united-states rental-property fair-housing-acts human-rights
Is it legal to rent exclusively to members of a religious college?
<p>According to the Civil Rights act, one is not allowed to discriminate based on religion when it comes to housing.</p>

<p>What about one who wants to rent only to members of a certain religious institution (such as students in a religious seminary). </p>

<p>There are exemptions, and "justifications", in <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=2b148de25077248874b62c2fd7b5638a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=24%3A1.2.1.1.1;idno=24;cc=ecfr#se24.1.100_110" rel="nofollow">24 CFR 100</a>. The exemption is 100.10:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(c) Nothing in this part, other than the prohibitions against
  discriminatory advertising, applies to: </p>
  
  <p>(1) The sale or rental of any single family house by an owner,
  provided the following conditions are met: </p>
  
  <p>(i) The owner does not own or have any interest in more than three
  single family houses at any one time. </p>
  
  <p>(ii) The house is sold or rented without the use of a real estate
  broker, agent or salesperson or the facilities of any person in the
  business of selling or renting dwellings.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So such a restriction could be allowed if e.g. you live in the house and rent only a few rooms, or a single family home marketed and managed in the right way. There is also an exemption for religious organizations and private clubs allowing rental to members only.</p>

<p>100.500 lays the groundwork for disparate impact hot water. It says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(a) A practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or
  predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of persons or
  creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing
  patterns because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
  status, or national origin.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So only renting to students in a particular seminary would most likely have a disparate impact.</p>

<p>There is, however, the possibility of justifying the policy, following 100.500:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(b) (1) A legally sufficient justification exists where the challenged
  practice:</p>
  
  <p>(i) Is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate,
  nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent, with respect to claims
  brought under 42 U.S.C. 3612, or defendant, with respect to claims
  brought under 42 U.S.C. 3613 or 3614; and</p>
  
  <p>(ii) Those interests could not be served by another practice that has
  a less discriminatory effect.</p>
  
  <p>(2) A legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence
  and may not be hypothetical or speculative. The burdens of proof for
  establishing each of the two elements of a legally sufficient
  justification are set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this
  section.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So let's say that the offended party has made the case that the practice will have a discriminatory effect, then the accused can set forth the aforementioned justification:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(c)(2) Once the charging party or plaintiff satisfies the burden of
  proof set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the respondent or
  defendant has the burden of proving that the challenged practice is
  necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate,
  nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent or defendant.</p>
  
  <p>(c3)(3) If the respondent or defendant satisfies the burden of proof
  set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the charging party or
  plaintiff may still prevail upon proving that the substantial,
  legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged
  practice could be served by another practice that has a less
  discriminatory effect.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The crux of the matter is having a "substantial, legitimate nondiscriminatory interest", i.e. <em>why</em> would you want to rent to only seminary students.</p>

<p>This might be illegal under the theory of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact" rel="nofollow">disparate impact</a>.  </p>

<p>Although non-students might not be a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class" rel="nofollow">protected class</a> in and of themselves, your policy would tend to give a relative disadvantage to members of some protected classes, e.g. people with any religion other than that of the college, or people with no religion.  Depending on the demographics of the students, it might also work against other protected classes.  If the students are disproportionately young, you might have an age discrimination issue.  If they are disproportionately of one sex (as in the case of a Catholic seminary, for instance), you might have a sex discrimination issue.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court held in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Department_of_Housing_and_Community_Affairs_v._Inclusive_Communities_Project,_Inc." rel="nofollow"><em>Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.</em>, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)</a> that "disparate impact" is a valid basis for claims under the Fair Housing Act.</p>
