Skip to main content

Proposed LGBT Protection by HUD

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) has unveiled a series of proposed rule changes that would prohibit lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a way of determining a borrower's eligibility.

The proposed rule changes will (a) define sexual orientation and gender identity, (b) prohibit inquiries regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, (c) prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds for decision making in Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) programs, and (d) would clarify that all eligible families, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, have the opportunity to participate in HUD programs, including the housing choice voucher program.

The proposed rule changes come in response to information gathered by HUD which suggests that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and families are arbitrarily excluded from housing opportunities because of their sexual preferences and gender identities. The decision by HUD to seek to protect LGBT individuals and families is a controversial decision, but one which is supported by the findings of arbitrary discrimination. One of the primary goals of the Fair Housing Act (“the Act”) is to eliminate arbitrary and invidious discrimination in the area of housing, and HUDs attempt to protect LGBT individuals and families is well in line with the federal goals of the Act and the mission of HUD.

If you wish to review and comment on the proposed rule changes, you can do so at www.regulations.gov .
Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    It is good to know that such changes are added to this kind of law as it identifies more of the purposes of the fair housing act. Excluding someone from housing opportunities may both have an huge impact on the families of people and to other communities as well. new york real estate ce

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pinklining"? Innovative way to deny women home loans

From redlining to  “pinklining,” a term most people have probably never heard, is hurting women and especially women of color.  The term comes from the 1970's term   redlining . T he term used by governments, agencies, banks and other lenders to deny people of color access to mortgages and credit. Those in charge of public policy and lending practices would draw a redline around certain neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities and deny them financing and other forms of credit if they lived within those lines. Now, more specifically lenders are using the term "pinklining" ala redlining to identify neighborhoods and deny woman of color the chance to buy homes. Is There a Gender Gap in Home Equity Loans? (investopedia.com)
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: March 15-26

NFHA President Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee (Reading the full testimony is strongly recommended for anyone interested Fair Housing issues.) On March 11, Shanna Smith of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NHFA) testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommitte on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, with a presentation titled "Protecting the American Dream: A Look at the Fair Housing Act." The testimony emphasizes that in spite of our efforts, the nation still falls "dramatically short of reaching the actual goals of the Fair Housing Act" which is designed to "eliminate housing discrimination and to promote residential integration." "While people are working together in greater numbers than ever before--many go home each night to racially segregated neighborhoods." Shanna "explores the nature and extent of housing discrimination as it is manifested today, how enforcement action is moving
Post a Comment
Read more

SunTrust $21Million Settlement with DOJ

This past Thursday, Businessweek covered a massive settlement in a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in SunTrust’s lending practices. The suit, filed by the US DOJ, was filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, VA, alleging more than 20,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers were charged more than similarly-situated and qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers, between 2005 and 2009. The suit alleged that minority borrowers in 75 geographic markets from Virginia Beach, VA to San Francisco, CA, paid more in loan fees, or were charged higher interest rates based solely on race or national origin. A consent order filed with the complaint says SunTrust denies any wrongdoing, but agreed to the settlement. "SunTrust strongly believes in the principles of fair lending," company spokesman Mike McCoy in Atlanta said. "We are pleased to have reached a settlement and put this matter behind us." Settlements like this come as a surprise, considering the
6 comments
Read more