## Facts

- Two brothers owned and managed Massachusetts residential rental properties, including a four-unit apartment building.
- The landlords were Roman Catholic and maintained a policy of not renting to prospective tenants whose intended living arrangements would violate their religious beliefs, including unmarried cohabitation.
- In August 1989, one brother refused to consider renting an available apartment to an unmarried man and woman who intended to live together as cotenants.
- The landlords’ sole reason for the refusal was their religion-based objection to unmarried cohabitation; they had applied this policy multiple times over many years.
- The prospective tenants filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination alleging unlawful housing discrimination based on marital status under G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6).
- The Attorney General filed a civil enforcement action on the tenants’ behalf; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the landlords on free-exercise grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing to rent an apartment to an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who intend to live together constitutes discrimination “because of … marital status” under G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6).
2. Whether applying G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6) to compel the landlords to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples violates free exercise of religion under the Massachusetts Constitution (art. 46, § 1).
3. Whether the same application violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The court held that refusing to rent to an unmarried man and woman as cotenants because they intend to live together is discrimination based on “marital status” under G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6).
- The court concluded that applying § 4(6) substantially burdened the landlords’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
- Under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth was required to show a compelling governmental interest and that enforcing § 4(6) against these landlords was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
- The summary-judgment record was insufficient to determine whether the Commonwealth met that burden.
- The court vacated summary judgment for the landlords and remanded for further proceedings to develop an evidentiary record on compelling interest and least restrictive means.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord’s refusal to rent to an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who plan to live together is discrimination “because of … marital status” within G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6), even if framed as an objection to the couple’s intended conduct.
- When government action substantially burdens a sincere religious practice, Massachusetts constitutional free-exercise analysis applies strict scrutiny: the government must prove a compelling interest and least restrictive means.
- Whether an asserted governmental interest is compelling, and whether the chosen enforcement method is the least restrictive means, may require fact development and may be unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the landlords’ refusal to rent to an unmarried cohabiting couple constituted marital-status discrimination under Massachusetts antidiscrimination law, but it vacated judgment for the landlords because the free-exercise defense required strict-scrutiny factfinding on the Commonwealth’s interest and the necessity of enforcement in this context.


Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 316, 636 N.E.2d 233 (1994)