Reference no: EM133358788

Linda Leach has recently acquired a 50 unit residential apartment house. She announces that all new leases, either with existing tenants or new tenants, will be executed only with tenants who can demonstrate that their monthly income exceeds three times the monthly rent (the "three-times-rent" requirement). In addition she intends to require a showing that the income used to meet the three-times-rent requirement is earned income as opposed to income from investments, welfare payments, spousal support payments or other unearned income (the "earned income" requirement). Your client, Tamela Harris, is currently a tenant in the apartment house. Most of her income comes from a combination of spousal support and public assistance payments. Her total monthly income is less than three times the monthly rent.You will argue that Leach's new requirements are invalid for two reasons. First, you believe that both requirements are unreasonable and therefore invalid on their face. Second, you believe that you can show that the two requirements effectively discriminate against women and racial minorities. Statistically, more women than men receive public assistance, spousal support or child support. Consequently, the earned income requirement will tend to prevent women from becoming or remaining tenants. Moreover, racial minorities and women on average tend to have substantially lower incomes than men. Consequently, they will have more difficulty than non-minority men in meeting the three-times-rent requirement.Assume that your jurisdiction has a statute similar to the Unruh Act of Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson. Consider whether Leach's actions would violate such a statute. Consider also whether Leach's actions should be treated as a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. Leach will undoubtedly attempt to defend her requirements on the ground that they are legitimate business decisions not motivated by racial or gender prejudice.