132. Fair Housing

We're going to cover fair housing and equal opportunity in real estate. And the topics are covering federal law, equal opportunity in the fair housing poster, violations in enforcement, getting into federal law. So, we actually, there's a Civil Rights Act of 1866. So think about that. 1866. I know that many of y'all are likely familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And then what we had after 1964 was another number of amendments to the Civil Rights Act that continued to expand on the protected classes or what the protected classes were. But we actually had the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And this was the original fair housing law all the way back to 1866. And what it did is it prohibited discrimination and housing based on race. It related to selling, renting, and heriting, and conveying real estate. The problem with that though is that there wasn't any enforcement associated with that law. So it's one thing to have a law. It's another to have a law and then that law have some what we call teeth, something to back it up. And so we did have the law of 1866. And what I've not had the opportunity to do yet is go back and research case law or research, you know, other, other writings, other resources. They go back to that time frame to get some more context on that. So that's something that's on my list to do. Nonetheless, this was the original fair housing law in the United States. So the Civil Rights Act of 1866. We also have executive order, 11063. And so the President of the United States manages the operations of the executive branch. We have the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. And so what we're talking about here is the executive branch. And just to give you some context on this, after the President signs an executive order, White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register. So there's a book or set of rules that all go into the federal register. And then the Office of Federal Register numbers each order or executive order consecutively as part of a series and then publishes it in the daily federal register. And so this is where you can find the list of executive orders. So just to give you some context, you're sure you're familiar with hearing in the media where the President signs an executive order. More recently, we had the governor of Texas, for example, signed an executive order that provided a set of laws or set of rules that govern to everybody in the state of Texas. For a period of time, based on the current environment that we're in right now. So with that said, John F. Kennedy signed executive order, 11063. And this was back in 1962. So if you remember, we got the Civil Rights Act of '64. So this predates that. And the purpose of executive order, 11063, was to prevent discrimination in residential properties financed by the FHA and VA loans. It also applied to the sale and leasing of properties owned and operated by the federal government. So while we didn't have the Civil Rights Act of '64, and that applied to discrimination, not just in relation to real estate, but in relation to discriminatory acts against certain protected classes outlined in that act. This was an executive order signed by the President at the time, John F. Kennedy, and prevented discrimination in relation to loans that were financed by the FHA and VA. And then also in relation to selling leasing of properties owned and operated by the federal government. So if it's allocated enforcement of fair housing where federal funds were involved, and it banned segregation of federally funded housing. And so there's a law, so a, and this applied, this didn't apply throughout the United States necessarily. It was limited in the sense that it applied to FHA and VA loans, and it applied to leasing the sale of federal government properties. So those properties could be throughout the United States, but this isn't something that was just a blanket law that applied to everybody throughout the United States. And nonetheless, it was a means of limiting discrimination based on that executive order to the extent that the President could affect this. And then this gets into the context, you know, just for the sake of time. I'll fly through this, but it covers, you know, Section 101 says, "I hereby direct all departments and agencies in the executive branch of the federal government, which the President." Facilitates, in so far as their functions relate to the provision, rehabilitation, or operation of housing and related facilities to take all action necessary and appropriate to prevent discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin. And so that's really what we started to see in the Civil Rights Act of '64. So again, this predated that. And then it related to the sale leasing rental or other disposition of residential property and related facilities. Including land to be developed for residential use or in the use or occupancy thereof. If such property and related facilities are owned and operated by the federal government, provided in whole or in part with the aid of loans, advances, grants, or contributions here and after agreed to be made by the federal government. And so those were the, or by loans, insured, guaranteed, or otherwise secured by the credit of the federal government. So that's your FHA and VA loans right there. Provided by the development or redevelopment of real property purchased lease or otherwise obtained from a state or local public agency that receives federal financial assistance. So there it was extensive to a certain extent. And then be in the lending practices with