## Facts

- Deepika Avanti owned multiple residential rental units in Gold Hill, Colorado, and advertised an available townhouse for rent.
- Tonya Smith and Rachel Smith (a transgender woman), a married same-sex couple with two minor children, contacted Avanti and toured the unit.
- Avanti later emailed that she would not rent to them, citing concerns about their “kids and the noise” and their “unique relationship,” and stating their “uniqueness” could threaten her desire to “maintain a low profile” in the community.
- The Smiths had difficulty finding alternative housing and moved into a less suitable apartment.
- The Smiths sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) alleging discrimination based on sex and familial status, and under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) alleging discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, and familial status.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability; Avanti did not respond or oppose.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing to rent to a same-sex couple that includes a transgender woman because of their “unique relationship” constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under the FHA, including via sex-stereotyping theory.
2. Whether refusing to rent because applicants have children, expressed as concern about “kids and the noise,” constitutes prohibited familial-status discrimination under the FHA.
3. Whether the refusal to rent constituted unlawful discrimination under CADA based on sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, and familial status.
4. Whether plaintiffs met Rule 56 requirements for summary judgment despite the motion being unopposed.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for partial summary judgment on liability.
- The court held Avanti violated the FHA by refusing to rent because of sex (including sex stereotyping tied to transgender status) and familial status.
- The court held Avanti violated CADA by refusing to rent because of sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, and familial status.
- The court found no genuine dispute of material fact because Avanti’s written communications supplied direct evidence of discriminatory motives and there was no counter-evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 56, an unopposed motion does not automatically warrant judgment; the court must still determine that the movant shows no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
- Discrimination “because of sex” under the FHA includes adverse housing decisions motivated by sex stereotypes, including bias against a transgender person for nonconformity with traditional gender norms.
- Explicit reluctance to rent to families with minor children, framed as concern about children and noise, constitutes discrimination based on familial status under the FHA.
- State housing-discrimination statutes that expressly protect sexual orientation and transgender status are violated when a landlord refuses to rent based on those protected characteristics, including where the landlord’s stated reasons show concern about community reaction to an LGBTQ family.

## Conclusion

The court imposed liability as a matter of law where a landlord’s own emails showed she refused to rent to a married same-sex couple with children because of their relationship, transgender status-related sex stereotyping, and the presence of minor children, violating both federal and state fair-housing protections.


Smith v. Avanti, 249 F. Supp. 3d 1194 (D. Colo. 2017)