Oh, Baby! Class Action Suit Alleges Broker Discrimination
This morning there are articles in the Times, the Sun, and the Post about a class-action lawsuit alleging that agents from Brown Harris Stevens’ Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights offices discriminated against a couple because they had a kid. The couple, Jamie Katz and Lisa Nocera, started looking to move from Manhattan to Brooklyn in…
This morning there are articles in the Times, the Sun, and the Post about a class-action lawsuit alleging that agents from Brown Harris Stevens’ Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights offices discriminated against a couple because they had a kid. The couple, Jamie Katz and Lisa Nocera, started looking to move from Manhattan to Brooklyn in 2006, when Nocera was pregnant. They found an apartment they wanted to rent in Brooklyn Heights but a broker from Brown Harris Stevens told them they couldn’t rent it because the landlord didn’t want kids in the unit. A year later the couple, who now had a baby, was once again trying to uproot to Brooklyn but were denied a Park Slope rental they wanted because the owner told another Brown Harris Stevens agent that the apartment had lead paint and therefore wasn’t safe for kids. Katz and Nocera are claiming that the refusal to rent to them violated federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws, which specify that a landlord can’t say he won’t rent to prospective tenants based on “family status.” As the Times article points out, many brokers are unaware—or choose to ignore—the laws. The broker for the Park Slope apartment, for example, allegedly left a voice mail message for the couple saying the following: There was a child there before and … it was just a big, big, big problem and they’re just, they just absolutely are not going to go through that again…They just don’t want to have to deal with it. The suit seeks to ensure that Brown Harris Stevens agents comply with the law, and, if successful, it’ll probably influence the way brokers around the city behave towards would-be renters with children. “The brokers are enabling the discriminatory goals of the landlord,” the lawyer representing the couple told the Post.
Couple’s Suit Accuses Real Estate Firm of Bias Against Children [NY Times]
Real Estate Firm Sued Over Child Discrimination [NY Sun]
Apt. Suit: It’s Bias Vs. Kids [NY Post]
Photo by Lab2112.
Regarding:
“When you punk ass gets robbed and stomped, I hope you say the same things.”
The What
Oh dear, poor What! He was hoping and praying for a riot today! To send all the real estate buyers out to crapass Jersey where he lives and is so desperately trying to unload foreclosure mcmansions.
Too bad, tWhat, we’re all staying. Boo hoo for you.
Is it really that hard to click through the link and read the one page article?
“The owners of the buildings are not named in the suit, but two of them, reached for comment on Thursday, said they had not told Brown Harris to refuse to rent to families with children. One of them, the owner of the second Brooklyn Heights apartment, said he had eventually rented the apartment to a couple with a child.”
12:58 you are so wrong, a LL can not rent to whom they want – in fact there are a ton of people you can not discriminate against in renting for a whole bunch of reasons – and thanks to the moron of morons Bill Diblasio – you now can not dicriminate (i.e. refuse to rent) based on the fact that someone is on Welfare, Section 8 or any other public assistance.
Yup – even though the Government doesnt pay in a timely manner and people on Govt assistance are often the mnost difficult tenants – you can not refuse to rent b/c of there status. From the law itself….
“..cannot refuse to sell, rent, lease, approve the sale, rental or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons such a housing accommodation or an interest therein because of the actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, partnership status, or alienage or citizenship status of such person or persons, or because of any lawful source of income of such person or persons, or because children are, may be or would be residing with such person or persons. “
“A Landlord has the right to rent to whomever they want. They are not obliged to accept any and every applicant. As long as the Landlord shows the apartment to ANYONE interested, they are free to ultimately exercise their free choice and accept whomever they choose.”
Comment like this one is the reason I hate this Blog!!! The ignorance and the covert racism is easy to hide when you are typing from a keyboard.
This issue is moot because Landlords are losing money. Plenty of apartments sit empty because Landlords are greedy and are waiting for some sucker to pay that high assed rent!
I hope the Brokers lose this case! If the Agents was that fucking stupid to say that reason for rejection, they should be taken to the cleaners.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap4JffQHDqgE&refer=home
U.S. Economy: Sentiment Weakens More Than Anticipated
Oh BTW Consumer CONfidence was real fucking bad! High assed Gas prices and Mortgages will do that! It’s Friday Boys and Girls! Go out today and see if any one is spending any money. See if the restaurants and gas stations are crowded and come back to me and say “We are going fine”. I will say “Gofuckyourself”! 4.00 Gas here we come!
RIP Mutant Real Estate Bubble!!!!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end…
Hey Brownstoner, this server is fucked up too, asshole!
It is about time people start treating white heteros with crotch fruit like the vile nasty skanks they really are.
12:43
OK I understand I misread your post but that was because you are saying the laws are “being misapplied.” The law prohibits landlords/brokers from not renting to people because they have kids. Therefore the law is certainly applicable to the situation.
I think you mean to say that the general conccept of non-discrimination is being made too broad and is now being applied to discrmination that is rationally based – ie., I don’t want to live under a howling infant. So, the problem is not the miaspplication of the laws, the problem is its a lousy law. Resident landlords, especially in porous brownstones where noise travels, be it 2 family or an 8 family, should not be subjected to this law. There are certainly enough new, poured concrete buildings for people with kids to rent.
A Landlord has the right to rent to whomever they want. They are not obliged to accept any and every applicant. As long as the Landlord shows the apartment to ANYONE interested, they are free to ultimately exercise their free choice and accept whomever they choose.
Additionally, a landlord does not have to give a reason for rejection; a simple yes/no will suffice.
I have no idea of the merits of the suit – but the lead paint excuse is ridiculous. Virtually every apartment built before 1970 has lead paint – so what – in fact virtually everyone posting was raised in a home with lead paint (and obviously some ate the paint chips).
The issue isnt whether the apartment had lead paint – the issue is whether there is peeling, flaking or chipping that causes the lead paint to be potentially ingestible.
And in reality it is a violation of housing laws to have peeling, flaking lead paint whether there is a child present or not. Obviously kids are more likely to eat paint chips and the liability b/c of the damage from lead paint to a child is huge, but frankly only a LL who is ignorant of the law or a real slumlord would say no kids b/c of lead paint.
Frankly while the liability on the LL (who did NOTHING wrong re:paint) is ridiculous, it isnt that hard to keep lead from being a real problem and in terms of dealing with frivolous but expensive lawsuits – now that lead is in kids toys, medicines etc…. I believe the presumption that it must have come from the walls will be severely damaged and the lawyers who took alot of these cases thinking they would get an easy and large settlement will have a much tougher time and thereby less frivolous suits. Thank god for the chinese
Dear Brooklyn native,
I am afraid that I am not the idiot.
I was not comparing this situation to racial discrimination, but reminding readers that the reason these laws exist was to protect African Americans who were being discriminated against.
I agree that this situation is a very different one, and was trying to say that I believe that the laws are being misapplied in this situation.