Nonprofit finds bias against African Americans over telephone

By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter

Complaints by a Bay Area nonprofit against several rental properties in Benicia, Vallejo and Richmond alleging race discrimination have been settled, the agency’s staff attorney said.

The four companies involved in the lawsuit will pay an aggregate of $38,000 as part of the settlement, said Jessica Tankersley Sparks, attorney for Fair Housing of Marin (FHOM), a nonprofit based in San Rafael.

The complaints stemmed from 2011 audits conducted by FHOM, with the help of Legal Services of Northern California, that focused on race-voice identification to determine if housing providers discriminated against African-American callers.

“The incidents at the heart of these administrative complaints occurred in the 2011 calendar year,” Sparks said.

The audits took place throughout January through March of that year, she said, and “we reached settlements in these complaints between June and November 2012.

“Each of the settlements included a requirement that all of the housing providers’ local staff had to undergo comprehensive fair housing training, as well as agree to abide by the federal and state anti-discrmination laws in the future,” she said.

Sparks said California, when compared to many other states, has codified “strong protections against housing discrimination.”

Fair housing protection was introduced federally in 1866, and in 1948 the U.S. Supreme Court said racially restrictive covenants for real estate were unenforceable.

California’s Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act in 1963, outlawing restrictive covenants and the refusal to rent or sell property because of race, ethnicity, gender, marital status or physical disability.

When a referendum passed an amendment that allowed property owners to deny equal access to minorities, the state Supreme Court, later backed by the U.S. Supreme Court, said the amendment violated provisions for equal protection and due process.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed the issue as well, but strong enforcement wasn’t provided until the Fair Housing Act, enforced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was passed in 1968, outlawing discrimination in selling, renting or providing privileges at a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Disability and familial status were added in 1988.

“However, simply because there are laws on the books prohibiting discrimination does not mean that discrimination no longer exists,” Sharp said. In fact, her agency has been conducting audits of possible discrimination for the past 18 years.

Historically, the audit report said, “these audits suggest that discrimination on the basis of race during phone contact continues to be pervasive.”

According to the report, FHOM conducted the 2011 audits under a contract with HUD.

Sparks said FHOM staff conducted multiple tests at each of the specific rental properties to confirm the initial indications that African-American callers were being treated differently from others.

The 2010 U.S. Census indicated that Solano County is 51 percent white, and African Americans, the largest minority in the county, account for 14.7 percent of the population, more than double the state average.

Vallejo is the most racially diverse of the county’s cities, the suit contended, with a population that is 36 percent white, 23.7 percent black, 15.9 Hispanic, 24.2 percent Asian and 6.6 percent multiple-race.

Benicia is 78.9 percent white, 9 percent Hispanic, 7.6 percent Asian, 5.2 percent mixed-race and 4.8 percent African American.

The audit report said FHOM paired white and black testers into teams matched by age and gender. Of the paired testers, the African Americans were assigned slightly higher incomes than their white partners, but otherwise had identical profiles and asked for identical apartments.

Seven properties in Benicia were tested, and another 10 in Vallejo. In 40 pairs of tests in Solano County, the report indicated, “there were no paired tests in which on balance the discrepancies favored the African-American tester.”

The report said 13 of the tests showed clear differential treatment favoring the white caller; 11 more tests showed some favoring of the Caucasians, 13 were inconclusive and only 8 percent showed no differential treatment.

“This, in 24 out of 40 tests (60 percent), the African-American tester experienced at least some differential or disadvantageous treatment,” the report said.

During the audits, the African Americans received information about less advantageous terms and conditions, while white callers were given more flexible terms and options. Differences included rent prices, the size of security deposits, descriptions of amenities, minimum income requirements, move-in specials, speed of application processing, information about availability of units and appointment times to view apartments.

Sparks said FHOM wanted to make sure the results “were not simply an aberration, but instead indicated a general practice.”

She said the settlements affected 180 units in Benicia, but the sites weren’t listed in the report.

“I do not know the race or ethnic background of the representatives from the housing providers who were parties to these settlements,” Sparks said.

“The four housing providers against whom we filed complaints, and with whom we ultimately settled those complaints, are not related entities,” she said.

Though FHOM provides direct client counseling in Sonoma and Marin counties, Sparks said, “We conduct our systemic investigations throughout the Bay Area, depending on where we’ve identified the need for strong fair housing advocacy.”

She said the agency’s investigations are continuing. “Through our work with clients who have been denied housing opportunities, we know that even in 2013, some housing providers continue to treat people differently because of their race, national origin, familial status, disability or some other immutable or arbitrary characteristic.”

The audit report recommends providing audit results to officials for remedial action, to advocacy groups to use as an educational tool, and to the public. It urges monitoring sites where there was an indication of differential treatment.

FHOM may take further action if discrimination of African Americans can be confirmed, the report said, and those involved in the housing industry, from real estate agents to property management firms and housing associations, should consider funding further studies.

While the affected properties had to pay as part of the settlement, Sparks said the training portion of the settlement is at least as important as the money.

“At FHOM, we believe that a key component of eliminating housing discrimination is education,” she said, “educating not only housing providers on their legal obligation not to discriminate, but also educating tenants and prospective purchasers on their rights as well as educating the community at large on the value of diversity in our neighborhoods.”