It
was 1966. John, a Black factory worker, applied to rent a home in a White area.
The landlord refused to rent to him. John sued based on race. David Warren
hated Blacks, the landlord. But he testified he did not refuse to rent to John
because he was Black. John did not win the case.
John
went to the Department of Justice. The Department had a White and Black factory
worker with the same salary apply to rent from Warren. The White was approved.
The Black was denied. The Black person sued. Attorney James said the Black person could not
sue because he never intended to rent from Warren. The Court created Tester
Standing and the Black factory worker won.
A
tester can test if a landlord is complying with the law without any desire to
rent. The tester can bring a lawsuit. This is tester standing.
Courts
have decided that disability groups and their members can be testers for Fair
Housing Act and ADA lawsuits. The UAAAC is a tester based on the laws. Most
people with disabilities are too afraid to sue. Minorities with disabilities
fear that they will suffer the same as Theodore Arthur Pinnock. The White Legal
community tried to crush him. But a person can only destroy herself or himself.
God endowed Theodore Arthur with an unbreakable mind and spirit.
We
need more testers to sue wealthy landlords. Residential secretly hate the
"crippled.". Lawsuits with brave testers reveal the hate.
Below
the UAAAC has provided legal support for being a tester. It will sue any entity
or person saying it is extorting money by filing lawsuits.
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. Hospitality...,
867 F.3d 1093 (2017) decided plaintiffs suing under Title III of the ADA have
“tester standing.” In Havens Realty Corp.
v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372–74, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d
214 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that testers have standing to
sue under Sections 804(d) and 812(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
3604(d), 3612(a). The
Court first noted that Section 804(d) prohibits representations “to any
person because of race” that a dwelling is unavailable, when in fact it is
available. Id.
at 373, 102 S.Ct. 1114. The Court reasoned that
Section 804(d) “establishes an enforceable right to truthful information
concerning the availability of housing,” and that an invasion of this right
causes harm that is potentially cognizable under Article III. Id.
at 373–74, 102 S.Ct. 1114. Whereas Congress in Section
804(a) required a “bona fide offer” to rent or purchase before a plaintiff
could sue for discriminatory refusal to sell or rent, it included no such
limitation in Section 804(d). Id.
at 374, 102 S.Ct. 1114. The Court relied on this
absence of limiting language to hold that plaintiffs who “pose as renters or
purchasers for the purpose of collecting evidence of unlawful steering
practices” have standing to sue for violations of Section 804(d). Id.
at 373–75, 102 S.Ct. 1114.
The Ninth Circuit have held that the disabled may assert tester
standing under the FHA. After Havens Realty was
decided, Congress amended the FHA to specifically prohibit discrimination on
the basis of “handicap” in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or
rental of a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. §
3604(f)(2). Following the reasoning of Havens Realty, the
Ninth Circuit held that tester standing was available under this provision. Smith v. Pac.
Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1102–04 (9th Cir.
2004). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, as with the provision at issue
in Havens Realty, § 3604(f)(2) was
by its terms not limited to bona fide purchasers. Id.
at 1104. The Ninth Circuit held that “[i]nterpreting § 3604(f)(2) to
exclude [testers] from enforcing their right to be free from discrimination
undermines the specific intent of the [Fair Housing Act Amendments], which is
to prevent disabled individuals from feeling as if they are second-class
citizens.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that motivation is irrelevant to the
question of standing under Title III of the ADA.
No comments:
Post a Comment