United States v. Starrett City Associates

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1987 · Property

PropertyFair Housing ActHousing discriminationFair Housing Act42 U.S.C. § 3604racial quotasmanaged waiting liststenant selection

Facts

Starrett City, a large privately owned and managed apartment complex in Brooklyn receiving substantial federal and state assistance, used a tenanting system that cross-filed applicants by apartment size, income, and race or national origin. To maintain an approximate racial balance of 64% white, 22% black, and 8% hispanic, defendants selected applicants of the same race or national origin as vacating tenants and kept separate files for white, black, hispanic, mixed-race, and other applicants. This system limited black and hispanic applicants to far fewer apartments than their application rates would predict, produced much longer waiting times for minorities than for whites, and at times kept completed apartments off the market while eligible minority applicants remained on the waiting list. Defendants admitted that minorities waited longer because of their managed waiting lists and argued that race-conscious practices were necessary to preserve stable integration and avoid racial tipping.

Issue

Does a private landlord violate § 3604 of the Fair Housing Act by intentionally limiting the percentage of black and hispanic tenants, using race-conscious waiting lists and withholding apartments from eligible minority applicants in order to preserve an integrated tenant mix? May defendants justify such practices by claiming they are needed to avoid racial tipping and maintain stable integration?

Rule

Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604, a private landlord may not deny, make unavailable, or condition rental housing on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Differential treatment of black, hispanic, or other minority applicants through quotas, managed waiting lists, or withholding available apartments violates the Fair Housing Act whatever the landlord’s motivation, and a private landlord is not empowered to use asserted tipping concerns as a basis for denying minorities the same rights white applicants enjoy.

🔒

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.

Lakeview Terrace, a privately owned apartment complex in Cleveland, keeps separate waiting lists for white, Black, Latino, and Asian applicants. Management says the lists are necessary to preserve a "stable mix," and qualified Black applicants typically wait more than a year while similarly qualified white applicants are offered units within three months.

Which is the strongest assessment under 42 U.S.C. § 3604?

Explanation. The majority held that a private landlord violates § 3604 by intentionally treating applicants differently on the basis of race through managed waiting lists that make housing unavailable or delay access for minorities. Benign motive does not save the practice, and the rule does not depend on proof of hostility or on federal subsidy status.