Smith v. Fair Employment and Hous. Comm'n

51 Cal. Rptr. 700 (Sup. Ct. 1996); No. S040653 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 9, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51122

Description

Landlord May Not Refuse on Religious Grounds to Rent to Unmarried Couple

Abstract

The California Supreme Court has held that California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status against prospective tenants, including discrimination against unmarried couples. Complainants, an unmarried couple, alleged that respondent landlord refused to rent an apartment to them. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission held that landlord violated the statute by refusing to rent to complainants because of their marital status. The appellate court reversed, finding that the state may not constitutionally apply the FEHA to a landlord whose religious beliefs consider renting an apartment to unmarried tenants to be sinful. Reversing, the supreme court rejected landlord's argument that the statutory ban on marital status discrimination does not cover unmarried cohabiting couples; the court cited FEHA's language, its uniform and long-standing interpretation by the commission and the courts, and its legislative history in concluding that the FEHA protects unmarried cohabitants from housing discrimination. The court also held that landlord was not exempted from FEHA's prohibitions under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., or the California Constitution. Noting that the FEHA is both generally applicable and neutral toward religion, the court found that it does not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Requiring landlord to comply with FEHA's antidiscrimination provisions does not substantially burden her religious exercise and therefore does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Article I, section 4, of the California Constitution, which guarantees "[f]ree exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference," does not require accommodation of landlord's religious beliefs.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
1970-01-01 06:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: