## Facts

- Marsha Wetzel, an openly lesbian woman, lived at Glen St. Andrew Living Community, a residential facility for older adults, under a tenant agreement providing housing, meals, and access to common facilities.
- Wetzel alleged that other residents subjected her to repeated anti-gay slurs, threats, and physical assaults because of her sexual orientation.
- Wetzel repeatedly reported the harassment to facility staff and management.
- According to the complaint, the facility did not take effective steps to stop the harassment and instead restricted Wetzel’s access to common areas and dining arrangements.
- Wetzel further alleged that staff issued pretextual rule-violation notices and built a case to evict her after she complained about discrimination.
- Wetzel remained a tenant during the litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fair Housing Act permits a claim against a landlord that has actual notice of tenant-on-tenant harassment based on a protected characteristic and fails to take reasonable steps within its control to stop it.
2. Whether a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3617 requires allegations of discriminatory animus by the landlord toward a protected class, or instead only that the landlord took adverse action because the tenant complained about discrimination.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and remanded.
- The court held that the FHA can impose liability on a landlord that has actual notice of tenant-on-tenant harassment based on a protected status and does not take reasonable steps within its control to stop it.
- The court held that Wetzel plausibly alleged retaliation under § 3617 based on adverse actions taken because she complained about discrimination; class-based animus by the landlord was not required at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- FHA § 3604(b) reaches post-acquisition discrimination affecting “terms, conditions, or privileges” of rental and the provision of services or facilities, including harassment that unreasonably interferes with use and enjoyment of a dwelling.
- A landlord is not strictly liable for tenant misconduct; liability may arise where the landlord has actual notice of discriminatory tenant-on-tenant harassment and fails to take reasonable corrective measures within its control.
- The landlord’s liability rests on the landlord’s own intentional inaction in the face of known discrimination, not vicarious responsibility for the harasser’s motives.
- Under FHA § 3617, a plaintiff states a retaliation claim by alleging coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference because the plaintiff exercised FHA-protected rights (such as complaining about housing discrimination), without needing to plead animus toward the protected class.
- Recognizing landlord liability in this context regulates the landlord’s response to discriminatory conditions in housing, not private tenants’ speech as such.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the FHA permits claims based on a landlord’s failure to address known, status-based tenant-on-tenant harassment when reasonable corrective steps are available, and that § 3617 retaliation focuses on adverse action taken because a tenant complained about discrimination rather than on the landlord’s class-based animus.


Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018)