## Facts

- Lori DiLiddo, a disabled tenant, sought to rent an apartment managed by Oxford Street Realty, Inc. and its principal, Jeffrey W. Indeck.
- DiLiddo would pay rent using a Massachusetts Alternative Housing Voucher Program (AHVP) subsidy administered through a public housing authority.
- AHVP participation required the landlord to execute a standard program lease, which included a clause allowing the tenant to terminate the tenancy on 30 days’ written notice.
- Oxford initially agreed to rent to DiLiddo at an agreed rent, but refused to sign the AHVP lease after reviewing the termination clause, citing economic disadvantage.
- DiLiddo lost the apartment opportunity and alleged discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(10), which bars discrimination against subsidy recipients and discrimination because of “any requirement” of a subsidy program.

## Issues

1. Whether the AHVP form lease’s 30-day tenant termination provision is a “requirement” of a subsidy program under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(10).
2. Whether refusing to rent to an AHVP participant because the landlord rejects that lease provision constitutes unlawful discrimination under § 4(10).
3. Whether a landlord’s asserted economic objections to a subsidy-program lease term provide a defense under § 4(10).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court’s summary judgment for the defendants and reversed the denial of DiLiddo’s partial summary judgment motion.
- The court held that the AHVP termination provision was a “requirement” of the subsidy program within the meaning of § 4(10).
- The court held that refusing to execute the required AHVP lease term, and therefore refusing to rent to DiLiddo using her subsidy, violated § 4(10).
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for DiLiddo as to liability and for further proceedings on relief.

## Legal Principles

- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(10) prohibits discrimination against a rental applicant both because the person receives a public housing subsidy and because of “any requirement” of the subsidy program.
- A lease provision may qualify as a program “requirement” when it is a mandatory condition of program participation, even if the requirement appears in standardized program documents rather than the statute.
- A landlord may not avoid § 4(10) by characterizing refusal to accept mandatory program terms as a business decision; rejecting a mandatory lease term that subsidy tenants must use is discrimination “because of” a program requirement.
- Section 4(10) contains no general exception permitting refusal based on a landlord’s view that a required program term is economically unfavorable.

## Conclusion

The court held that AHVP’s mandatory lease termination clause was a subsidy-program requirement and that a landlord’s refusal to rent to a voucher holder because it rejected that clause is unlawful discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(10), requiring judgment for the tenant on liability.


DiLiddo v. Oxford Street Realty, Inc., 450 Mass. 66 (2007)