respect to residential property and related facilities of lending institutions in so far such practices relate to loans here and after insured or guaranteed by the federal government. So again, that would be your FHA and VA loan at that time. And then section 102 says I hereby direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD and all other executive departments and agencies to use their good offices and to take other appropriate action permitted by law. Including litigation if required to promote the abandonment of discriminatory practices with respect to residential property where financial assistance is involved. So so there again, we're trying to put some laws in place that relates to the eliminating or attempting to eliminate discrimination in real estate. If we look at the definition of discrimination, it's a singling out a person for adverse treatment based on their race color religion, sex or a national origin. And we saw this this is coming out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1964. We also have a second definition and this is unequal treatment resulting from prejudice or some other morally justified attitude against members of the group to which an individual belongs. This is discrimination not based on an individual merit but based on the basis of membership in a group. So give you an example of that. You know, give you an example of where that's prevalent today. I read a couple of news stories where individuals who are of Chinese descent were allegedly discriminated against here in the United States. And there's another article that said that Chinese restaurants were taken to hit in certain markets. And while the second piece of that is not discrimination in and of itself, but that if the targeting somebody because they are Chinese and then the correlation of that was that somebody was angry because the COVID-19 or the coronavirus can be taken away. And so that's the reason why the coronavirus came out of China. They are attacking that person based on the second definition here which is unequal treatment resulting from prejudice or some other morally justified attitude against members of the group to which an individual belongs. And so that's just that that person didn't do anything to the other person. It's just the fact that they're Chinese that that they're being attacked. And they're Americans. And so that's where that's an application of the second definition of discrimination. So sometimes I think that's difficult for individuals to see, you know, to grasp. And that does I think both of we while both of these occur and then while the first definition the protected classes have been expanded significantly based on federal law based on state law. Based on local law based on municipal ordinances based on trade association rules and codes of conduct based on private the private businesses employee handbooks. So this so what we have the federal law sets the floor and you can't go below that, meaning you can't eliminate those protective classes, but you can add to those. And so we have seen that in relation to state law, local ordinances, so cities, trade associations, like national association of realtors. City of San Antonio has its own discrimination ordinance. The state of Texas has the Texas Fair Housing Act, and then private businesses have their own code of conduct and their own employee handbooks that also expand on those protective classes. And so we've got two definitions of discrimination based on single out of person individually, and then also that individual based on them belonging to a protected class. So then getting into civil rights act of 64. So what this did, this act did is it outlaw discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. And where we generally see the application of this, it was entitled to entitled seven, and this relates to public accommodations. So that would be, you know, going, going to a venue, going to a building that's in the public. And then also in relation to employment. So that's where we generally saw the application of the civil rights act of 64 in relation to these protected classes. Okay, at that time. Okay. And so the civil, the Fair Housing Act comes later in 68 that applies specifically to real estate. Okay. We had some landmark cases and just to give you a brief overview of these cases. So in the Harvard, Atlanta, Motel versus United States. And if you notice, these were the first two were both 64 cases. So the Civil Rights Act of 64 was passed. And then immediately you had these cases that went to the Supreme Court. So that's rare. It usually takes years for a case to get to the Supreme Court. I was reading about a case just today that involved water and the discharge of pollutants. And I believe if I remember correctly that that case originated in 2012. And and then it went to the Federal District Court and then it went to the Pellet Court. And then the Supreme Court just came down with an opinion on that case. So that's that's eight years later. And so not not that all cases take eight years to get the Supreme Court or to get the point to make a decision. But nonetheless, it can take a significant amount of time for a case to just to get to trial. It can take a year or two in Texas at the district court level at the state level. And and then you've got a few go through the Pellet process. And then you go to the Texas Supreme Court, for example. So that could take five, you know, four or five, six years easy. So in this case, this case I read about today, that would have been about eight years. So these cases immediately went to the Supreme Court. So they were fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. And then the first one or actually in both of them, what you had was intentional discrimination. So you we have two forms of discrimination. We have disparate treatment and we have disparate impact. And disparate treatment is the intentional discrimination of an individual. Disparate impact is the effect of decisions or effect of policies that end up being discriminatory and not necessarily not necessarily intentional not meant to be in there's the like say a company company does not intentionally mean to discriminate against individuals within the company. But by running a statistical analysis statistical analysis that analysis shows that the company has been engaged in discriminatory practices based on hiring, promotion, termination, etc. And so in this in both of these in all three of these cases, we had disparate treatment or intentional discrimination. And in the first one, you had the heart of Atlanta versus heart of Atlanta motel in which they claim that they were not subject to the Civil Rights Act of 64 that the federal government that federal act actually not the government but the federal act had and no enforcement over the actions of that hotel. They said we're here in Georgia and all we are is a little hotel down here and the Congress has overstepped its bounds by passing a law that says we can't discriminate. And that they were intentionally discriminating at the time and had been. And the basically the court came back and said this is where the commerce clause comes into play. So we have two we have the commerce clause that is outlined in the Constitution and then we have the dormant commerce clause and that's implied in the US Constitution. And what the commerce clause says is that Congress has the right and only Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. And that traveling whether just in whether somebody travels locally to the heart of Atlanta motel and then returns home even though they never cross state lines. Nonetheless the court said that the Supreme Court said that discriminatory practices like what the actions hard of Atlanta motel were engaged in had and direct impact on interstate commerce while it may not affected a subjective few in terms of the individuals who were staying there. But that that the hospitality industry as a whole was part of interstate commerce and that discriminatory practices within that industry would have an impact on interstate commerce. And therefore Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and therefore the Civil Rights Act of 64 applies to the heart of Atlanta motel. And then talking about the dormant commerce clause what that says and again that's implied in the Constitution but that says that only Congress has the right to pass laws that affect interstate commerce and that if Congress is not spoken that that doesn't mean that the states can step in and pass a law that ends up impacting interstate commerce. Now the court over a period of time and I'm getting off a little bit of tension here but over time has that the decisions of the Supreme courts over time have expanded their definition of the application of interstate commerce. And effectively if we take it to the extreme that means Congress and only Congress has the right to regulate everything because everything that we have think think about what's in front of you right now if you're a computer, commuter monitor, TV, the desk chair. Everything on that desk has been part of or around you has been part of interstate commerce. So therefore effectively Congress has the right to regulate everything. The problem is that that can get too expansive and so there is an economic test that is applied now and has been applied for a while in relation to Congress's reach of regulation. So then get into cats and back. So cats and back versus McClellan and in this case all of McClellan owned all these barbeque and and he had sued based on claiming that the civil rights act is 64 did not apply or he did his statement was his argument was the civil rights act is 64 did not apply to him that everything was sourced locally. But the reality was not everything was sourced locally you know so if you think about there's certain items there certain certain certain food items there's certain products that still are part of the stream of interstate commerce. And so as a result of that the court said the civil rights act of 64 does apply to all these barbeque and therefore all of McClellan cannot intentionally discriminate against patrons who wanted to enter his business. Griggs versus Duke power is another case and this one was a little bit later this was 1971 and and what you had in in in this case is you had Duke power was a company that was intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices prior to the passage of the civil rights act in 1964. They were based in North Carolina and so before 1964 they were intentionally discriminating against blacks in their community as part of their hiring practices. And so after 1964 the so passages of the civil rights act in 1964 they they said okay we're not going to intentionally discriminate anymore but what we're going to do is we're going to have an employment test. And we're also going to have a requirement that individuals we hire must have a high school diploma. So the problem with that was that one in that community in that in that area you had a disproportionate number of blacks who did not graduate from high school. So that automatically eliminated them from having the opportunity to get a job. And also, another thing to keep in mind is that it applied