## Facts

- Dane County sued Dwight and Patricia Norman, landlords, alleging violations of the county fair housing ordinance for refusing to rent a three-bedroom duplex to (1) three single women and (2) two single women and the children of one woman.
- The ordinance barred discrimination in housing because of “marital status,” defined as being married, divorced, widowed, separated, single, or “a cohabitant,” and prohibited unequal treatment because of marital status of the person maintaining the household.
- Dwight Norman maintained a policy of not renting to groups of unrelated individuals who intended to live together, citing concern that rent would not be paid in full if one roommate moved out.
- In May 1989, a prospective tenant stated she would live with two single women; Norman said he would rent to her alone but not to a group of single people and declined an offer to have one person be solely responsible for rent.
- In August 1989, a prospective tenant with two children stated she would live with another single woman and share rent; Norman again refused based on the unrelated-group policy.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Normans; the court of appeals reversed and found marital-status discrimination; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s policy of refusing to rent to groups of unrelated individuals intending to live together constitutes discrimination based on “marital status” under the county fair housing ordinance.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the Normans.
- The court held the refusal to rent was based on the applicants’ intended living arrangement (living together as unrelated individuals), which the court characterized as conduct rather than protected marital status.
- The court concluded that applying a no-unrelated-groups policy does not amount to treating applicants unequally “because of” marital status, even though “cohabitant” appears in the ordinance’s definition.

## Legal Principles

- “Marital status” protections in a housing ordinance may be limited to status-based classifications and may not extend to all conduct associated with living arrangements.
- A landlord policy directed at household composition (e.g., unrelated co-tenants sharing a dwelling) can be treated as regulating conduct rather than discriminating because of a protected status.
- The inclusion of “cohabitant” within a marital-status definition does not necessarily make every refusal involving cohabitation unlawful; the dispositive question is whether the adverse action occurred because of marital status.

## Conclusion

The court held that the landlords’ refusal to rent to unrelated individuals who planned to live together was not discrimination based on “marital status” under the county ordinance because it targeted the conduct of a proposed living arrangement rather than the applicants’ protected status.


County of Dane v. Norman, 174 Wis. 2d 683, 497 N.W.2d 714 (Wis. 1993)