Skip to main content

Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.

Conn.April 19, 2022No. SC20574Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Robinson; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court judgment and held that the real estate salesperson's statements regarding the plaintiff's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program constituted illegal housing discrimination under state law, finding the real estate broker vicariously liable.

Excerpt

Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-64c (a) (1)), it is a discriminatory practice ''[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of . . . lawful source of income . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 46a-64c (a) (3)), it is a discriminatory practice ''[t]o make, print or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on . . . lawful source of income . . . or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination.'' The plaintiff sought to recover damages for alleged housing discrimination in connection with certain statements that the defendant H, a real estate salesperson, made regarding the plaintiff's participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. H served as an independent contrac- tor for the named defendant, R Co., a real estate broker. R Co., through H, entered into a listing contract with the defendant V for the exclusive right to lease an apartment owned by V and his wife. Thereafter, the plaintiff, through her real estate agent, B, submitted an application and offer to lease the apartment. After receiving the documents and speaking with V, who wanted the apartment rented by April 1, 2017, H notified B that they were ''all set'' for a lease commencing on that date. B then sent H blank section 8 paperwork to accompany the plaintiff's application. H and B then proceeded to exchange e-mails and text mes- sages, in which H repeatedly indicated that she was not aware that the plaintiff would be using a section 8 voucher, that she would have to speak to V, that the decision was up to V, and that she was not sure if V would want to wait for the section 8 approval process. H eventually texted B that V had received a competing offer for t

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Lopez sued William Raveis Real Estate after a real estate salesperson made discriminatory statements about Lopez's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, which helps low-income people afford housing. The salesperson apparently refused to work with Lopez or made it difficult for them to find housing because they were using this government assistance program to pay rent. **What the Court Decided** The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, reversing a lower court's decision. The court found that the real estate salesperson's comments about Lopez's Section 8 voucher violated Connecticut's fair housing law, which prohibits discrimination based on "lawful source of income." The court also held the real estate company (William Raveis) responsible for their employee's discriminatory actions. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces important protections for workers who receive government housing assistance. Many working people rely on Section 8 vouchers to afford housing, especially in expensive areas. The decision confirms that real estate professionals cannot legally refuse to help someone or treat them poorly just because they use government assistance to pay rent. It also shows that companies can be held accountable when their employees discriminate against people with housing vouchers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.