Fair Housing Case Law

CIVIL RIGHTS AND Fair Housing

This case helps make it appear as if both state and federal courts are modifying long-held opinions regarding the application of civil rights law in certain instances.

Discrimination Based on Marital Status

Baiz v Hoffius, 222 Mich. App 210; 564 NW2d 493 (1997).

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT: Is unmarried cohabitation protected by the Civil Rights Act?

FACTS: Hoffius owned rental property in Jackson, Mich. When he had a vacancy he advertised it's availability, but refused to rent apartment units to two Plaintiff couples, each of whom were unmarried but intended to live in the same rental units; in each instance, Defendant landlord stated that unmarried cohabitation violated his religious beliefs. Each couple individually filed a complaint with the local fair housing commission, which sent out testers who were also refused after informing Defendant landlord they were unmarried but intended to occupy the same units. Defendant landlord stated to the testers that he did not usually rent to unmarried couples.

Defendant landlord moved for summary disposition on the grounds that: (1) the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act does not appear to protect unmarried cohabitation; and (2) if the Act does indeed protect unmarried cohabitation, it is unconstitutional if it forces a landlord to violate sincerely-held religious beliefs to the contrary.

The requests were considered separately but decided similarly by the judges, who granted the summary dispositions requested by Defendant landlord. Both judges noted that that the Civil Rights Act protects status, not conduct; i.e., unmarried cohabitation is unprotected conduct, not protected marital status. Following these decisions, both Plaintiff couples filed a consolidated appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals.

DECISION: The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court rulings. It noted that: (1) by including marital status as a protected class, the Legislature intended to prohibit discrimination based on whether a person is married; (2) when passing the Act, the Legislature did not repeal that portion of Michigan's Penal Code, which makes cohabitation a misdemeanor offence, punishable by a year in jail, or a fine of up to $500. Consequently, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against couples who enjoy marital status, but the Act is not violated when a landlord refuses to rent to unmarried couples who will be engaging in criminal unmarried cohabitation.

Since the trial courts did not address the issue of constitutionality regarding violation of religious beliefs, the appeals court also refused to consider it.

However, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act did not violate a landlord's First Amendment rights because landlords are not forced to participate in the real estate market. Consequently, a person who chooses to voluntarily become a landlord must comply with fair housing law regardless of religious beliefs.

In an update to this case, the Michigan Supreme Court set aside its decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration of this constitutional issue. The Court did so only because of the original verdict in Thomas v Anchorage Equal Rights Commission