DiLiddo v. Oxford Street Realty, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007 · Property

450 Mass. 66 (2007)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyHousing discriminationLandlord-tenantHousing subsidiesG.L. c. 151B § 4(10)housing subsidyAHVPstandard form lease

Facts

DiLiddo, a disabled recipient of an alternative housing voucher program (AHVP) voucher, was offered an apartment by Oxford Street Realty, which knew she intended to use the voucher. After receiving the AHVP form lease, Oxford's principal objected primarily to the lease provision allowing the tenant to terminate on one month's notice when she secured suitable permanent housing or entered another subsidy program, and also objected to several other AHVP lease terms. Oxford then told DiLiddo it would not sign the AHVP lease because of those provisions, though it would rent to her on a regular lease instead. DiLiddo could not use her voucher for that apartment and later secured other housing after incurring costs.

Issue

Whether the AHVP lease's one-month termination provision was a "requirement" of the housing subsidy program under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10), and, if so, whether a landlord or its agent may refuse to rent to a voucher holder because it considers that requirement economically disadvantageous. The case also presented whether advice of counsel or the agent's claimed role as a mere intermediary avoided liability.

Rule

Under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10), it is unlawful to discriminate against a housing-subsidy recipient because of any requirement of the subsidy program. A validly required standard lease term created by the administering agency to implement the program is a "requirement," even if not expressly set out in the statute or regulations, and a landlord may not reject that requirement based on asserted economic disadvantage. The statute does not require discriminatory animus, does not contain a substantial-economic-harm exception, and advice of counsel is not a defense because § 4 (10) does not require a willful or intentional violation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, the Massachusetts Department of Housing Support administers a transitional voucher program for disabled tenants under a statute authorizing the department to establish and administer the program. The department requires use of a standard lease drafted by the agency, and that lease allows the tenant to end the lease on one month's notice if the tenant obtains suitable permanent housing. Landlord Nina Calder refuses to rent to voucher holder Tessa Moran solely because she dislikes that clause and believes it creates vacancy risk.

Assuming the lease term was validly required by the administering agency to implement the program, has Nina violated G. L. c. 151B, § 4(10)?

Explanation. Section 4(10) prohibits discrimination not only because a person receives a subsidy, but also because of any requirement of the subsidy program. The majority held that a standard lease term validly imposed by the administering agency under delegated authority is a program requirement, even if not written verbatim in the statute or regulations. A landlord may not refuse to rent because she views that required term as economically disadvantageous.