Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
N. D. Fair Hous. Council v. Peterson
2001 N.D. 81 (N.D. Sup. Ct. 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53846
Description
Citing Anticohabitation Statute, North Dakota Supreme Court Finds No Housing Discrimination in Landlords’ Refusal to Rent to Unmarried Couple
Abstract
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that refusal to rent to
unmarried couples was not an unlawful discriminatory practice. In
March 1999 engaged appellants—now married—sought to
rent a home from appellee landlords. Landlords declined, citing
state law forbidding “liv[ing] openly and notoriously with a
person of the opposite sex as a married couple without being
married. . . .” The couple and the North Dakota Fair Housing
Council sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging
that the landlord’s actions violated the state Human Rights
Act’s prohibition against housing discrimination on the basis
of “status with respect to marriage” and that the
unlawful cohabitation statute was meant primarily to prohibit a
couple from fraudulently presenting themselves as married when they
were not. Finding that the Fair Housing Council had no standing
under the Human Rights Act, the district court dismissed it as a
party. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
landlords; it found that North Dakota public policy disfavored
cohabitation and that, based on the state law, landlords were
entitled to deny housing to the unmarried couple. The supreme court
affirmed, finding that the legislature did not intend the Human
Rights Act to repeal the cohabitation prohibition statute and that
the “status with respect to marriage” provision
protected tenants against discrimination due to being married,
single, divorced, or widowed but did not extend to unmarried
couples. The court explained that the cohabitation statute
regulated conduct, not status, and that the two statutory
provisions could be read harmoniously.