to certain areas within the company. It didn't apply to the company at large. So they were mainly targeting those jobs that were individuals could have gotten a job, the department where they could have gotten a job. And so the high school test was one thing. And so whites had a higher percentage of graduating high school. And the second was the test. And what the court found was the test had no direct correlation to the job function. And so as a result, and the way the test was designed is that it ended up being discriminatory. So this is where we get into the spirit impact. This is the effect of a company's policies that, while the company's not intentionally discriminating the effect of that company's decisions or policies are discriminatory. And so the court said you can have a test, but it must be related to the job function. And then it also must be tested to ensure that the questions are not discriminatory themselves. So you have to be very careful in terms of how these aptitude tests are written. And so that was just to give you an example of where you had a company that was engaged in, our companies that were engaged in intentional discrimination, and then also the spirit impact where the effect of a company's policies were discriminatory. We also had a case recently that was filed in Texas. This was a Texas court case up in the Dallas area. And it went up to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And then all the way, I think this went all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. And a company in an organization, not a proper organization, up in the Dallas area, filed a lawsuit against a number of multi-family owners and then also property managers. Mainly along that 75 corridor. And what they claimed is that those owners and the property management companies were engaged in disparate, well both treatment and disparate impact. But what they stated was that because they did not, they were not part of the sectionate voucher program, that it prevented individuals from renting there. And as a result, they had to rent elsewhere in the Dallas area. And effectively the court's decision stated that those owners and the property managers were not engaged in the state. And they were not allowed to rent elsewhere in the Dallas area. Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and it prohibits discrimination and housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. And the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity administers and enforces title, title eight, I said title VII. I meant title eight, title eight under the supervision of HUD. And the Fair Housing Act specifically prohibits discrimination and residential brokerage and financing as follows. So, in general, it shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicapped, familial status, or national origin. So, and this applies to the purchase, construction, improvement, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling, or secured by residential real estate. And it also applies to selling, brokering, or appraisal, or appraising of residential real estate. Fair Housing Act specifically prohibits discrimination and residential brokerage and financing as follows. So, in relation to discriminatory representation, a real estate agent may not conceal available properties, represented there in offer sale or rent, or change the terms for the purpose of discriminating against someone. And discriminatory advertising, a real estate agent may not advertise residential properties in such a way as to restrict or availability to any perspective by our tenant. So, this is where real estate agents and brokers have to be very careful in terms of how they write an advertisement for residential real estate property, either for sale or for lease. And so, and then there's a, you know, you can have a whole class, an hour long class on what terms to use and not to use, and that list has gotten very expansive these days. This also applies to providing unequal services. So, an agent, real estate agent may not alter the nature or quality of broker services to any party based on race, color, sex, national origin, or religion. So, if an agent cusses merely provides a service, then there must be consistency in providing that service to everyone. An agent may not alter their practices for the purpose of discrimination. So, so an agent has to make sure that based on their standard operating procedures, they treat everybody the same, everybody. And then we get into some of the definitions of, so, steering. So, steering is the practice of directly or indirectly channeling customers toward or away from homes and neighborhoods. This occurs when a real estate agent describes an area in a subjective way for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging a buyer about the suitability of the area. So, for example, an agent tells buyer that a neighborhood is extremely attractive and that desirable families move in every week. The agent tells buyer B that the same neighborhood is deteriorating and that values are starting to fall. An agent has steered a to the neighborhood and be away from it. And then block busting. This is the practice of inducing owners in an area to sell or rent to avoid an impending change in the ethnic or social make-up of the neighborhood that will cause values to go down. So, for example, an agent tells neighborhood owners that several minority families are moving in and they will be bringing their relatives next year. The agent informs homeowners that in anticipating a value decline, several families have already made plans to move. In relation to MLS