Whether discriminatory intent is required for liability under the Fair Housing Act Sections 3604(b) and 3617

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is a case of national and monumental importance affecting the entire United States housing industry. It concerns who can be held liable under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), and what conduct is actionable after a dwelling has been leased. In this case, the FHA has held what has proven to be an essential element of a claim under Sections 3604(b) and 3617—discriminatory intent and imposition on senior homeowners dwelling among massive numbers of rental homes in subdivisions. The effect is to dramatically expand the scope of the FHA and allow a new and lawful duty to be imposed on national rental housing providers to guarantee nondiscriminatory living environments, by intervening in known tenant-on-tenant harassment to end the unlawful acts of unrelated third parties over whom the housing provider should have at least knowledge of their prior and liable history. Yet their newly created duty have and should have discernible limits; landlords should be held strictly liable for unlawful conduct by their tenants whom they do participate in or create. 1. By making it unlawful to discriminate because of a protected trait, did Congress require an FHA plaintiff to plead and prove discriminatory intent on the part of the actor sought to be held liable under Sections 3604(b) and 3617? ii | 2. Whether the scope of the FHA can be expanded to impose a duty on housing providers to intervene in and end known discrimination committed by unrelated thirdparties after tenants have taken occupancy of their dwellings?