Which scenario is most clearly a violation of familial status protections?

Which scenario is most clearly a violation of familial status protections?

• A. A landlord refuses to rent to a family with a baby under 1 year old.
• B. A landlord refuses to rent to a single person with no children because they are single.
• C. A landlord charges more for all tenants with children in general.
• D. A landlord offers identical terms to all applicants regardless of family status.

Answer: (A)

Familial status protections stop housing decisions from being made because a household has children. That means landlords can’t refuse to rent, impose harsher terms, or charge more simply because there are kids in the unit or in the household. The clearest violation here is when a landlord refuses to rent to a family with a baby. Stating “no housing for a baby” directly ties the rental decision to the presence of a child, which is exactly what the law forbids. The other scenarios aren’t as clear-cut on familial status. Refusing to rent to a single person because they’re single targets marital or personal status, which isn’t a protected class under the federal Fair Housing Act. A policy that charges more for tenants with children also discriminates based on having children, but the direct act of denying the rental to a family with a baby is the most obvious and unambiguous violation. Finally, offering identical terms to all applicants regardless of family status is compliant.

Familial status protections stop housing decisions from being made because a household has children. That means landlords can’t refuse to rent, impose harsher terms, or charge more simply because there are kids in the unit or in the household.

The clearest violation here is when a landlord refuses to rent to a family with a baby. Stating “no housing for a baby” directly ties the rental decision to the presence of a child, which is exactly what the law forbids.

The other scenarios aren’t as clear-cut on familial status. Refusing to rent to a single person because they’re single targets marital or personal status, which isn’t a protected class under the federal Fair Housing Act. A policy that charges more for tenants with children also discriminates based on having children, but the direct act of denying the rental to a family with a baby is the most obvious and unambiguous violation. Finally, offering identical terms to all applicants regardless of family status is compliant.