LOOKING FORWARD – What the expanded Violence Against Women Authorization (VAWA) Act means to you

Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Authorization Act (VAWA) and greatly expanded it.  VAWA housing protections were passed in 2005 that helped prevent discrimination against unjust evictions of survivors of domestic violence in public and assisted housing.

Expansion now includes almost every housing program, including:

• Section 8
• Section 202
• Section 811
• BMIR
• Section 236
• Rural Development Housing
• Title IV McKinney-Vento homeless housing
• Low Income Housing Tax Credit
• Title VIII/Subtitle D Cranston-Gonzalez Act Housing; and
• Sections 6 and 7 of U.S. Housing Act of 1937

VAWA also now covers more classes of individuals, including:

• Victims of domestic violence
• Victims of dating violence
• Victims of stalking
• Victims of sexual assault
• An immigrant who is a victim of any of the above violent acts
• Any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individual who is a victim of any of the above violent acts; and
• Any victims on Native American tribal lands.

New paperwork and revised forms are going to be needed, mandating you to notify applicants and tenants of their housing rights under VAWA[1].  Specifically, you must provide notice:

• At the time of application;
• At move-in; and
• With any notification of eviction or assistance termination.

The HUD-required lease must now include a description of specific protections afforded to the victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.  An incident(s) of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking will not be construed as a serious or repeated lease violation of the victim or threatened victim.

Finally, VAWA now mandates that you adopt an emergency housing transfer policy for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

To see the full VAWA act, click here: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

---

[1] Although this law is currently in effect, HUD has yet to release and instructions or model plans for emergency transfers.

When Retaliatory Eviction Can and Cannot Be a Defense in Ohio

Under the Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act, R.C. Chapter 5321, a tenant may raise the issue of retaliation as a defense if the Landlord brings or threatens to bring an action against the tenant for possession in retaliation against the tenant’s forming a union, complaining to a governmental agency about a violation of a building, housing, health, or safety code, or complaining to the landlord about a breach of the landlord’s statutory obligations.  R.C. 5321.02(A).   Yet, under R.C. 5321.03(A)(4) nothwithstanding R.C. 5321.02, a landlord may initiate a forcible entry and detainer under R.C. 1923.02 against a tenant for holding over, and that tenant may not use a retaliatory action as a defense.

However, Ohio’s Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits unlawful discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(H)(1) and (12).  R.C. 4112(H)(1) states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to refuse to rent, lease, or otherwise deny or make unavailable housing accommodations because of “race, color, religion, sex, military status, familial status, ancestry, disability, or national origin.”  R.C. 4112.02(H)(12) states it is unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person’s having exercised or enjoyed or having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by division (H) of this section.”

The FHA makes it illegal to discriminate because of a tenant’s disability.  42.U.S.C. 3604(f)(1).  Under R.C. 5321.03(A)(4), a tenant can assert a counterclaim in a forcible entry and detainer proceeding that he or she is being evicted for discriminatory reasons.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals in Ohio reversed the summary judgment in K&D Management, L.L.C. vs. Masten, and its decision is only intended to prevent a trial court, in a forcible entry and detainer action, from relying on the R.C. 5321.03(A)(4) exclusion when a tenant raises a claim of retaliatory or discriminatory eviction under the FHA or Ohio Fair Housing Act.  The decision is not intended to make a trial court “a prisoner to tenants’ assertions of discriminatory practices.”  A trial court may summarily dispose of such assertions based on the parties’ pleadings and filings.

To read the entire Decision in K&D Management v. Masten, click here:  2013-Ohio-2905

Appeals Court Strikes Down NLRB Mandate on Union Rights

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court struck down another National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule when it found that the NLRB violated the law by requiring U.S. businesses to put notices in the workplace and on websites, informing employees of their right to unionize.

Federal law prohibits punishing a business for speech, or in this case, lack of speech, as long as the business does not issue threats.  Freedom of speech protects “the right of employers (and unions) not to speak.”  Judge Raymond Randolf wrote for the court.

This is the second major defeat for the NLRB this year.  In January, the same appeals court invalidated President Obama’s appointments to the board due to congressional inactivity.  That ruling is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

To read the full ruling in pdf format, please click here: Appeals Court Strikes Down NLRB Mandate on Union Rights.