participation, so it's discriminatory to restrict participation in MLS based on one's race, religion, national origin, color, or sex. And then redlining. Redlining is a residential financing practice of refusing to make loans on properties in a certain neighborhood regardless of a mortgage or qualification. Or that would be the borrowers qualification. And so this is where, you know, you wonder where that term redlining comes from, where the banks at a lender had a map on the wall and then would draw literally draw a circle in red around the areas where they would not originate loans. And as a result, that was a discriminatory practice. And so that falls under the Fair Housing Act now. And an equal credit opportunity act. So this requires lenders to be fair and impartial in determining who qualifies for a loan. So a lender may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age. It requires lenders to inform prospective buyers who are being denied credit over the reasons for the denial. And then the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires lenders involved with federally guaranteed or insured loans to exercise impartiality and nondiscrimination and a geographic distribution of their loan portfolio. The act is designed to prohibit redlining. So it is enforced by requiring lenders to report to authorities where they had placed their loans. So banks have to put their statistics together, put their data together and submit that to the government for review. So Civil Rights Act of '68, so under exemptions to the Civil Rights Act of '68, so privately owned, single family home. And this is key where no broker is used. So if a broker is used, then there can never be any discriminatory practices. But if you own your own home, then you can effectively decide if you want to discriminate based on who you sell that home to. That doesn't fall under the Civil Rights Act of '68. Rental of an apartment in a 1-4 unit building where the owner is also an occupant. And then here's key. Here's the key. No discriminatory advertising is used. So let's say an individual owns a 4plex and the owner lives in one of those units. Then the owner can be discriminatory in terms of who they rent to, but that owner can never advertise. The advertisement can never be discriminatory. facilities owned by private clubs and lease non-commercialy to members, facilities owned by religious organizations and lease non-commercialy to members, provided membership requirements are not discriminatory. And we've got the Jones versus Mayor case. This is a 1968 Supreme Court case that held all discrimination in selling or renting residential property based on race. Remember that, based on race is prohibited. So even coming back here, let's backtrack. So we've got a Supreme Court decision that said in relation to residential property, even if a discriminatory act is not a violation of law because it falls under one of the exceptions or the exemptions of the Fair Housing Act. So right here, privately owner can discriminate as long as no discriminatory advertising is used. Right here, no discriminatory advertising is used. But it can never be based on race. It can never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, be based on race, ever. So we have race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familiar status, age, sexual orientation, et cetera. There's many others that are following the protected classes that it can never be based on race. So remember that. So we've made it through chapter one. And I think that that's, I can get into chapter two. The key there is that real estate brokerages and ages need to have the Fair Housing poster on their wall. Otherwise, it's private face evidence. If the river is a claim of discrimination that they are engaged in discriminatory practices. Okay, so with that said, here's what I want to do now. Let's, I want to look at a couple of examples. Here. So I talked about redlining, right? And let's, let's go back to that definition real quick. Redlining is the residential financing practice of refusing to make loans on properties in a certain neighborhood, regardless of a mortgage or qualifications. Okay. And this is, this is a agreement between HUD, the California Reinvestment Coalition, who was the complaintant in CIT group, who was the respondent. And here we got Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of '68, which was the Fair Housing Act. And so in this case, complaint, filed a complaint with HUD, alleging the respondent, discriminated in the marketing and origination of mortgages on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint and alleged that respondent's branch locations, marketing and origination of mortgages, discriminated against residents of majority minority neighborhoods in respondent's assessment area under the Community Reinvestment Act. Respondent and I that had engaged in discriminatory practices. But as a result, here's what's key, is that this agreement shall govern the conduct of the parties for a period of three years from its effective date. All of the disbursements, training activities that respondent performs during the term of this agreement that satisfy the requirements of Section G of this agreement, including any disbursements, training, or activities, also may be included in a respondent's current or future community reinvestment development plans or business plans, and are to be accounted towards the satisfaction of the provisions of this agreement. Respondent acknowledges it has an affirmative duty not to discriminate under the act, and that it is unlawful to retaliate against a