Today in America sex discrimination in housing is "against the Law". Indeed sex bias violates many laws, providing the multiple remedies generally conceded to be indispensable to fulfilling the stated commitment to a truly "free and open society". [2]

What are these laws and multiple remedies? That's the subject of this chapter. What is needed to fuel these statutes to blunt effectively the force of sexism in the housing market? That's the subject of the next chapter.

Many women told the Panels in the five cities of their feeling the sting of sex discrimination. Almost none knew their options under the Law to do something about it.

Know The Law: Federal Fair Housing Law
Option 1

You can file a complaint simply by picking up
the phone. [3]

800-424-8590 will not get a woman a room in a Holiday Inn anywhere in the country. Another toll-free number does that. But it can, since August 22, 1974, help free thousands of residences from the clutches of sex discrimination.

For on this date President Ford signed the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act which, among many things, extended the Federal Fair Housing Act, also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Federal Fair Housing Law, enacted as a part of omnibus civil rights legislation during the riot-swept summer of 1968, proclaims

It [to be] the policy of the United States to provide
for fair housing throughout the United States.

From its inception the Act prohibited discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin but not sex. As Senator William Brock explained to the Senate Subcommittee of Housing and Urban Affairs in 1973:

Five years ago when the Fair Housing Act was passed,
what problems that were recognized in this area [sex
discrimination] were seen as individual rather than
systemic. In the years since the passage of the Act,
it has become increasingly evident that prohibition
against discrimination on account of sex should have
been included in the Act, and I now seek to remedy
this omission. [4]

Thanks to the efforts of Senator Brock and Representative Leonor Sullivan in the House, Congress did remedy this omission in 1974. One result: a woman who honestly feels she has been discriminated against because of her sex in renting or buying can get Federal help by simply calling, day or night, the toll-free 800-424-8590. Any day of the week this number plugs the caller into the investigative

resources of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency with the major responsibility for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act.

When it receives a complaint, either in writing or over its toll-free "hot line", HUD does the investigating through its 10 Regional Offices covering the 50 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The complainant is not required to know "all the facts" to prove the guilt of the wrongdoer. It is HUD's job to get the information it needs to attempt to secure the shelter or get damages or both through informal, confidential conciliations. And HUD's responsibility is broad since the Federal Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful, on account of sex [and race, color, religion or national origin] to

In calling HUD's attention to unlawful conduct, the woman should act promptly. The unit may get rented or sold, eliminating one element of possible relief. And if she delays more than 180 days after the alleged discrimination, there may be nothing HUD can do about it. [5]

The woman complainant has little to lose in calling HUD ... and a lot to gain. "During the last half of Fiscal 1974", according to former HUD Assistant Secretary Toote, "we more than doubled the amount recovered by claimants in our conciliation efforts [in race and ethnic discrimination cases] to $125,000." [6]

Eight months after the enactment of the sex amendment to the Act, only two hundred women had filed complaints charging sex bias in a housing transaction. [7] This is

a small number considering that such complaints may touch on almost any part of the market-place where shelter gets distributed in this country, [8] and any phase of the transaction. Yet the passage of the 1974 Amendment received little publicity, and no major campaign has been mounted to overcome this.

HUD's administrative machinery relies on prompt investigating and skillful conciliating. In some cases either one or both is lacking. In other cases, neither is strong enough medicine. When that happens, there is little more HUD itself can do, lacking as it does "cease and desist" power or the authority to fine. While the victim unsuccessful at conciliation can go to court, the Agency's only alternative is a reference of the matter, if appropriate, to the U.S. Department of Justice for action.

Unlike HUD, the Justice Department can seek the court's help in remedying housing discrimination where there is reasonable cause to believe

(a)

there is a pattern or practice of sex dis-
crimination, or

(b) the denial of rights protected by the Act
raises "an issue of general public impor-
tance".

[9]

Using the Act's broad sweep, the U.S.Attorney General has secured relief in a variety of cases involving race discrimination. At least one sex suit is pending.

Perhaps of most importance is the option of the victim to go directly to court. This litigation power, plus

the Attorney General's authority to bring a "public" action, have been the "main generating forces" in the fight for fair housing throughout the United States. Commenting on the importance of this option, former HUD Secretary Lynn told the House Appropriations Subcommittee last year,

As a person who practiced law for a fair period of time,
as did Dr. Toote, both of us feel that that form of en-
forcement may very well turn out to be for the longer haul
far more effective than our complaint procedures. A body of
law is developing that says, for example, that no matter how
small the actual damages were, the defendant, if he is found
to have sinned under these laws, has to pay reasonable attor-
ney fees to the plaintiff. That can be quite an incentive
for a person to settle very quickly. [10]

On

As a result of this litigation, many fundamental propositions are now firmly embedded in fair housing law. these, sex litigation can confidently build. They include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

admitting evidence of "checking" or

"testing" [11] as well as statistics to
prove a prima facie case; [12]

establishing that race (or sex) need
not be the only reason for the gate-
keeper's conduct -- it being sufficient
to show that race (or sex) is merely
one of a number of otherwise valid
business factors; [13]

establishing that discrimination in-
cludes not just blatant or simple-
minded bigotry but sophisticated
schemes as well; [14]

establishing that evidence of discrimi-
nation, occurring before such conduct was
prohibited, is nonetheless admissible to
show the policy persists, [15] and

awarding damages, both actual and puni-
tive, with its likely deterrent to fur-
ther discrimination, [16] as well as
attorney's fees. [17]

With these principles in place and with HUD's administrative machinery crippled by a lack of enforcement bite and State referral requirements [18], women and the practising bar -- are likely to look (and wisely so) to the proven tool of federal litigation for protection of their new claims to equal housing opportunity at last "guaranteed" by the Federal Fair Housing Act.

HUD, in turn, should minimize the use of its resources on the processing of individual complaints, many of which (based on our Hearings) are likely to come from rental transactions where HUD's admittedly time-consuming procedures are least likely to be effective. A more promising use of scarce resources would involve such tools as compliance reviews and affirmative action where HUD, rather than the victim, would be the initiator.

As one witness told the Panel in Atlanta: