Three Applicants, One Duplex, and a Bad Instruction
Marco owns a duplex at 1215 4th Avenue and hired Jenna's property management firm. Marco told Jenna: "Keep this quiet, but no kids in the upstairs unit - the last tenants' kids destroyed it." The upstairs unit is 900 square feet, two bedrooms, $1,150 per month. Applicant A is a married couple with three children, ages 4, 7, and 9, with combined gross income of $4,400 per month. Applicant B is a woman with a hearing-ear dog; she asked that the $300 pet fee and the "no pets" clause be waived and provided a letter from her audiologist. Applicant C, a Black man, toured the unit Saturday; Jenna told him it had "just been rented," then showed it to Applicant A two hours later. Jenna's ad reads: "Quiet, mature, Christian household preferred - perfect for a single professional."
1. Can Jenna follow Marco's instruction about children? Analyze Applicant A's file.
Read the worked answer
No. Familial status is a protected class under the federal Fair Housing Act and under North Dakota's Human Rights Act. A blanket "no children" rule - and a rule barring children from one unit - is discrimination on its face. Marco's motive (past damage) is irrelevant; the remedy is a lease, a deposit, and inspections applied to everyone.
Occupancy limits must be reasonable and applied uniformly. A widely used benchmark is two persons per bedroom plus one, which for a two-bedroom allows five - exactly Applicant A's household. The unit is 900 square feet, so there is no square-footage argument for excluding them either.
Income: $1,150 rent against $4,400 gross is about 26%, well inside a customary three-times-rent standard of $3,450. Applicant A qualifies on the objective criteria.
Jenna must refuse the instruction, tell Marco in writing that it is unlawful and that the firm will not follow it, and document both. If Marco insists, the firm should terminate the management agreement rather than discriminate.
2. How should Jenna handle Applicant B's dog and the pet fee?
Read the worked answer
The dog is a service animal, not a pet. A reasonable accommodation is required: waive the $300 pet fee and the no-pets clause, and allow the animal in the unit.
Documentation: the landlord may ask for reliable documentation of the disability-related need only where the disability or the need is not obvious. An audiologist's letter is sufficient; Jenna may not demand medical records, a diagnosis, or a specific training certificate, and may not ask about the nature of the disability.
Two limits worth stating. The tenant remains responsible for any damage the animal causes and for the animal's behavior, so normal lease obligations apply. And if the animal were an ordinary pet, the fee and no-pets rule would stand - this answer turns on the animal's status, which is why the request should be handled as an accommodation request, documented, and answered in writing within a reasonable time. Denying it outright would be a violation.
3. Evaluate the advertisement and Jenna's conduct toward Applicant C.
Read the worked answer
The ad is discriminatory. "Christian household preferred" expresses a religious preference - religion is a protected class, and discriminatory advertising is itself a violation regardless of whether anyone complains. "Mature" and "single professional" are well-understood signals excluding families with children, which taints the ad on familial status. The ad must be pulled immediately; acceptable copy describes the property, not the neighbors' religion, age, or family makeup.
Jenna's conduct toward Applicant C is worse: telling him the unit was "just been rented," then showing it two hours later to a white family, is a discriminatory refusal and, given the timing, evidence of disparate treatment. Fair-housing testers document exactly this pattern, and Jenna's statement will be discoverable in her own file notes.
Exposure runs to Marco as owner, to Jenna, and to the brokerage, which has a duty to train and supervise. The manager should stop the conduct, document the applicants' files uniformly, adopt a written fair-housing and reasonable-accommodation policy, and consider self-reporting. A complaint to HUD or the state human rights agency carries real damages, and the firm's failure to train will be an aggravating factor.