The Owner's 'Quiet Building' Instructions
Rosa is a licensed salesperson whose firm holds an exclusive agency agreement on a 12-unit building in Rochester. The owner, Hal, hands her four instructions: (1) 'No Section 8 - those vouchers always bring problems'; (2) 'Keep the second floor for adults only, no kids'; (3) 'Don't bother with the woman in the wheelchair who called - the entrance has three steps'; (4) 'Put in the ad: perfect for quiet, responsible professionals.' A current tenant has also asked, at her own expense, to install a grab bar in her bathroom; Hal refused, saying it would ruin the tile. The building has four vacancies and Rosa needs the listings to move.
1. Evaluate each of Hal's four instructions. Which can Rosa lawfully carry out?
Read the worked answer
None of the four can be carried out as stated.
- 'No Section 8.' Lawful source of income is a protected class under the New York State Human Rights Law (and under local ordinances in much of the state). Refusing voucher holders is unlawful discrimination, even though federal fair housing law does not itself list source of income.
- 'Adults only, no kids.' Familial status is protected under both the federal Fair Housing Act and state law. The only exception is qualifying senior housing (55+ or 62+ communities meeting the statutory test); a general 12-unit building does not qualify.
- Dismissing the wheelchair caller. Disability discrimination. Three steps at the entrance signal a possible reasonable modification, but that is a discussion Rosa must have, not a reason to decline a showing.
- 'Perfect for quiet, responsible professionals.' Standing alone this is not a listed protected class, but in context - issued alongside a no-children instruction - it is evidence of intent to exclude families, and discriminatory advertising is prohibited regardless of intent. Rewrite the ad to describe objective features of the unit and building.
2. How should Rosa handle the wheelchair caller and the grab bar request?
Read the worked answer
Both are reasonable accommodation / reasonable modification matters, and both run through the owner, with Rosa as the conduit.
The caller. Rosa should schedule the showing, offer to meet at the entrance, and discuss what would make the unit usable. She may not ask about the nature or severity of a disability; she may ask for documentation only where the need is not obvious.
The grab bar. A grab bar installed at the tenant's own expense is a classic reasonable modification. Hal may only refuse if it would impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter the housing; 'it ruins the tile' does not meet that bar, and the tenant can be required to restore the condition at move-out.
Rosa should put the request and Hal's response in writing, keep her broker informed, and never promise what the owner has not agreed to. If Hal refuses, Rosa should not relay a refusal as final without flagging the legal exposure.
3. What is Rosa's own exposure if she simply follows Hal's directions, and what should she do?
Read the worked answer
'The owner told me to' is not a defense. A licensee who implements a discriminatory instruction can be found to have aided and abetted discrimination and faces civil penalties and testing-driven complaints, plus discipline by the Department of State under the license law.
Rosa should:
- Decline to run the ad or apply the screening criteria, and say why in writing.
- Advise Hal in writing that source-of-income, familial-status, and disability restrictions violate state and federal law, and copy her broker.
- Document the wheelchair inquiry and the accommodation request and show that both were handled properly.
- Escalate to the managing broker; if Hal insists, the firm should consider withdrawing from the listing rather than continuing under unlawful terms.
The practical test: would Rosa be comfortable reading her file aloud at a deposition? Following an unlawful instruction makes her a party to it, not a bystander.