TOUGH NEW FAIR HOUSING LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE egislation to put teeth in feder-
mechanism and generally tough-
al housing discrimination laws
ens penal ties for engaging in discriminatory practices.
L
became effective March 12, 1989, exactly 180 days alter its enactment. The new law protects handicapped persons and breaks completely new ground by protecting families with children from discrimination, a provision unique in
federal law. The Fair Housing Amendments Act (Pub. L. No. 100-430) was passed by overwhelming votes in both houses alter successful but lengthy negotiations among realtors' groups, a coalition of civil rights activists, key members of Congress and the Reagan Administration ended an eight-year impasse. The bill also got a boost from an endorsement by then-Vice President George Bush, who saw it as an opportunity to beef up his civil rights credentials three months before the presidential election. In a nutshell, the new law gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) new power to stop discrimination in the rental or sale of housing, for the first time protects the handicapped and families with children, creates a new administrative enforcement
Editor's Note: Bill Massey. a native of Malvern, is chief counsel to Senator Dale Bumpers. He received a J.D. from the University of Arkansas School of Law at Fayetteville in 1973, and a Master of Laws from Georgetown University Law Center in 1985. 521Arkansas Lawyer/April1989
BACKGROUND Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,' popularly known as the Fair Housing Act, was enacted following the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It forbade discrimination in the rental. sale or financing of housing because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Although the act was broad in scope, HUD enforcement authority did not extend to prosecuting complaints of discrimination. Although complaining individuals could file suit in federal court. the statute oflimitations was an incredibly short 180 days, punitive damages were lim-
ited to $1.000 and lawyers' fees could be recovered only if the plaintiff could not afford to pay. HUD's authority extended only to securing voluntary compliance through persuasion and conciliation. The Department of Justice could bring a suit only to stop an alleged "pattern or practice" of housing discrimination. In short. the national policy against dis-
June 1988 House Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the reform legislation described the pervasiveness of the problem as follows: "The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that 2 million instances of housing discrimination occur each year. In the most recent national study of housing discrimination, HUD concluded that a black person who visits 4 agents can expect to encounter at leas t one instance of discrimination 72 percent of the time for rentals and 48 percent of the time for sales.'" In the light of such stunning statistical evidence, a bipartisan consensus was reached that housing discrimination laws needed teeth. President Reagan in a 1983 message to Congress characterized the need for change: "Since its passage, however, a consensus has developed that the Fair Housing Act has delivered short of its promise
crimination was clear, hut the enforcement mechanism was
because of the gap in its enforcement mechanism.
weak. Thus, 20 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act. discrimi-
"The gap in enforcement is the lack of a forceful back-up
nation and segregation in housing continues to run rampant. The
By Bill Massey
mechanism which provides
an incentive to bring the parties to the conciliation table with serious intent to resolve
the dispute then and there.