DiLiddo v. Oxford Street Realty, Inc.

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a one-month lease-termination provision in the Alternative Housing Voucher Program lease was a requirement of the subsidy program under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10). A landlord’s refusal to accept the provision for purported economic reasons therefore constituted unlawful discrimination against a housing subsidy recipient, and reliance on advice of counsel was not a defense. The court reversed the denial of the plaintiff’s partial summary-judgment motion, vacated summary judgment for the defendants, and remanded for entry of judgment on liability and further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The one-month termination provision in the AHVP standard form lease was a requirement of the Alternative Housing Voucher Program because the Department of Housing and Community Development required participating landlords and tenants to use the lease to implement the program.
2. A landlord may not refuse to rent to a housing subsidy recipient because the landlord objects to a requirement of the subsidy program for economic reasons, even if the landlord acts without discriminatory animus or in good faith.
3. Oxford and Indeck could be held liable because they participated in locating, interviewing, and choosing tenants and therefore at minimum aided or abetted the discriminatory refusal.
4. Reliance on advice of counsel is not a defense to a claim under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10), because that provision does not require a willful or intentional violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the one-month termination provision in the AHVP standard form lease was a requirement of the AHVP for purposes of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10).
2. Whether a landlord may refuse to accept a housing subsidy program requirement because the landlord considers it economically disadvantageous or has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for doing so.
3. Whether a landlord's agent may be liable under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10) and § 4 (5) when the agent participates in selecting tenants and refuses to sign the required subsidy-program lease.
4. Whether reliance on advice of counsel is a defense to liability under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (10).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded