Background Check Policies for Apartment Applicants May Be Illegal...New HUD Guidance
[{"id": "d2itat5", "text": "Not illegal. Just not advised if it promotes a disparate impact. They advise to strongly take a look at the criteria. It's only illegal if the law changes or if it is challenged in court. These are just that. Guidance.", "replies": [{"id": "d2jdpcd", "text": "thanks for your feedback! feel free to leave a comment on our site.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "d2kp67f", "text": "it is still troubling that this is HUD's guidance.  One would also have to assume they will follow these same procedures when evaluating fair housing cases and they will creep into the guidebooks/policies for hud held or mortgaged properties.  \n\nYour are correct that until there is a specific court ruling regarding this we don't really know for certain, but they are saying they think they will win that case and they get to pick who to go after so its still something worth noting.", "replies": [{"id": "d2kpg13", "text": "I have to agree with their guidance however. Not in all locations, but given the failed war on drugs and war on crime, especially considering the high proportion of minorities affected, the standard criminal aspect will prove difficult to defend against if it disproportionately affects a protected class.\n\nThis is the warning. Change or be changed. But it is not illegal just yet. You just can't say we didn't tell you it would be when it is.", "replies": [{"id": "d2kr3rb", "text": "That article doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining it.  I don't disagree with anything you said, and suspect most landlords are already in compliance with their criminal background checks as the guidance here pretty much just to be reasonable.  So for example, not renting to someone with a small crime 50 years ago is probably not reasonable.  Not renting to someone who got out of jail for a murder rape last week, would be pretty reasonable.  The problem is there is more than a bit of gray area in between.  \n\nThis same line of reasoning is going to carry to other areas too.  This all comes out of that disparate impact case and having the 3 check test:  \n\n1.  Is the policy discriminatory towards some group (not necessarily intentionally, just does it affect one group more).\n\n2.  If yes, is there a valid business reason for it?  (so here you'd have to demonstrate presumably that the people you are excluding, do in fact cause more crime and hurt your income).  \n\n3.  If yes, is this the least discriminatory way to achieve the same goal?  (this one is more troubling, that can have a lot of conjecture in it.  If my business goal is to have low crime, are they going to get up my ass that I don't invest in video cameras or secure building entrances which may be a more effective way?)  \n\nI could see this reasoning creeping into many many different housing policies, and there is a certain vagueness to all of it that is going to be up to someones opinion at some point, and that person is going to be hud and a court not a property owner.  \n\nIf they think criminal history should be capped off as a determining factor at a certain point, I'd really be fine with that, but pass a law that does that and spells it out so we can comply with it.  This is just all so wishy washy ", "replies": [{"id": "d2ks1nm", "text": "Upvotes! I agree. I would rather just bring the hammer down and provide a clear cut path to follow. Then let the courts carve it this way or that to be ultimately fair. As it stands, \"guidance\" is too vague to be sure you are in compliance.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}]