Woman receives $25,000 in housing discrimination suit
May 31, 2001
Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
By Martin Luttrell
WORCESTER -- A city landlord has reached a $25,000 settlement with a woman who filed suit alleging the partnership denied her housing because she received a rental subsidy.
Maria Hierro reached the settlement with Eastview Apartments Associates last month, according to Jonathan I. Mannina, litigation director with the Legal Assistance Corp. of Central Massachusetts, who assisted Ms. Hierro in filing the complaint in Worcester County Housing Court. He said the landlord illegally refused to rent Ms. Hierro an apartment because she received what is known as Section 8 rental subsidy through Rural Housing Improvement Inc., a program that helps low-income people find housing of their choice.
Jonathan E. Fields, lawyer for Eastview Associates, denied that there was intentional discrimination by the staff, saying that there was a delay in the availability of an apartment while the staff waited weeks for an inspection required under the Section 8 regulations.
"We categorically deny that we refused to rent the apartment or that there is a policy, written or implied, against Section 8,'' he said.
The apartment currently has Section 8 tenants and did prior to Ms. Hierro's application in April 1998. The 200-unit complex is on Frank Street.
The case was settled without a judgment on any of the allegations, and the defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability in the case.
Ms. Hierro could not be reached for comment.
Mr. Mannina said that there is a citywide problem with tenants being steered away from some housing because they receive rent subsidies. "Maria was strung along during the application process,'' he said. "She was told they don't like Section 8. It is illegal to deny housing in Massachusetts because a person has a rental subsidy.
"There is a stereotype that if you have Section 8 you're poor, that you're irresponsible,'' he said.
Ms. Hierro was a student at Quinsigamond Community College and worked there part-time as a tutor in the English as a second language program. She has two young children and is now living elsewhere in the city, Mr. Mannina said.
Mr. Mannina said that his organization handled 163 housing discrimination complaints in Worcester County last year. Of those, most were over prospective tenants who alleged they were denied housing because they have children, he said. Other discrimination issues revolved around rental subsidies, race and disability, he said.
"You need look no further than the census to see there is still a problem,'' Mr. Mannina said, pointing out that most Latino and African-Americans in Worcester live in a few inner-city neighborhoods.
Section 8 vouchers are available, based on income, he said. Under the program a tenant pays about 30 percent of his income for rent, and the voucher pays the balance.
"It allows low-income people to choose where they live,'' he said. "The apartment has to pass an inspection by the agency (that issues the voucher) to ensure that it meets safe housing guidelines.
"Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of the cases we handle. I don't know why landlords don't want to take Section 8. Maybe because they think there will be no repercussions. Not every landlord who does this gets dragged into court. Some people don't know their rights or where to go.''
In addition to the monetary portion of the settlement, the defendant's employees will attend fair housing training sessions conducted by the Housing Discrimination Project of Holyoke, and Eastview Associates will adopt written rental policies that will be prominently displayed at its rental offices. The company will also keep records relating to its tenant composition and tenant applications over an unspecified period of time, the settlement says.
Mr. Fields said his client will comply with the terms of the settlement. "It's a great thing,'' he said. ``It helps everyone. It keeps everyone out of court. It's consistent with our policy.''
He said the company agreed to the settlement because it was preferable to the expense of a trial, and reiterated that he didn't agree with the facts outlined in the complaint.