## Facts

- Layle French owned and advertised a two-bedroom house for rent in Marshall, Minnesota.
- French previously rented the property to both single individuals and married couples.
- Susan Parsons, an unmarried woman, sought to rent the house and intended to live there with her fiancé, Wesley Jenson.
- On February 22, 1988, French agreed to rent to Parsons and accepted a $250 security deposit.
- After concluding Parsons and Jenson would cohabit and likely engage in premarital sex, French decided not to rent to Parsons.
- On February 24, 1988, French told Parsons he would not rent to her because unmarried opposite-sex cohabitation conflicted with his religious beliefs as a member of the Evangelical Free Church.
- French believed cohabitation itself created an “appearance of evil,” regardless of whether sexual relations occurred.
- Parsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights alleging housing discrimination based on marital status under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
- An administrative law judge found French liable and awarded compensatory damages, damages for mental anguish, and a civil penalty.
- The court of appeals affirmed the administrative ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the MHRA’s ban on housing discrimination “because of marital status” covers a landlord’s refusal to rent to an unmarried person intending to cohabit with a fiancé.
2. If the MHRA is read to prohibit the refusal, whether enforcing it against a landlord with sincere religious objections to unmarried cohabitation violates state and federal constitutional protections for religious exercise.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and the administrative decision.
- The court set aside the finding of MHRA liability and vacated the monetary awards against French.
- The court concluded the MHRA did not require French to rent under these circumstances and that compelling him to do so would impermissibly burden religious exercise.

## Legal Principles

- “Marital status” discrimination under the MHRA is not necessarily coextensive with objections to a specific living arrangement (unmarried cohabitation) when the refusal is tied to sincere religious beliefs.
- Courts may construe a civil rights statute narrowly to avoid serious constitutional questions when legislative intent to reach the challenged conduct is not clear.
- Government action that places a person to the choice of violating religious beliefs or facing civil liability can constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise requiring heightened justification.
- Remedies imposed through administrative enforcement (damages and civil penalties) are unavailable where statutory liability is not established.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court overturned administrative and appellate rulings that treated a religiously motivated refusal to rent to an unmarried cohabiting couple as marital-status discrimination, holding that the MHRA did not compel rental on these facts and that enforcement would unduly burden religious exercise.


State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990)