The Department of Fair Employment and Housing is tasked with hearing complaints, addressing concerns, and making adjustments to current anti-discrimination acts. The agency’s main goal is to protect residents from discrimination of all forms including those that take place in employment, housing, and public places and institutions. The Department is the largest civil rights agency in the United State’s.
DFEH has five offices throughout the state of California and is currently a division within the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agencies.
The agency affords victims of discrimination state lawyers to assist in the prosecution of discrimination or hate crimes.
The various acts the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is responsible for enforcing is the Rumford Housing Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Housing Financial Discrimination Act.
The goal behind the DFEH is to legislate political bills that bar discrimination of any sort and enforce severe penalties against perpetrators.
The DFEH prosecutes cases relating to the following types of discrimination:
Age
Religious
Background
Color
Ancestry
Disability
Health status
Race
National origin
Sexual orientation
Pregnancy status
Marital status
The agency requires businesses and employers to have accommodations that are reasonable to employees that are disabled or are pregnant.
The various acts make it unlawful for real estate agents to refuse to show a property on the belief that the buyer cannot afford the property because of his or her background or to discriminate on any basis due to one’s background. Should the agent fail to properly treat consumers in the marketplace with fair and open practices, the alleged damaged party can file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
How the Department of Fair Employment and Housing Agency Was Created
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act was enacted in 1959 to prohibit employers from discriminating in their hiring and employment practices.
The Act was created to protect victims from employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies. It specifically targets employer violations and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees.
The law also strengthens provisions against sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the offensive, unwarranted sexual advance, action, or language that violates one or more parties.
If the rights of a party have been violated, he or she must file a formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year of the violation. If a lawsuit ensues, the violating party will be required to pay the violated party’s attorney fees and other related legal expenses.
Department of Fair Employment and Housing Case Law
Case Review: Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty (2000)
In the case, Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty (2000) 216 F.3d 827., a paraplegic consumer alleged that he was denied proper access to a real estate company’s property.
A paraplegic plaintiff, Botosan, wished to enter the office of a real estate company, Paul McNally Realty. However, due to the company’s lack of designated handicapped parking spaces, he was prevented from doing so.
Botosan alleged that the company’s lack of handicapped parking spaces violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the public accommodation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Superior Court entered judgment in favor of Botosan. Paul McNally Realty appealed. It argued that Botosan had failed to provide notice to the local or state agencies charged with civil rights enforcement before filing suit. The appellate court contended that Botosan was not required to notify those agencies prior to initiating a lawsuit. It awarded Botosan $1,000 in damages.
Case Review: Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1996)
In the case, Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1143., a couple was denied a tenant application because they were unmarried.
An unmarried couple sought to rent a unit in an apartment building owned by a religious landlord, Evelyn Smith. Smith believed having sex outside of marriage was a sin and that renting to unmarried couples violated her religious convictions. Consequently, she refused to rent the unit to the couple.
The couple brought legal suit against Smith, contending that her decision to deny their application violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
An administrative judge agreed with the couple and awarded them damages. Smith appealed. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling. It contended that ordering Smith to rent to unmarried couples would be a violation of her right to free speech and religious freedoms.
