Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to footer

Recap — Fair Housing Disputes, Exceptions & Enforcement

13 minPRO
6/6

Key Takeaways

  • Financial exposure ranges from $21K administrative penalties to multi-million-dollar DOJ settlements.
  • Disparate impact applies to facially neutral policies; the four-fifths rule presumes impact below 80% selection rate.
  • ESA compliance requires granting accommodations without pet charges; HUD 2020 guidance refines online documentation evaluation.
  • Systematic prevention costs $10K–$30K/year—a fraction of the seven-figure exposure it prevents.
This track contains subscriber-only lessons

Explore free tracks in this area of study, or subscribe for full access.

Browse available tracks
"Disparate Impact, ESA Disputes & AI Screening Risks" is a Pro track

Upgrade to access all lessons in this track and the entire curriculum.

Test Your Knowledge

1.Under disparate impact, what must a landlord prove after a policy is shown to have disproportionate effect?

2.How many HUD complaints within two years typically trigger pattern-or-practice investigation risk?

3.A landlord uses an AI screening tool that denies 40% of Hispanic applicants but only 15% of white applicants. Who bears liability?