"No Vouchers, No Kids, and Ideal for Young Professionals"
Walter owns a 12-unit building in Ward 4 and tells his licensee, Kim: "No vouchers, no families with kids under 18, and put 'ideal for young professionals, quiet building' in the ad. And when people call about the two-bedroom, ask what they do for a living first, so we don't get the wrong element." Kim writes the ad with "ideal for young professionals" and "quiet, professional building," and tells callers the owner "prefers tenants who don't rely on subsidies." A prospective tenant with a Housing Choice Voucher and two children is turned away and files a complaint. Separately, Kim's new buyer client says she wants a "safe neighborhood, not too many rentals," and Kim has been showing her homes in only two census tracts.
1. Identify every legal problem in the rental side of this file and the legal basis for each.
Read the worked answer
Four distinct problems, some overlapping.
1. Source-of-income discrimination. The DC Human Rights Act prohibits housing discrimination based on source of income, which includes Housing Choice Vouchers and other lawful subsidy. "No vouchers" is an explicit refusal to rent on that basis. The standard defensive line - "the owner prefers" - does not matter; the owner's preference is the discriminatory practice.
2. Familial status discrimination. Refusing families with children under 18 violates both the federal Fair Housing Act and DC law, with narrow exceptions for qualifying senior housing. "No kids" is a textbook violation.
3. Discriminatory advertising. "Ideal for young professionals" is a flagged phrase; paired with "no families with kids" in the owner's instruction, it signals exclusion of families. Advertising must describe the property, not screen the people.
4. Discriminatory screening by inquiry. Asking occupation first, at the owner's direction and for the stated purpose of excluding "the wrong element," is a pretext for screening on protected characteristics and creates direct evidence in call records.
Kim has personal exposure: she wrote the ad and repeated the subsidy statement to callers. "The owner told me to" is not a defense - it is evidence she knew the intent.
2. What should Kim have done at each step, and what does she do now that a complaint is filed?
Read the worked answer
At intake: when the owner gave the instruction, Kim should have said, in writing: "I can market the unit and screen on lawful criteria - income relative to rent, credit, references, criminal history within DC's limits. I cannot advertise or screen on vouchers, children, or occupation as a proxy. I can't run this ad."
On the ad: describe the unit - square footage, renovations, parking, lease term, pet policy. "Quiet building" alone is fine; stacked with "ideal for young professionals" it reads as a familial-status screen.
On calls: apply the same written criteria to every applicant, keep a log of inquiries, and never repeat the owner's preference to consumers.
Now that a complaint exists:
- Preserve everything: the ad, the listing agreement, texts with the owner, call logs. Destruction is far worse than the underlying error.
- Do not contact the complainant directly to "work it out."
- Notify the managing broker and the firm's counsel immediately; the complaint may proceed through the DC Office of Human Rights and/or HUD, and there are short response deadlines.
- Correct the marketing now and document the correction.
- If the owner insists on the original instruction, Kim should decline the listing rather than continue. Commission discipline for Fair Housing violations follows the licensee, and cooperating with a client's discriminatory instruction is itself the violation.
3. Evaluate the buyer side: the client's "safe neighborhood, not too many rentals" request and Kim's showing pattern.
Read the worked answer
This is steering, and the client's stated preference is not a license for it.
The request. "Safe neighborhood" and "not too many rentals" are common client language that frequently correlates with race or national origin. Kim's job is to convert the preference into objective criteria she can lawfully act on: price, commute, square footage, school assignment, reported crime data the client can review herself, lot size, HOA rules. She should say so out loud and document it - "I show homes based on your criteria, not on the demographics of the neighborhood."
The conduct. Showing only two census tracts is the textbook pattern that steering claims are built on. If comparable homes meeting the client's lawful criteria exist elsewhere, Kim must show them. The client can decline to see a property; Kim cannot pre-screen geography to produce the outcome the client hinted at.
Documentation that protects her: a written buyer criteria sheet, a log of homes sent (including those the buyer rejected), and notes of the conversation where she reframed the request.
Reminder to the client, in writing: she is entitled to choose a home; Kim will not select or exclude neighborhoods based on who lives there. If the client insists on demographic filtering, Kim should escalate to her broker - this is a representation she should not continue on those terms.