## Facts

- A landlord owned and managed several single-family residential rental homes in Oregon.
- A fair-housing organization conducted testing contacts to evaluate whether the landlord discriminated based on familial status.
- During multiple communications about renting, the landlord stated that she did not want children living in her rental homes and indicated she did not rent to families with children.
- A complaint was filed with the housing agency, which investigated and led to a federal enforcement action.
- The United States sued, and the fair-housing organization intervened, alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and parallel Oregon fair-housing provisions.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (refusal to rent/making housing unavailable) and § 3604(c) (discriminatory statements), and under analogous state provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether undisputed evidence that a landlord maintained a categorical practice of refusing to rent to families with children establishes liability under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and parallel Oregon law.
2. Whether undisputed evidence that a landlord stated she did not want children in her rentals establishes liability under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) and parallel Oregon law.
3. Whether any genuine dispute of material fact precluded partial summary judgment on these liability claims.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and § 3604(c).
- The court held that a blanket policy of not renting to families with children unlawfully makes dwellings unavailable because of familial status.
- The court held that statements communicating that children are not wanted or that families with children will not be rented to unlawfully indicate a preference or limitation based on familial status.
- The court granted partial summary judgment on the parallel Oregon fair-housing claims to the same extent.
- The court reserved the determination of remedies (including monetary and injunctive relief) for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), a landlord may not refuse to rent, refuse to negotiate, or otherwise make housing unavailable because of familial status; categorical exclusions of families with children violate the statute absent an applicable statutory exemption.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), liability may be based on statements alone; communications that would convey to an ordinary listener a preference, limitation, or discrimination against families with children are unlawful even if no lease is executed.
- On summary judgment, once the moving party shows the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must produce evidence creating a triable issue and cannot rely on conclusory assertions.
- Where state fair-housing provisions track the federal Fair Housing Act, the same facts establishing federal liability generally establish state-law liability for the same discriminatory conduct.

## Conclusion

The court found no genuine dispute that the landlord maintained a practice of excluding families with children and made statements expressing that preference, and it entered partial summary judgment establishing liability under the Fair Housing Act and corresponding Oregon fair-housing law, leaving remedies for later adjudication.


United States v. Hadlock, No. CV 08-3074-CL, 2010 WL 331772 (D. Or. Jan. 26, 2010)