Opinion ID: 580819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of Fair Housing Act and Exemptions

Text: 15 The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, was designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and to assure fair housing practices. In 1974, sex was added as a protected class but otherwise the statute remained basically unchanged until 1988. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). In 1988, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to extend its protection to handicapped persons. Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, P.L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619 (1988) (FHAA ). Congress recognized that discrimination against the handicapped is most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference--of benign neglect. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 105 S.Ct. 712, 717, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985). The House Report states: 16 The Fair Housing Amendments Act, like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, is a clear pronouncement of a national commitment to end the unnecessary exclusion of persons with handicaps from the American mainstream. It repudiates the use of stereotypes and ignorance, and mandates that persons with handicaps be considered as individuals. Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusion. 17 H.R.Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 18, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2179 [hereinafter House Report ]. In general, the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful 18 (1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap.... 19 (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap.... 20 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) and (2). 21 The FHA, however, contains a number of exemptions, which, if applicable, remove the alleged violation from the coverage of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (except as exempted by section[ ] ... 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful.... ). In this case, appellees claim that the exemption relating to maximum occupancy limitations is applicable. This exemption provides: Nothing in this subchapter limits the applicability of any reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1). 22 While we conclude that the exemption applies in this case, 5 we note that any exemptions contained in the Act are to be construed narrowly. See United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877, 883 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2797, 115 L.Ed.2d 971 (1991); United States v. Hughes Memorial Home, 396 F.Supp. 544, 550 (W.D.Va.1975) (In view of the Supreme Court's holding that the Fair Housing Act must be accorded a generous construction, the general principle requiring the strict reading of exemptions from the Act applies here with even greater force.) (citation omitted). In fact, none of the few courts that have considered the exemptions have found them applicable. See, e.g., United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877(3d Cir. 1990), (religious organization exemption and private club exemption); United States v. Hughes Memorial Home, 396 F.Supp. 544 (W.D.Vir.1975) (religious organization exemption); Park Place Home Brokers v. P-K Mobile Home Park, 773 F.Supp. 46 (N.D.Ohio 1991) (housing for older persons exemption); Lanier v. Fairfield Communities, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 1533 (M.D.Fla.1990) (housing for older persons). Acknowledging the narrowness of the exemption, we turn to § 3607.