my experiences with Hidden Housing Discrimination as a Black Queer Woman with a pit bull Service Animal
Southern American cities like Houston and Atlanta are known for their affordability, potential for upward mobility, large size homes at cheaper prices, potential for professional growth and networking opportunities, and the southern hospitality of the residents compared to more expensive metro cities like Washington, DC, New York City, or Seattle, Washington. However, for people who are Black, queer, disabled, or a member of any other marginalized or protected class, the benefits may not even be accessible, and the costs may outweigh those benefits.
The current housing market in America hosts a nuanced and pervasive form of housing discrimination that is sanctioned, supported, and executed by professionals in the real estate industry. These practices are harmful and play a key role in the disenfranchisement of communities who are not white, wealthy, straight, or in possession of local political power.
Despite making more than enough money to qualify, holding the highest degree of anyone in any real estate transaction with my Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), and possessing a scholarly level of knowledge about the housing laws, the potential for housing discrimination and how to avoid it, I have still experienced discrimination upon seeking to rent a home on several occassions. The harm from these interactions is often irreparable, leaving those who experience it with PTSD and emotional and spiritual scars that take a lifetime to heal.
Offense #1: Failing to Disclose Rental Qualification Criteria
Upon applying for a beautiful single family home, I quickly began encountering subtle forms of discrimination, which grew in blatantness and severity as the transaction continued. First, I noticed that the rental qualification criteria was not disclosed prior to beginning my screening despite this being a state law according to State Rental Screening Laws. Yet, when I asked my real estate agent about it, she stated, “The landlord is an individual and does not have to disclose that.”
Why This is Wrong: While the landlord is indeed an individual, his decision to advertise his home using a real estate brokerage certainly subjects him to the laws and guidelines established by the State. By not disclosing the rental criteria, the broker position themselves to change the criteria to eliminate an applicant who may otherwise fully qualify.
offense #2: Over-scrutinization of my application
Next, I noticed that the broker scrutinized my application much more closely than standard. She initially communicated that she contacted my former landlord and was “only awaiting to contact my employer” for income verification. To assist, I reached out directly to my HR Director for the verification, which he turned around in a few hours. However, upon receiving the employer verification, the listing broker suddenly began to claim that she hadn’t heard from my former landlord where she had previously stated she easily made contact with them on her first try. When I asked for clarification, she stated, “I reached them over the phone and asked for their email to send the form.”
Why This is Wrong: By this point in the transaction, both the listing broker and the landlord have received enough information to conduct an internet search which will review pertinent information such as my appearance, including my race, gender presentation, previous employment, and political stance. By requiring additional verification, it slows the application process which delays the applicant’s ability to receive confirmation of their housing and allows the landlord and their agent to continue accepting applications from other applicants.
Offense #3: Illegal Application Questions
Third, there were illegal questions on the rental application which required those seeking housing who use service animals to identify their disability as a part of the application process. Where the rental application could inquire into whether an applicant had pets, it asks if there will be any animals residing on the property and asks the person to identify any assistance animals specifically and provide a request for accommodations. Since assistance animals are reserved solely for people with disabilities, asking about animals instead of pets allows property owners the opportunity to discriminate in the application process.
Why This is Wrong: It is unlawful to inquire into a person’s disability or to ask questions that would force a person to disclose their disability status. While they cannot and likely would not explicitly state that they did not want to rent to a disabled person because of their assistance animal or disability, they don’t have to disclose their reason for denial. Therefore, through this questioning, many applicants receive responses that there was a more qualified candidate or are given another nonapparent reason when the real reason is the owner doesn’t want their service animal or them on the property. Also, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a person may make their request for accommodations before or after moving into the property. Many choose to request after moving to protect themselves from possible discrimination which could occur if disclosed too early.
Offense #4: Illegal Questions on the Rental Verification Form
Upon answering “no” to the illegal animal question, the question is then presented again on the rental verification form that most applicants don’t see as it goes directly to their former landlord and is returned directly to the listing agent. Where the form should ask about any pets, it presents the question again about animals instead which would also include service animals or emotional support animals. If an applicant was aware of their rights and declined to disclose their disability status and use of a service animal on the application, their former landlord likely would disclose the information for them by honestly answering the improperly phrased question causing their application to flag. This was the case for me as a person with disabilities who uses a service dog. My former landlord marked that I had an animal (because I did). Her responses to the rental verification form slowed the process as it then required the overzealous realtor the need to inquire more deeply into the responses to the illegal question on the form. It took days to get those responses as my former landlord is not obligated to engage this process.
Even after receiving the corrections and additional context to the form, I heard nothing back for two more days as the listing agent and the landlord attempted unsuccessfully to find an applicant they considered better. The worst part was being aware what was happening in this process and not having the power to advocate for myself. I was represented by a real estate agent who would not engage the proper follow up to move the process along and stop the discrimination that was occurring because she was either turning a blind eye or was genuinely unaware of it.
You’re approved! Except Not Really
Finally, I received approval! However, it would be two additional days before I received the lease to review and sign despite having requested a move-in date of three days prior.
Why this is wrong: Until a lease is signed, the owner still has the right to show the home and can continue to take applications. If an owner cannot legally find a reason to deny an applicant within the seven days, they may stall to allow others the opportunity to apply as the property does not become removed from the market until the lease is signed.
Finally, I received the lease and signed it. I was relieved as I expected the discrimination would end here and I’d be able to enjoy the home I was paying for; however, this was where things worsened. I was first treated very coldly by the listing agent despite having few prior interactions with her, having the strongest rental application, and being the source of her commission. When I met her in person to provide the certified funds, the listing broker informed me that from this point on, my now landlord would take over the communication and I would forward my confirmation documents directly to him.
If at first they don’t succeed, they’ll discriminate against your service animal
The first business day after moving in, I emailed a request for reasonable accommodations for my service animal per the instructions provided by my doctor, which are based upon HUD. Later that day, I was horrified to find that my landlord violated my privacy by forwarding my confidential medical information out to his listing agent, who had stated she was no longer a part of the transaction. As I prepared to go to bed that night, right before doing so, I found an email from the listing agent, which stated:
Enclosed you will find your lease application and service dog accommodation letter. Per your lease application, there is no pet was disclosed. Could you kindly explain why pet section marked as “no” on the application?
Also, please answer the following questions regarding your pet Justice.
1. Breed
2. Color
3. Weight
4. Age in years
5. Gender
6. Neutered?
7. Bite History?
8. Shots current? Please provide shot records.
Please note that refundable deposit is required.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Warm regards,
NOTE: There was nothing warm about this email.
Why this is wrong: The listing broker’s decision to re-forward me both my completed leasing application and my own accommodation request letter seemed more hostile and confrontational than necessary to acquire responses to her additional questions. Next, she referenced my service dog accommodation letter while continuing to mislabel my service animal as a pet. Service animals are not considered pets and pet question don’t apply. This is stated on the lease and the answers to any additional follow up questions were answered in the detailed accommodation letter. Also, the process for asking for more information in response to an assistance animal is to contact the provider who wrote the letter, not to question the disabled person making the request as if they were on the witness stand in court.
Next, the listing broker seemed to not acknowledge that she had already violated my civil rights by asking me to disclose my disability status as a component of the application and then by double checking it by also forcing my former landlord to disclose my disability status. She also mentioned a deposit but did not disclose any amount or any further details. This lack of information, paired with her typos indicated that she may have been so eager to send her confrontational email that she didn’t collect or disclose all the necessary details or re-read her message for typos prior to sending.
Regardless, pet deposits are not permissible for any assistance animal. Most importantly, at the bottom of the email the broker asked eight illegal questions despite my having established my animal’s status as a service dog through the proper documentation. Property owners can ask two questions if a disability isn’t apparent: (1) is it a service animal for a disability and 2) what is she trained to do). They can also ask for vaccination records and a picture of the service animal. However, the accommodation letter she possessed answers any doubts about my need for my service animal as it disclosed my diagnosis and provided information about my service animal’s task training to mitigate my symptoms.
My Response to the Listing Broker’s illegal service animal questions
I responded by politely informing the listing broker of the distinction between service animals and pets. I informed her of the protections against forcing people with disabilities to disclose their status and provided several resources to help her understand the service animal, disability, and fair housing laws. I also responded that the pet deposit would not apply since my service animal was there to assist me in my daily functioning and was not considered a pet per the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Lastly, I supplied responses to her demographic questions as I understood this to be a part of an assistance animal addendum, which I have completed in the past with former landlords. She did not bother to so much as apologize for her mistake or acknowledge receipt of my email.
An Aggressive Attorney Enters the Chat
Again, I thought things would end here until I received an email from someone who identified themselves as counsel for my landlord a day later. The email read:
Dear Ms. Covington,
I am counsel for the landlord and we are attempting to find a solution to your pet Justice residing at the property.
The owner is attempting to accommodate your breed of dog and has so far been unsuccessful in finding reasonable insurance. The issue is the breed, and while the landlord is willing to make a reasonable accommodation, he cannot do it at the expense of loss of coverage or increased cost. Due to the mortgage on this property, insurance is required. After conducting some research, he requests that you carry pet liability insurance with a minimum liability coverage of $300,000.
To maintain your lease, you will need to obtain insurance the covers any issues with Justice (bites, etc.) in this amount. You may be able to get an endorsement from your current insurance provider, or you may need to purchase another policy. The insurance will need to name the landlord as an additional insured also. Please provide proof of insurance in the next 15 days. If you cannot find insurance to cover any potential liability for Justice, we will need to terminate the lease.
Here are some insurance companies that provide the necessary coverage:.
Please feel free to contact me or the property manager if you have any questions.
Why this is wrong: First, to my understanding, it isn’t standard for a lawyer to contact someone directly to verify their disability and need for a service animal, especially when the accommodation request letter in question provides that information. Next, I found the same issue in this email that presented itself in the email from the agent. This lawyer was again, mislabeling my service animal as a pet. However, even more problematic was the clear breed discrimination which was embedded into the email. Service animals can be any breed and are not subject to any type of breed discrimination. Furthermore, the only reason information about my service animal’s breed was gathered was because the real estate broker posed those eight illegal questions in her email. I took the time to respond and inform this lawyer of the service animal laws and the illegality of breed discrimination against a service animal. Furthermore, as breed discrimination is illegal, requiring me to acquire additional insurance for an animal that assists with my daily functioning is also illegal.
Despite threatening eviction phrased as “lease termination”, it quickly became apparent to me that the decision for this supposed lawyer to contact me was an intimidation tactic and an attempt to gather information that they could not legally ask and were not privy to due to protections for the dignity and privacy of people with disabilities. However, like the situation with the eight illegal questions about my service animal, if I did supply the information, they could use it against me to justify their discrimination. I reached out to my doctor who wrote my service dog accommodation letter and followed her guidance in responding.
My Response to the Lawyer’s illegal assertions
First, I provided a thorough response informing the lawyer of my rights and the landlord’s responsibilities. I provided screenshots and links to help him understand that he could not discriminate against me through my service animal by requiring additional insurance. The lawyer then replied with more illegal questions, asking me to prove my service dog’s training and certifications. When I replied again per my doctor’s advice and informed him that per State Disability Law, people who use service animals are not required to show proof of training because service animals can be owner trained, I received the following response:
If you are saying you have no certifications, please confirm. If you are saying that you trained the animal instead, please provide a detailed description of the training.
Please understand that I am not going to banter with you. If you want the landlord to assist in a reasonable accommodation, then please provide useful information.
Taken aback by the disrespectful comment about banter as I was only attempting to establish my right to fair and equitable housing and provide the legally permissible information he requested, I responded again. I informed him more firmly this time that I did not state I did not have certifications, but rather, I was not going to show them to him because I was not legally obligated to do so and it is a violation of my rights.
During my communication with this lawyer, I received several calls from my real estate agent, who was now re-entering the chat in an attempt to save herself from losing her commission. To my surprise, she also didn’t know the service animal laws despite a 20 year career in real estate. Even more shocking was her attempts to get me to just provide the proof of training certifications, despite informing her that these questions were unlawful and speaking with her at length about the many issues present in this discriminatory transaction I was experiencing. She stated, “isn’t it easier to just provide it since you have them handy?” In addition to continuing to try to push me to waive out of my rights to privacy and dignity, she also continued to defend the actions of the landlord and his real estate agent and refused to acknowledge any of the harm they had caused me to this point. She continued to assert their intentions were good and it was simply “a misunderstanding that could easily be fixed”. She also stated that the landlord doesn’t want to have a bad relationship with me and is only concerned about liability. Even after I pointed out that the landlord’s decision to sic his supposed attorney on me and forward out my medical information on multiple occasions was not indicative of someone who wanted a healthy working relationship, she continued to highlight his humanity and goodness, while denying mine. She stated, “I don’t think you’re being discriminated against. You’re so lovely and well accomplished.” Her statement indicated she could justify the discrimination if I wasn’t as educated and well spoken. While I was unsurprised that this was her stance, I found it disappointing considering her role in this transaction was to represent and advocate for me and she clearly didn’t have the capacity to do that. She fought tooth and nail to try to deny my reality while promoting her colleague and her client as good people who only want to resolve an issue. In this, she failed to notice that the issue was avoidable if the landlord wasn’t so hellbent on discriminating against me through my dog. I decided we would agree to disagree considering all the effort they had placed into accusing and prosecuting me when they had the option to reach out, converse, or ask questions.
Even after spending my entire day, fighting for my rights, and trying to help people understand the state and federal laws, they refused to budge on requiring me to purchase pet liability insurance for an animal that is not classified as a pet, has no tendency or history of aggression, and is here to assist me with my daily functions. Interestingly, they compromised at the landlord offering to offset the rent the cost of the liability insurance and the two real estate brokers who were no longer supposed to be a part of the transaction would also help to alleviate the financial burden. (IMO: The agreement to pitch in from their commission serves as an admission of guilt). It became apparent that this was all about money. I had called the landlord’s bluff and told him to process the eviction as I knew I would win my counterclaim. Upon hearing that, my agent informed me that she would have to give me my money back and they don’t want to evict me because of the cost to do so. I was given 15 days to find pet liability insurance to combat the discrimination myself and my service animal were encountering despite discrimination against people of protected classes and breed discrimination against service animals being outlawed.
housing discrimination and breed discrimination is real for queer people of color who use pit bulls as service animals
Experiences like this with discrimination are a part of the reality of being Black, queer, disabled, and owning a dog breed that America has stigmatized as aggressive and unworthy of housing despite their actual individual characteristics. There are few people more prepared for discrimination against themselves or their dog’s breed than me. Yet, the preparation doesn’t prevent the prejudice and discrimination. What’s worse is I will never be compensated for the harm that this caused me. The hypervigilance, the insomnia, the general feeling of being unsafe that stays with me after experiences like this. The way my body stores the trauma from being targeted, mistreated, disrespected, denigrated, and dehumanized in my shoulders, hips, lower back, and neck. Not to mention the long-term toll which hasn’t revealed itself yet.
No one cares about how it might’ve made me feel to wake up to an email from a lawyer threatening eviction as someone who is almost always facing housing insecurity regardless of my tax bracket because of the prevalence of racism, prejudice, and discrimination in America. I never received one single apology from anyone. Four people, including one who was paid to assist me, ambushed me to bully me into waiving out of my rights so that my landlord can have peace of mind against stereotypes, misconceptions and assumptions he created about me and my dog which holds no fact or basis. However, since he owns the property and I want to live here, the expectation is for me to just take it and do what they consider easier which is to knowingly deny my own rights to dignity, privacy, and humane treatment. Unfortunately, that is not the easier path for me.
While housing may be affordable in some metro cities in America for most, it’s not affordable or afforded to people like me who society deems unworthy of equitable housing because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, body type, disability status or even the breed of dog they choose to use to use to mitigate their symptoms. For people like me since the start of time systems have worked to keep us disenfranchised. Even as discriminatory or predatory practices are outlawed to protect people like me, new legal loopholes are created to justify the outlawed practices.
