## Facts

- June E. Sullivan-Lackey held a Section 8 housing voucher and needed to relocate after her then-current unit failed inspection; failure to secure a new unit before expiration would result in loss of benefits.
- She applied to rent a ground-floor apartment owned by Julio Godinez and managed by his son, Carlos Godinez, and disclosed she would use her Section 8 voucher to pay rent.
- Sullivan-Lackey testified that Carlos refused to accept Section 8, stating he did not want audits and would rent only if she paid full rent without the voucher.
- Sullivan-Lackey did not obtain Section 8-qualifying housing before her voucher expired and lost her rental assistance.
- Fair-housing testers contacted the property after the rejection and provided evidence suggesting a general refusal to participate in Section 8 rather than an applicant-specific reason.
- Sullivan-Lackey filed an administrative complaint with the City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations alleging unlawful “source of income” discrimination under the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 8 rental assistance is a protected “source of income” under the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance.
2. Whether the Commission’s finding that the landlords refused to rent because of Sullivan-Lackey’s Section 8 voucher was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the Commission had authority to award damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, and whether those awards were proper.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s judgment that had set aside the Commission’s discrimination finding.
- The court held that Section 8 vouchers constitute a “source of income” under the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance.
- The court held that the Commission’s discrimination finding was supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court upheld the Commission’s remedial order, including damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, and reinstated the Commission’s determination and order in full.

## Legal Principles

- “Source of income” under the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance includes lawful means of support, including governmental rental subsidies such as Section 8 assistance.
- A landlord’s categorical refusal to rent to otherwise qualified applicants because they will pay with Section 8 assistance constitutes prohibited source-of-income discrimination under the ordinance.
- A civil rights enforcement agency’s long-standing, reasonable interpretation of an ordinance it administers is entitled to judicial deference.
- On administrative review, factual findings by the Commission are upheld unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
- As a home-rule municipality, Chicago may enact fair-housing protections broader than state law absent preemption or direct conflict, and such protections may regulate discriminatory refusals without compelling participation in a federal program.
- The ordinance authorizes remedial relief including actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs when discrimination is found.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that Chicago’s prohibition on source-of-income discrimination protects Section 8 voucher holders and reinstated the Commission’s finding that the landlords unlawfully refused to rent to Sullivan-Lackey because of her voucher, along with the awarded damages, fees, and costs.


Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey, 815 N.E.2d 822 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)