The Boston Globe reports that a federal judge in California has ruled that roommates.com, an on-line service that matches roommates, is subject to the federal Fair Housing Act.
Roommates.com reportedly requires the disclosure of race, gender and sexual orientation from its users and allows them to query for roommates using these categories.
The website contends that the Fair Housing Act is not intended to apply to the selection of roommates. But a prior California court decision ruled that the website’s search function was “designed to steer users based on discriminatory criteria.”
This lawsuit poses an interesting legal question. Certainly the roommates.com search function perpetuates housing discrimination by having its users disclose their race, gender, and sexual orientation and then allowing them to choose potential roommates from those categories. Yet in the somewhat – emphasis on somewhat – analogous situation of online dating it is perfectly legal to use those types of factors.
Yet Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in the terms or conditions of the rental of a dwelling, or “in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith.” Further, section (c) makes it unlawful to publish a notice or advertisement indicating any preference or discrimination with respect to the rental of a dwelling based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
I come out on the side of the fair housing advocates who brought the lawsuit. Hey, I might not want to share an apartment with a drummer or someone who is a heroin addict, but there is something very wrong, or should I say bigoted and discriminatory, about purposefully searching out a roommate who is not of a certain race. And the same can be said of a business that creates a website that explicitly facilitates this by allowing users to conduct searches based on discriminatory criteria.
One caveat I would add, though, is that I think it is okay for women to only want a female roommate. I don’t know if that is something contested by the fair housing advocates in this case, but I believe that safety and privacy concerns trump any fair housing argument in that discrete situation.
Bookmark/share a post
As much as I agree with the need for anti-discriminatory housing laws, I wonder if the application is a bit over-reaching. This goes beyond renting an apartment or home to a minority. When someone is looking for a roommate, they are seeking to co-habitate. Co-habitation is a lot more personal, and the argument can be made that the law, as applied to roommate searches, is invading the privacy of people’s homes. It is similar to your statement at the end of the post that it makes sense to allow females to discriminate and choose other females. People, at home, should be allowed to find co-habitators without restriction. Frankly, it seems ridiculous that someone who may have (unjustified) bigoted views would have to sift through applicants with whom he/she would never cohabitate.
Another question is whether a site like Roommates.com could just move their server out of the United States, similar to what online betting sites have done. If they were to move outside of the US, they would still be accessible to US users but potentially be out of reach of the Fair Housing Act.
It will be very interesting to see the effect of decisions like this on websites that can move outside of US borders but still reach US customers. This may be a small example, but as more laws are applied to web-based businesses based in the US, it may very well encourage web-based companies to leave the physical US.
“One caveat I would add, though, is that I think it is okay for women to only want a female roommate. I don’t know if that is something contested by the fair housing advocates in this case, but I believe that safety and privacy concerns trump any fair housing argument in that discrete situation.”
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose. No gender discrimination means just that.
You can’t give a lecture about how it’s ‘wrong and bigoted’ to “discriminate” in terms of co-habitantation, and then say it’s OK for women to only want females just because you think so, no matter how strong an argument you present. Everyone has a reason for their preferences, the same way you do concerning women. What makes your opinion/preference more valid than anyone elses?? If someone can’t be free to decide for themselves who they are comfortable eating breakfast across the table from *in their own home*, then the rights of homeowners are being trampled far worse than those you suggest are being “discriminated” against.