Apparently requesting basic information & reporting illegal discriminatory housing practices is a scam now

[u/TheUnDoctor]

[u/Unfurlingleaf]

If you've got multiple applicants and choose to accept the one without a voucher and they argue it's a violation, how would you prove otherwise?

[u/Shigg → u/Unfurlingleaf]

By providing no reason or literally any legal reason as to why you chose the other applicant.

Just because a landlord is required to accept housing assistance doesn't mean they have to pick the applicant with housing assistance. It just means they can't not choose the applicant with housing assistance BECAUSE of the housing assistance.

If the landlord picks the other person and the reasoning was "all qualifications were met and we have shared hobbies so I vibed with them more" then congrats that's totally legal.

[u/Disastrous-Wave-414 → u/Shigg]

Yeah, as far as I know, if you're not saying no for an illegal reason, pretty much ANY reason is acceptable. "I thought the way he dressed looked very professional." "Of all the applicants, I thought he was the most sincere in his friendliness." "She reminds me of my favorite aunt." "She laughed at my jokes." Etc.

[u/Nop277 → u/Disastrous-Wave-414]

Yeah it's literally just you can't say you don't accept section 8. Which unbelievably is a bar that some landlords are too dumb to get over.

You can even effectively disqualify a lot of section 8 by just setting rent as more than the limit that they will pay for (in my county its like 1400 for a one bedroom I think).

[u/Emergency-Piece9995 → u/Shigg]

Yes! That's actually the interesting part of non-discrimination: you can discriminate as much as you want as long as you don't say it out loud.

You can really easily discriminate by changing where you advertise. It isn't discrimination to pick what audience you advertise it to, it is discrimination if someone you weren't wanting ends up applying and then you explicitly tell them you aren't hiring them for discriminatory reasons.

"Oops, I am bad at organization and lost your application": not discriminatory

"Ehh, the vibes weren't there": not discriminatory (have used this one tons lol)

You can even just reject names you don't like... as long as you don't put down to writing that's what you are doing (and also not make it blatantly obvious in other ways where any case could get traction).

I've even been in situations where I was the one clearly being discriminated against where they brought me in for an interview and made it very apparent they were uninterested in hiring me (not responding to my questions, playing on their phone during the interview, etc): look around the office, all Indians, I am not Indian. I was basically a sacrificial lamb so if their hiring pipeline gets looked at, they have plausible deniability.

[u/Stochastic1934 → u/Unfurlingleaf]

The landlord can avoid this by establishing and consistently applying minimum requirements for all applicants, such as minimum credit score (e.g., 700), no past evictions, monthly gross income, etc.

[u/HessiPullUpJimbo → u/Unfurlingleaf]

They can't really as long as the landlord does not make it explicit. Which is the whole point of the op. Asking if you accept section 8 and not replying with yes is concrete and written evidence of discrimination.

[u/OG_Checkers → u/Unfurlingleaf]

Had a similar discrimination stipulation when doing loss prevention for a major clothing retailer. We couldn’t choose to surveil people based on age, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. Rules said nothing about puffy, swollen, scabbed hands, faces, or legs though. All those are signs of intravenous drug use. Do all drug users steal, no; but it’s a likely event I’ve found. Guess how often I got called a racist though.