President of the HCV Advisory Council of Chicago Opposes Trump’s Attempt to Gut Core Civil Rights Protections

9/24/2019 – President of the HCV Advisory Council of Chicago, Zo Slater, condemned a proposed rule recently published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that would destroy a key civil rights tool under the Fair Housing Act called “disparate impact.” If the rule is finalized, it would be virtually impossible to challenge covert discriminatory practices by financial institutions, insurance companies, and housing providers, and open the floodgates for widespread discrimination against millions of people, particularly communities of color, women, immigrants, families with children, people of faith, and people with disabilities.

The Trump administration’s move has already drawn widespread opposition from a diverse array

of civil rights, consumer protection, and community development groups. Now, diverse coalition
of civil rights groups has created the campaign to “Defend Civil Rights” aimed at mobilizing
thousands of people across the country to oppose the proposed rule and sound the alarm on its
widespread, harmful consequences. Learn more about the campaign at DefendCivilRights.org
 

“The Trump administration has launched one of the most aggressive attacks on civil rights

protections. We strongly condemn HUD’s proposed rule that would effectively gut the ‘disparate
impact’ tool under the Fair Housing Act. Let’s be clear: this is just one part of the Trump
administration’s broader agenda to obliterate the rights and liberties of millions of people, and
we will fight it at every turn,” said Slater.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HUD’s proposed rule adds new standards and makes drastic changes that institute dangerous

exceptions to the disparate impact tool, which has been used for almost 50 years to combat
discrimination. Key proposed changes include:

● Overwhelming obstacles to prove discrimination: Victims of discrimination will face a

drastically higher burden to prove a disparate impact claim under the FHA, making it virtually impossible to succeed. Victims are asked to play a rigged game of whack-amole,
trying to guess what justifications a defendant might invoke and preemptively
debunk them.

● Profits above all else: Language in the proposed rule suggests that a practice or policy

that is profitable could be immune from challenge for its discriminatory impact—with the burden on discrimination victims to show that a company can make at least as much
money without discriminating.

● Discrimination by algorithm: The proposed rule would provide special defenses for

business practices that rely on statistics or algorithms. Disparate impact is a critical tool to rein in discrimination in the use of algorithmic models—such as credit scoring,
pricing, marketing, and automated underwriting systems. They can have starkly
discriminatory effects but can operate as a hidden box, making those discriminatory
effects difficult to attribute to any person’s intentional discrimination. HUD’s proposed
rule could effectively immunize such covert discrimination by algorithm.

● No data, no records, no accountability: Businesses are disincentivized to collect

important data that can reveal discrimination. This means that victims of discrimination will be unable to identify whether discrimination is happening and lack the ability to
challenge it if they do detect discrimination.
 

The Fair Housing Act bars not only intentional discrimination, but also the use of policies that

appear neutral on their face but have the effect of creating unnecessary “disparate impact” on
underserved groups such as people of color, women, and people with disabilities. Disparate
impact is a foundational fair housing principle and an essential part of the fabric of fair housing
enforcement. The doctrine was established in the 1970s and has been supported by both
Republicans and Democrats since then.
 
 

First employed by the Nixon administration, it requires housing providers, lenders, and others to

make sure their policies apply fairly to all persons. Every appellate court to consider the question
has found that the Fair Housing Act bars practices with unjustified disparate impact. In the

landmark 2015 case Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive

Communities Project, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that disparate impact is critical to the
Fair Housing Act’s ability to accomplish its “continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.” The Court acknowledged a 2013 HUD rule that recognized disparate
impact claims and provided a framework for litigating them, never suggesting that anything in
the 2013 rule was invalid. In fact, the Court’s decision references the 2013 rule.

HUD’s proposed changes to the 2013 rule would gut effective disparate impact enforcement.

This is one of the most overt assaults so far in the Trump administration’s crusade to dismantle
essential civil rights protections.


The HCV Advisory Council of Chicago is a project entity and subsidiary organization of Vennmedia: ANME that provides a forum for HCV participant feedback. This input helps better develop policies and procedures that affect HCV participants. Vennnmedia: ANME is a nonprofit organization that has been working toward economic, educational and community development utilizing new media technology to create social change in which Zo Slater serves as the Executive Director.

For more info or questions contact us at info@vennmedia.org or go to www.vennmedia.org