person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any proceeding under the act, relief in the public interest. So within 18 months of the agreement, subject to regulatory approvals required by law, and it will open or require retail branch and respondents community reinvestment act assessment area, which for the purpose of this agreement is the counties of Los Angeles, Orange Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura, and a census track that has a majority minority in low to moderate income population. So that's getting into one requirement. Two, respondent agrees to originate $100 million over the term of this agreement and home purchase, home improvement, and home refinancing loans, two borrowers and majority minority census tracks. Within six months, respondent will provide loans that can be used for improvement, refinance, or purchase, and will specify no minimum loan amount for residential mortgage loans. Within six months of the effective data's agreement, respondent will not deny any residential loans solely on the ground. The applicant has a tax identification number rather than a social security number. Respondent will offer FHA-insured mortgages, together with other residential mortgage loan products at all branches throughout its CRA assessment area. Within three months, respondent will include FHA-insured mortgages as part of its market and its market materials. Respondent will make available $5 million over the term of this agreement for an affordable housing mortgage program. No loans made pursuant to this agreement shall be required to be made inconsistent with safety and soundness or in contra-mention of any statutory regulatory requirements, that means they still have to follow underwriting guidelines. Respondent will provide $1 million over the term of this agreement for grants to government, community development, financial institutions, community development corporations, and other nonprofit organizations that provide community services and benefits and respondent CRASS management area. And this includes financial literacy, housing education and counseling, community services, targeted to minority and low income populations, including financial literacy and education programs and credit counseling, $1 million in grants to start a program that in terms of outreach in those areas. There are some other funds being distributed. Respondent will provide $1 million, $300,000 over the term of this agreement for marketing and outreach to consumers and majority minority census tracts. Within four months, respondent will provide and promote a language translation services provider for residential mortgage originations that will be available through its contact center. End of all its branches and also will provide print mortgage marketing materials at all of its branches in Spanish as well as English. It requires two its employees who have residential mortgage lending job function to attend two hours of fair housing training, fair lending training, annually, using materials approved by HUD and so on. So there's a lot of factors that have come into play under this case where redlining was the complaint. So this was a effective day of the agreement July 26th of 2019, so that was last year. So that's a recent case. Another case. Femilial status is also a protected class. There we go. Femilial status is a protected class. So in this case, you had complaints that filed a complaint with HUD alleging that Dwight Stephen Ott, Elizabeth M. Ott and Seth Ethan Ott discriminated against complaints based on familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. And so what basically what this case is based on is you had the parents, Dwight and Elizabeth, who owned rental properties in one, I forgot which city that was in, but in one location. And here we go. So in 2014, complaints were forced to vacate their rental house in Idaho due to flooding, unable to find replacement housing quickly on their own. The Southwestern Idaho Cooperative Housing Authority placed them in a small apartment in Glen's Ferry, Idaho approximately 95 miles from Calville. And it immediately began searching for a rental house in the Calwell, Calwell Nampa area. Honor about December of 2014, complaint, "Soul rental advertisement on Craig's list for the subject property," which was described as a 2,600 square foot, four bedroom, free bath house for $1,200. So they contacted, in this case, Seth, who is the son, and said we want to look at the house. So they looked at the house, so they, uh, complaints in two of their children. Now let me, let me see if they've got it in here. Okay. So, um, complaints in two of their children drove 90 miles from their home to inspect the subject property. Complaints had cash on hand to pay the deposit and first and last month's rent. They toured the property with the son and concluded that the property would work, uh, as well as for their family. As complaints were completed, rental application, respondent Seth asked if the two children with them were their only children. Complaints replied that they had seven children. And he immediately stated that they should stop completing the application, uh, did not I want to waste their time as his parents had said a maximum. of four children for the rental. So on the drive home, he sent a text message to him stating that they were heartbroken, adding we are well qualified and have the cash, complaint and wrote that the law does not allow a family to be turned away because of children or family size. So he basically said, that's my parents policy. So effectively, they were in violation of the, the Seth and his parents