rockwell 353).
Mr. Running Bear can sue Mr. George Custer basing his allegation on several of these acts. He can decide to use the Unruh Civil Right Act. The act prohibits against discrimination based on ancestry in business establishments. The Unruh Act considers apartments as a business establishment (Haupt and Rockwell 353). According to the Act, Mr. Custer would be required to compensate Mr. Running Bear for the damages he incurred by the discriminatory action. He would be as well ordered to pay for the attorney’s fee. Furthermore, he would be required to pay three times the damages incurred or $ 4,000 whichever is more (Haupt and Rockwell 353).
On the other hand, Mr. Running Bear can sue Mr. Custer on Fair Employment and Housing Act (Rumford Act). Being that Mr. Custer is a Californian resident, it is his obligation to comply with Rumford Act. He would need to report Mr. Custer’s action within sixty days to the Fair Employment and Housing Department (Haupt and Rockwell 354). This law specifically prohibits any landlord from asking the prospective tenant or buyer his/her ancestry. By asking as to whether he was an American Indian, Mr. Running Bear had a reasonable suspicion that the law was broken. In fact, Mr. Running Bear had the right to refuse to answer Mr. George’s question on his ancestry. Upon reporting his allegation, the department’s staff would begin the process of investigation on Mr. Running Bear’s claim. If the department finds that Mr. Custer has acted against the law then, the department would attempt to convince him to stop his discriminatory action (Haupt and Rockwell 354).
However, in case Mr. George would continue with his alleged discrimination, a hearing on the case would be set at the department of Fair Employment and Housing Commission. When found guilty, Mr. Custer would be ordered to lease the house to Mr. Running Bear if it is still available. He would be ordered to compensate for the actual damages that Mr. Running Bear incurred. He shall also be required to pay a civil penalty amounting between $ 10,000 and $ 50,000 (Haupt and Rockwell 355). Nevertheless, Mr. Custer has a strong ground to defend himself. He would argue that the said apartment is on his residential house in which he only owns two apartments. Real estate owners with property of four or fewer units are exempted from the prohibition by the Rumford act. Consequently, the case under the act would be in his favor (Haupt and Rockwell 354). Mr. Running can as well decide to sue Mr. Custer using the Civil right act of 1866. This right prohibits discrimination based on race.
Fair Housing Violation in Other States
The trigger for fair housing was the Fair Housing act of 1968 also known as the Civil right act. The Act discriminates infringements in rental or sales of housing based on national origin. The act, also known as the Civil Right Act, is applicable to lending, information sharing, accessibility, advertising or any other omission that would be deemed as discrimination against a protected group (Silverman and Patterson 68). The amendment act empowered the Housing and Urban Department to have administrative proceedings and as well fines for individuals or corporations that violate the act. Some states have wholly augmented the act with other fair housing protections. For instance, the cases can be filed and be heard within the states agencies (Silverman and Patterson 68). The amended Fair housing act prohibits refusal to sell or rent a house when the offer is given in a good faith. The lessee or the seller should also not advertise on the sale or lease with a language that would indicate any discriminatory or preference act. He/she as well not required to change any term of the sale or lease on discriminatory nature (Silverman and Patterson 69).
Mr. Running Bear may file the case at the state’s agency in charge with the duty to oversee complaints on fair housing. The period required for the case depends on the state’s statutes and may be less than the time set by the federal HUD. The state’s agency would decide as to whether the case is valid as to require investigation (Silverman and Patterson 69).
In states, which have not enacted laws on fair housing violation, Mr. Running Bear has no option but to sue Mr. Custer with the federal Fair Housing Act. The Act intends to provide fair housing opportunities within the US. The act illegalizes persons and business persons to discriminate buyers based on religion, race, national origin, family status or disability. The federal law does not directly mention ancestry but instead uses the phrase “national origin.” Laws against discrimination on national origin also include prohibition on language, ancestry, culture or birthplace (Filipp 14). Mr. Running Bear has all the legal rights to sue Mr. Custer. Mr. Running Bear would need to report his allegations at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Silverman and Patterson 69).
Mr. Running Bear should understand that the burden to prove the alleged discrimination totally lies on him. He should also understand that the 1968 Act as amended, does not apply to rental property with four or less rental units (Silverman and Patterson 70). Mr. Custer resides in the Apartment and only would let the upper apartment the decision to the case that would be in favor for Mr. George Custer. Moreover, Mr. Custer did not have any broker in his transaction with Mr. Running Bear. Mr. Custer can further defend himself that the advertisement for the sale of the apartment was non-discriminatory. In fact, he would be acquitted on Mrs. Murphy exemption (Silverman and Patterson 3). The decision of this case would be definite in other states, which wholly use the amended federal Fair Housing Act. Mr. George Custer would be acquitted of the allegation. This is different with California in which the case can be decided on the Unruh Civil act or the 1866 civil rights act. Mr. George Custer would be found guilty in discriminating Mr. Running Bear, when the court depends entirely on these two acts.
Works Cited
Filipp, Mark. The Practical Guide to Employment Law, New York: Aspen Publishers, 2005. Print.
Haupt, Kathyrn, and D. Rockwell. Principles Of California Real Estate, Bellevue: Rockwell Publishing, 2006. Print.
Silverman, Robert, and K. Patterson. Fair And Affordable Housing In The U.S: Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions, Leiden: Brill, 2011. Print.