Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Property

PropertyFair Housing ActLandlord-tenantHostile housing environmentRetaliationFHA42 U.S.C. § 3604(b)42 U.S.C. § 3617

Facts

After moving into St. Andrew, Wetzel, who is openly lesbian, alleged that for about 15 months other residents repeatedly subjected her to anti-gay slurs, threats, spitting, and physical assaults in common areas and other parts of the facility. She repeatedly reported this conduct to St. Andrew's staff and managers, who allegedly dismissed her complaints, called her dishonest, and failed to stop the abuse. Wetzel also alleged that after she complained, management restricted her access to common spaces and services protected by her tenant agreement, downgraded her dining location, halted cleaning services, and attempted to build a case for eviction. As a result, she altered her routines, ate in her room, avoided common areas, and limited her use of facilities included in her tenancy.

Issue

Does the Fair Housing Act permit a tenant to state a hostile-housing-environment claim against a landlord that has actual knowledge of tenant-on-tenant harassment based on a protected characteristic yet fails to take reasonable steps within its control to stop it? The court also considered whether § 3604(b) reaches Wetzel's post-acquisition claim and whether a § 3617 retaliation claim requires discriminatory animus.

Rule

Under the FHA, a hostile-housing-environment claim requires the plaintiff to show: (1) unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic; (2) harassment severe or pervasive enough to interfere with the terms, conditions, or privileges of residency, or the provision of services or facilities; and (3) a basis for imputing liability to the defendant. A landlord may be directly liable when it has actual knowledge of severe tenant-on-tenant harassment on protected grounds and is deliberately indifferent by failing to take reasonable remedial steps within its control. Section 3604(b) can apply post-acquisition when discrimination affects the provision of services or facilities connected to the rental, and § 3617 retaliation does not require proof of discriminatory animus.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel rents an apartment in a multi-unit building in Milwaukee owned by Harbor Elm Residences. Over eight months, two neighbors repeatedly call her anti-Muslim slurs in the hallways and once corner her in the laundry room while threatening to "teach her a lesson." Nina reports each incident to the on-site manager, who has authority under the lease to issue warnings, suspend access to common amenities, and start eviction proceedings, but the manager tells her to "ignore it" and takes no action.

If Nina sues the landlord under the Fair Housing Act for a hostile housing environment, which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. The majority held that a landlord may be directly liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment when it has actual knowledge of severe harassment on protected grounds and fails to take reasonable steps within its control to stop it. The claim does not require that the landlord itself voice bias, and constructive eviction is not required for every hostile-housing-environment claim. Here, the harassment is based on religion, appears severe or pervasive, and the manager allegedly did nothing despite having available sanctions. (Derived from Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC (n.d.).)