Opinion ID: 562670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: SSHC's CHALLENGE TO THE REALTORS' CONDUCT RESPONDING TO

Text: THE APACHE STREET AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN 99 SSHC appeals from the trial court's conclusions of law that 1) the Realtors did not violate 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3606 when they initially excluded the Apache Street homes from the GSSBR multiple listing service and later required indemnification as a pre-condition to the inclusion of the listings, and 2) that the Realtors did not transgress 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617 as a result of the above behavior together with the disciplinary proceedings commenced against William Motluck, the real estate broker who attempted to sell the Apache Street homes. 14 A. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3606 100 Section 806 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3606, provides that: 101 After December 31, 1968, it shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple-listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or to discriminate against him in the terms or conditions of such access, membership, or participation, on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 102 SSHC contends that the Realtors (GSSBR and NAR) denied or conditioned access to GSSBR's multiple listing service on account of race because their conduct was based upon the fact that SSHC's affirmative marketing plan pertaining to the Apache Street homes constituted a special outreach to white home buyers. The trial court rejected SSHC's argument, finding that the Realtors' initial exclusion of the Apache Street homes from the MLS and the later requirement for indemnification as a condition for listing the homes were made in good faith based upon concerns that the Apache Street AMP constituted racial steering which was illegal and could result in potential liability for the multiple listing service or the MLS participants. See South-Suburban Housing Center, 713 F.Supp. at 1078-79. SSHC contends that these justifications are discriminatory by their very nature. 103 The question presented is whether the Realtors acted on account of race, when they restricted access to the multiple listing service. Because SSHC has argued this case on a disparate treatment, or intentional discrimination, theory, our task is to determine whether the trial court's finding that the exclusion of the SSHC's properties was not made on account of race is free from clear error. Cf. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (holding that question of intentional discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a factual question subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review). In reviewing the question of whether the Realtors restricted access to GSSBR's multiple listing service on account of race, we are without legal precedent to guide us, for no case law has been cited for us nor to our knowledge is there any. Thus, this is a case of first impression construing this section of the Fair Housing Act. 104 SSHC essentially claims that the Realtors excluded them from the multiple listing service because they sought to market their properties to white persons. We have previously determined that the Fair Housing Act permits SSHC to implement an affirmative marketing plan directed toward interested white persons concerning properties they would not ordinarily consider. But, the mere fact that the Fair Housing Act may permit SSHC to affirmatively market its properties to potential white customers falls short of requiring that a realtor adopt this sales practice rather than a color-blind marketing scheme. As we held in Village of Bellwood, a broker who engages in color-blind marketing and 105 responds to the customer's desires, is not discriminating against the customer, or denying the customer a dwelling, or misrepresenting to the customer the unavailability of a dwelling. The statute ... does not impose liability for failing to promote integration, or for failing to coordinate individual integrative acts that have an aggregate resegregative effect. If the broker treats all his customers the same, regardless of race, he is not liable. 106 Village of Bellwood, 895 F.2d at 1531. We cannot understand how a color-blind marketing policy could possibly constitute discrimination on account of race, nor can we fathom how the facts set forth in this record could be construed as establishing discrimination. Quite simply, the Fair Housing Act permits an AMP but does not require the Realtors or any other party to promulgate an affirmative marketing plan or to cooperate in another entity's implementation of such a plan. Thus, we are convinced that the Realtors did not violate 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3606 when they excluded the listings of the Apache Street homes from the MLS and later conditioned participation in the MLS on indemnification against potential legal action. B. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617 107 SSHC goes on to argue that the exclusion of its listings from GSSBR's multiple listing service, together with the Realtors' initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Motluck, interfered with SSHC's attempts to inform white persons of housing opportunities in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617 provides: 108 It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title. This section may be enforced by appropriate civil action. 109 SSHC argues that section 3617 provides for a cause of action for interfering with the enjoyment of fair housing rights that is independent of violations of the enumerated sections, but as the trial court held, the section does not under the circumstances of this case provide an independent ground for liability. South-Suburban Housing Center, 713 F.Supp. at 1080. In Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1288 n. 5 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1025, 98 S.Ct. 752, 54 L.Ed.2d 772 (1978), we declined to decide whether a violation of section 3617 can be established without first establishing a violation of sections 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606, but we held 110 that under the circumstances of this case, where the conduct that allegedly violated section 3617 is the same conduct that allegedly violated section 3604(a) and was engaged in by the same party, the validity of the section 3617 claim depends upon whether the [conduct] violated section 3604(a). 111 Id. The same reasoning is apropos here, since the conduct SSHC alleges violated section 3617 is the same conduct that we refused to hold violative of section 3606 above. 112 Thus, we agree with the trial court's finding that SSHC has failed to demonstrate interference with the aiding or encouraging of other persons in the exercise of rights under the Fair Housing Act. As previously discussed, the Fair Housing Act guarantees to all regardless of race, color or creed the right to equal treatment, not to preferential treatment. The Realtors never interfered with much less opposed white persons learning about, seeing or purchasing the Apache Street homes on an equal basis with black persons. They simply disagreed with the special outreach efforts to white persons that SSHC included in its AMP. Because the Realtors' conduct in limiting access to GSSBR's multiple listing service and in attempting to enforce their disciplinary rules against William Motluck do not limit SSHC's ability to aid[ ] or encourage white persons in their right to enjoy equal treatment in the housing market, the Realtors have complied with the mandates of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3617. 113