Michigan landlords to pay $60,000 settlement for refusing rentals to unmarried couples

Associated Press Report

8:29 a.m. EDT, March 17, 2011

HOLLAND, Mich. (AP) — Housing officials in western Michigan say landlords they accused of discrimination have agreed to pay $60,000 as part of a settlement over claims that they refused to rent to unmarried couples.

The Grand Rapids Press reports that Don and Donna Rus of Holland have agreed to pay $60,000 to the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

Elizabeth Vezino, director of advocacy for the Fair Housing Center, says "testers" or decoys asked about renting one of the couple's 14 condos and eight apartments from June 2008 to May 2009. Fair Housing Center officials said the decoys reported being told the properties are rented only to single people and married couples.

The Grand Rapids Press reports that Donna Rus declined to comment.

wsbt-michigan-landlords-to-pay-60000-settlement-for-refusing-rentals-to-unmarried-couples-20110317

« Previous Story More WSBT: Local, National and World News Next Story »

Comments (13)

Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ

dilligaf at 11:50 AM March 18, 2011

Sorry Kelber but I can write anything I want to on this forum according to Mixiecat. In fact she reminded a young lady 2 days ago in the kool aid sniffing article. Isn't it funny how the rules change when Mixie's rules are used against her or people that condone her BS. Mixiecat has time after time forced her moral and religious opinions on other people and this article is no different. The intent of her comments are as easy to read as as book. But then again so is yours after some of the ridiculous ccomments you make. IMO

FlimFlam at 6:03 AM March 18, 2011

I know that the FHA can be skirted ONLY if you have under a certain number of abodes you are renting, I think ~12, could vary by states. Therefore, and I've seen this before, it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on age, sex, sexual orientation, religous affiliation, blagh, blagh, and have it be a perfectly legal decision.

The EEOC rules also have something simmilar in that you can be hired, fired or discriminated against if the employer has under a certain amount of employees, in this state I think iy is ~64, correct me if I'm wrong.

Same for overtime hours with regards to certain job fields and employers. They can get away with NOT paying overtime in some cases depending on wether the business mad and/or claimed less than 500k profits for the year or some other nonsense.

FlimFlam at 5:55 AM March 18, 2011

I've been following a thread on a well know board broadbandreports dot com and what I've seen may shock you. Seeing references like this are absurd and quite frankly the problem with why todays society has so many problems. This "Amigo_boy" asserts that it's actually in our best interest as a collective for those in charge to be "selfish". That WE put them there because of some "unwritten" social document that dictates they should be there because of there ability to lead in a predictable way to further the goals of capitalism and the all-mighty dollar, and that anything-else is labelled "communism" or some other equally slandered oligarcic system, such is the gase in ANY current world government.