Opinion ID: 358288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Steering.

Text: 3 The district judge found significant evidence to show that the defendants had steered blacks to a particular section of the apartment complex. 1 The complex, located on eight acres, is comprised of 18 buildings with 12 apartments in each building. Between 1973 and 1975, ninety-five percent of all blacks renting in the complex were rented apartments in the same section comprised of four buildings at a remote end of the complex. Fifty-three percent of all black tenants were located in the same building within this section. Black tenants testified that they were shown apartments only in this section. Vacant apartments in the white section were not shown, offered, or made available to blacks. Blacks who requested apartments with different color carpeting or in a different location were told that no other vacancies existed when other apartments were in fact available. Blacks occasionally had to wait for an apartment in the section to be repaired or cleaned when other apartments in other sections were available for immediate occupancy. Blacks who desired to change apartments within the complex were told that no other apartments were available. In one instance a black tenant was forced to move when his apartment became unhabitable. Although there were vacant apartments in the white section, he was not offered one of them. 4 The district judge's finding that the government proved a pattern or practice of discrimination was not clearly erroneous. Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) an agent or owner may not refuse to sell or rent after a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rent of a dwelling, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Steering blacks to a particular group of apartments in a complex effectively denies access to equal housing opportunities. See U. S. v. Henshaw Bros., 401 F.Supp. 399 (E.D.Va.1974.) The Fair Housing Act prohibits not only direct discrimination but practices with racially discouraging effects; steering evidences an intent to influence the choice of the renter on an impermissible racial basis. Zuch v. Hussey,394 F.Supp. 1028 (E.D.Mich., 1975), Aff'd 547 F.2d 1168 (CA6, 1977). The government need only establish that race was a consideration and played some role in the real estate transaction. Moore v. Townsend, 525 F.2d 482 (CA7, 1975). 5 The fact that a large majority of Mitchell's black tenants were clustered in a defined area is highly probative of a § 3604(a) violation. Statistics, although not dispositive, have critical, if not decisive significance. U. S. v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 518 F.2d 884 (CA5, 1975), Cert. denied, 424 U.S. 977, 96 S.Ct. 1483, 47 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976). Therefore, a significant discriminatory effect flowing from rental decisions is sufficient to demonstrate a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (CA7, 1977). Conduct that has the necessary and foreseeable consequence of perpetuating segregation can be as deleterious as purposefully discriminatory conduct in frustrating the national commitment (to fair housing). Id. at 1289. The district court's decision, based on statistical evidence and evidence of actions that effectively confined blacks to a section of the complex, is therefore consistent with the requirements of § 3604(a). 2 See U. S. v. Pelzer Realty Co., 484 F.2d 438, 443 (CA5, 1973), Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1935, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974), After remand, 537 F.2d 841 (CA5, 1976) (Pelzer II ) (Fair Housing Act prohibits acts with discriminatory impact regardless of intent). 6