Smith v. Fair Employment and Hous. Comm’n

12 Cal. 4th 1143 (Sup. Ct. 1996); No. S040653 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 9, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51181

Description

California Landlord May Not Discriminate Against Unmarried Tenants

Abstract

The California Supreme Court has held that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits housing discrimination against unmarried couples. Respondent landlord refused to rent to complainant prospective tenants because they were unmarried. Respondent, a Christian, believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin and that God will judge her if she permits people to engage in sex outside of marriage in her rental units. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission held that the FEHA’s prohibition of discrimination based on "marital status" encompassed discrimination against unmarried couples and that the state’s civil rights act prohibited all forms of arbitrary discrimination by business establishments, including discrimination against unmarried couples. Reversing, the court of appeals found that, in view of the free exercise clauses of the federal and state constitutions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the state could not prevent landlord from discriminating against unmarried couples. The supreme court held that the FEHA protected unmarried cohabitants against housing discrimination. Neither federal nor state law required the state to exempt landlord from the FEHA to avoid burdening her religious exercise. The right of free exercise did not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribed (or prescribed) conduct that the individual’s religion prescribed (or proscribed). In addition, requiring landlord to comply with the FEHA’s antidiscrimination provisions did not substantially burden her religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court noted that (1) landlord’s religion did not require her to rent apartments, nor was investment in rental units the only available income-producing use of her capital; (2) the asserted burden was the result not of a law directed against religious exercise but of a religion-neutral law that happened to make landlord’s religious exercise more expensive; and (3) to grant the requested accommodation would not affect landlord alone but would necessarily impair third parties’ rights and interests.

Additional Information

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

Files

Filed under: