The Manager's report back on a report from the Cambridge Human Rights Commission on housing-related questions

The Council has asked how many and what types of housing discrimination complaints were reported to the CHRC during the period of FY 2015 – FY 2018. The Council has also asked how many of these complaints were investigated by the CHRC, and what were the outcomes, along with how many and to whom cases were referred out.

By way of background, persons contacting the CHRC regarding purported allegations of housing discrimination are interviewed to confirm that the CHRC has jurisdiction over the matter (i.e. the alleged discriminatory acts occurred in Cambridge, and the complaint was filed within 180 days of the most recently alleged discriminatory act), and that the complaint states a claim of discrimination, rather than a Landlord/Tenant matter where discrimination is not alleged.

Landlord/Tenant matters where discrimination is not alleged are referred to Cambridge Consumers Council (a City department) and/or legal services non-profits, including Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS), Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (CASLS), Community Legal Services and Counseling Center (CLSACC) and Harvard Legal Aid. The CHRC does not track these cases, or their outcomes, as they do not include allegations of discrimination.

The CHRC does not refer discrimination cases out to other agencies, unless the CHRC lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Both the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and United State Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may accept discrimination cases with longer jurisdictional time frames: MCAD: 300 days; HUD: 365 days. The CHRC investigates all housing discrimination complaints over which it has jurisdiction. The CHRC does not track complaints that it does not have jurisdiction over.

The following is a listing of the discrimination complaints that the CHRC received and had jurisdiction over in FY 2015 – FY 2018, including the type of case and the outcome of the case:

In Fiscal Year 2015, eleven (11) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Seven (7) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based upon their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, race/color, religion, sexual orientation and source of income. Three (3) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was retaliated against.

Lastly, one (1) case alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class and retaliated against.

The outcomes of those cases included findings of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, the parties electing to remove the case to the Attorney General’s Office, the parties entering into a Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement, resolving the case through Conciliation, lack of cooperation from the Claimant that resulted in administrative closure of the case, and withdrawal of the Complaint by the Complainant, or some combination thereof.

In Fiscal Year 2016, eight (8) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. All eight (8) cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of age, disability, family status, marital status, national origin, race/color, religion, sex, sexual orientation and source of income.

The outcomes of those cases included a finding of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, the parties electing to remove the case to the Attorney General’s Office, the parties entering a private Settlement Agreement, the parties entering into a Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement, and resolving the case through Conciliation, or some combination thereof.

In Fiscal Year 2017, eleven (11) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Nine (9) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, race/color, sex and source of income. Additionally, two (2) of those cases alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected classes and retaliated against.

The outcomes of those cases included findings of lack of probable cause, the parties entering a private Settlement Agreement, resolving the case through Conciliation, and withdrawal of the Complaint by the Complainant, or some combination thereof.

In Fiscal Year 2018, ten (10) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Eight (8) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, race/color, sex, sexual orientation and source of income. Additionally, two (2) of those cases alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected classes, and retaliated against.

The outcomes of those cases included a finding of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, a finding of lack of jurisdiction, a complaint dual-filed with the MCAD so the CHRC deferred to MCAD, and the parties considering removing the case to the Attorney General’s Office, or some combination thereof.

II.

Successful Conciliation:

The Council has asked what is the CHRC’s definition of a “successful conciliation.” From the CHRC’s perspective, a “successful conciliation” addresses the concerns of the Complainant, which could include one or more of the following requirements: a payment of damages to the Complainant; allowing the complainant to continue or commence renting at the property in question; an apology from the Respondent; a reasonable accommodation for a disability; reasonable modifications to a property to enable a person with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property; a change in a policy that gave rise to the complaint; and/or similar provisions.

The CHRC seeks “public interest” provisions in every conciliation, which could include one or more of the following requirements: a change in discriminatory policies or practices; anti-discrimination law training for staff of the Respondent; ongoing monitoring of the Respondent to confirm that discriminatory practices have stopped; and/or similar provisions.

The CHRC considers a conciliation that includes both direct relief for the Complainant and public interest provisions to address discriminatory behaviors to be a successful conciliation. The CHRC monitors the terms of conciliated settlements to ensure that agreed upon terms have been satisfied.