CASE #1: Fair Housing Council of Orange County v. Ayres (1994) Pg125 in Textbook

CASE SUMMARY: A landlord had an occupancy restriction of two people per unit. It was alleged to have a disparate impact on families with children were denied rental if there were more than two people in the household. Couples who had children while they were tenants were forced to leave. The Court indicated that this was a prima facie case of discrimination; therefore, the defendant had a burden to show legitimate nondiscriminatory justification for the restriction. The defendant failed to show such a reason. The defendant indicated that the purpose was to protect the units against excessive wear and tear. The Court pointed out that this purpose could have been accomplished with higher security deposit, greater care in tenant selection, and more frequent inspections to protect the premises.

Questions regarding this Case:

1) Which Federal Law do you think the Court was using for the basis of their finding discrimination in this scenario? List what protected classes are covered with this Law, and which of those protected classes was shown discrimination in this case?

2) What type(s) of "specially designated" communities are allowed exemption from what this Law was protecting in this case? What are the basic requirements for this designation?

3) Do you think there is an example where Apartment rules could be made regarding children's use of facilities that would not be considered discriminatory (Hint: safety), either provide an example of one or state why there is no example.