A tenant was being racially harassed by another tenant. The harassed tenant complained to his landlord who did nothing. The landlord told its managing company not to get involved and refused to address the tenant's letters. The harassing tenant was allowed to stay in the building until his lease expired. The harassed tenant sued the landlord under the Fair Housing Act, but the district court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed.
The Court, agreeing with the Seventh Circuit, held that "the FHA’s use of the terms 'privileges' and 'conditions' refers not just to the sale or rental itself, but to certain benefits or protections flowing from and following the sale or rental." And, agreeing with the Ninth Circuit, the Court noted "that '[t]he inclusion of the word ‘privileges’ implicates continuing rights,' indicating that the 'natural reading' of the statute 'encompasses claims regarding services or facilities perceived to be wanting after the owner or tenant has acquired possession of the dwelling.'" Based on this, the Court held that the post-acquisition claims (claims not related to discrimination in deciding whether to rent premises to an individual and which take place after the individual has acquired a lease for the premises) were actionable under the FHA.
The Second Circuit, agreeing with the Seventh Circuit, held that a landlord who knows of ongoing harassment and is in a position to take action against it, but does nothing can be found liable under the FHA.
Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. authored the decision and was joined by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler. Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented.
The decision (and the dissent) in Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. can be found here.