were in violation of the Fair Housing Act, because they had been denied housing based on familial status. What the court, some of that are not the court, what it as part of the process, this review, what they looked at was whether or not the local jurisdiction had an ordinance that prevented a certain number of people like Per square foot or per bedroom and they discovered that there was no such ordinance. They also said the subject property has ample space for the seven children and in the two parents. The main floor has a large great room with a family room, kitchen and dining area, three bedrooms, ranging in size from 100 to approximately 180 square feet, two full bathrooms, private office, etc. They had looked at even if they applied a certain square footage like per person, that they were still more than adequate square footage for that house that they had looked at renting. And so effectively in this case, the the son and the husband and wife that owned the property, the parents that owned the property were in violation of the Fair Housing Act for discriminatory practices based on familial status. And then one more I want to look at. This is a Craig's List ad. So the complaintant who in this case is black, alleged that respondents, so you've got the husband, his LLC and then his wife discriminated against her because of her race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, she alleges that respondents unlawfully requested race in a housing advertisement and because of her race, made a discriminatory statement and refused to negotiate a room rental with her in violation of the act, the Fair Housing Act. Complaint and timely file her complaint. So there's a process in terms of when a complaint has to be filed and where it's filed. Can either be filed through HUD or it can be initiated at state or at the federal level in district court. But based on the facts of this case, the husband in that case had posted an ad to rent a room in the house on Craig's List. And as part of this process, the complaintant here had contacted him and had said, "You know, I'd like to rent a room." So there's a five bedroom house and they also lived in the house. Complaint and viewed the following advertisement for a room rental on Craig's List. I have one room available for rent in a five bedrooms home for professional only. So that's, you got to be careful about that because that could be a qualification to discriminate against somebody. Okay? The home is situated in a nice and quiet neighborhood near US 75. This house is situated in the courses at Waters Creek Golf Course where our backyard is open, opening up to the great views of the golf course. All utility, water, internet are included in the rent. You must be clean, no drugs, no criminal history. And this is a whole other area now to where you had to be careful when renting either as an owner or as a property manager or as a broker in relation to what criminal history is used to make sure that you're not engaging in discriminatory practices. If you feel you qualify, please response with your brief description about yourself, race, and age and a recent picture of you. Absolutely no pets. So that same day in response to the ad, she, the complaint in contact with him by text message, they went back and forth and he said, "Send me a selfie." And she said, "No." And then that was kind of the end of it, so to speak. Except that was on October 3rd, except he contacted her again. So complaint and receipt of text message from him saying, "Hey, are you still looking for a place to live?" And she said, "Yes." And so, factually now they scheduled a time to meet at the property, which they did. So on October 5th, they met, they met in person at the house and he said, "Oh, you're, and it's redacted. Oh, and he refused to allow her to view the room or enter the house." They responded, initially refused to explain why complaint was not permitted to view the room. And then after asking questions about her cooking habits, whether she was quiet, whether she was professional, and asking for a verification of her college graduation, she stated, or she said that the complaint stated that he could not rent the room because she is black, and his wife would not like it. The respondent explained that his three children or that his three other tenants were Asian professionals and renting the room to her would make the house uncomfortable. Respondents, co-inerted property of libel for discriminatory conduct of their rental agent. As a result of their discriminatory conduct, complaint and suffered actual damages, including loss, housing, opportunity, and emotional distress. So this is still ongoing. I have not done the research to follow up to see if it's still active to see if there's a final disposition of this. But this is one if, if I was representing him, I'm like, you, you have got to get out of this as fast as possible because you have, you have royally screwed up. If you go back, the fact that he lives in the house, remember, it's one to four units. And in this case, it's actually five units. But you can never discriminate based on race and advertising, and you can never discriminate based on race period, or no, I'm sorry, you can never have discriminatory advertising, but you can never discriminate based on race period. And that's exactly what he did here. So there's, I mean, there's just, there's nothing. I don't, I don't, I don't even know what his, what his defense is because this is an example of exactly what you can't do and what you shouldn't do when it comes to renting or selling real estate. So, so that's all I have at this point.