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.
One thing I didn’t get about the article is that when the reporter called the buildings’ owners they claimed that they had never instructed the agency to turn away applicants with kids. OK, so there’s a good chance that this is a total lie. But if the owners were telling the truth: Why in the world would a real estate broker enforce such a policy?
How about discrimination against smokers, pet owners, or people with bad credit? Can they sue?
Read an article before weighing in? Are you serious — this is a blog — it’s the Jerry Springer show for people too lazy to be in a “studio audience” and shout out uninformed opinions. At least there, people would have their faces showing when they spew their unfounded, racist, sexist, and banal drivel.
Obviously the places they were trying to rent were not in 3-family or less brownstones — if they were, there would be no law suit (lawyers aren’t THAT dumb). Why not read the articles before weighing in so adamantly? It seems the suit was mostly prompted by follow up testing of Brown Harris brokers by the Fair Housing Justice Center. It’s a class action suit & this couple is mostly just a catalyst to make sure brokers aren’t acting in a discriminating manner towards any people with children. They’re suing because Brown Harris was breaking the law. It seems entirely reasonable to me.
(And I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t got no kids.)
My point was that if the city council had made it cheaper to deal with the lead issue (and absolved the landlords of liability), the landlords wouldn’t have such a HUGE financial incentive to disobey the law — the law is really expensive. If you were a landlord, faced with doing renovations that would not increase the rents for your unit, and would cost 2 years of rent, you’d tell the broker ‘no kids’ too.
city council? that makes no sense and this is stupid. if you are a landlord you must follow the law. if you have a 2 unit place then you are not protected or covered under the law so do what you want. if you are a broker you are licensed to uphold whatever laws are there to protect and defend. people get a life. sounds like they were steered away from a rental that didn’t want kids but the broker didn’t know this so they got caught in the middle. why would the broker have shown the place to them to begin with (insistent or not as the article in the times indicates) if indeed they knew the landlord would say no? sounds like imcompetency and lack of communication all around.
people with kids pay rent just like people without kids…i dont see the big deal. grownups often times are louder than kids, anyway. people can’t choose your neighbors, only your neighborhood. i like to think that this also applies to landlords, but i guess most are crotchety.
I wouldn’t want to rent to a couple with a baby — 1) lead paint, 2) noise, 3) stroller in hall issue and 4) they’re only their for the 2 years bcs then the next baby is on the way and they need a bigger place.
And hey — that’s my right. I own a brownstone. I can’t believe landlords in larger bldgs give two shits.
10:33 – obviously you didn’t read the comments that a building where the owners live there and is 3 units or less does not have to follow Fair Housing Laws
Nowhere in this article did they clarify what type of buildings these rentals were in, but given neighborhoods there is a very good chance these were rentals where the owners were living there.