## Facts

- William Neithamer applied to rent a Washington, D.C. townhouse managed by Brenneman Property Services, Inc. through its rental agent, Padraig A. Wholihan.
- Neithamer disclosed that his credit report reflected earlier delinquencies and explained they stemmed from paying AIDS-related medical bills for his partner, who died in 1994.
- Neithamer provided bank statements and credit references and contended his credit had improved after 1994.
- The property owner, Alida Stephens, rejected Neithamer’s application after it was presented by the management company’s agent.
- After learning of the rejection, Neithamer offered additional assurances, including extra rent as security, a co-signer, and prepayment of a year’s rent.
- Neithamer alleged some of these remedial offers were not conveyed to the owner.
- Neithamer alleged the defendants knew or suspected he was gay and HIV-positive based on his disclosures about his partner’s AIDS-related illness.
- Neithamer asserted other applicants with poor credit were not consistently rejected, suggesting flexible or uneven use of credit criteria.
- After Neithamer raised discrimination concerns, he alleged a company representative, George Brenneman, responded aggressively and threatened legal retaliation.
- Neithamer sued under the Fair Housing Act for disability discrimination and interference (§ 3617) and under the D.C. Human Rights Act for discrimination based on sexual orientation and HIV-related disability, and for intimidation/retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find the defendants refused to rent because of HIV-related disability (including being regarded as having such a disability) and/or sexual orientation, rather than because of credit history.
2. Whether evidence that defendants perceived Neithamer as HIV-positive and acted on AIDS-related stereotypes could support liability under the Fair Housing Act.
3. Whether alleged threats and hostile conduct after Neithamer complained could constitute coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference under FHA § 3617 and analogous D.C. law.
4. Whether the property manager and its agents could avoid liability by attributing the decision solely to the owner, despite evidence they influenced what was presented to the owner.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court denied Neithamer’s motion to strike the summary-judgment motion as untimely.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed on the housing-discrimination and intimidation claims under both federal and D.C. law, requiring a trial.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence permits competing inferences on discriminatory intent, pretext, and credibility.
- Housing-discrimination claims may proceed under a burden-shifting approach: prima facie case, defendant’s legitimate reason, and plaintiff’s showing that the reason may be pretextual.
- Discrimination “because of handicap” under the FHA includes adverse action based on being “regarded as” having an impairment substantially limiting a major life activity.
- A stated reliance on credit history can be found pretextual where there is evidence of inconsistent application of credit standards or failure to consider or communicate mitigating assurances.
- FHA § 3617 prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with a person’s exercise of fair-housing rights, including post-complaint conduct aimed at deterring enforcement.
- Property managers and their agents may be liable when they participate in or contribute to discriminatory housing practices, even if the owner makes the final rental decision.
- The D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and HIV-related disability and provides a parallel basis for liability alongside federal law.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed because the evidence could support findings that the defendants perceived the applicant as HIV-positive, applied credit criteria unevenly or in a way that could conceal bias, failed to convey material offers that could have secured approval, and reacted to discrimination complaints with conduct a jury could view as intimidation or interference with fair-housing rights.


Neithamer v. Brenneman Prop. Servs., Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999)