NCRC Civil Rights Testing Finds Discriminatory Practices in Housing

The practice of restricting neighborhoods to certain races or incomes was a significant part of America’s segregated past. Discrimination in lending and housing is generally less overt than it used to be, but it’s still a problem. NCRC’s fair housing and fair lending teams regularly conduct civil rights testing to determine whether housing providers and lenders comply with civil rights laws. This testing has led to several recent victories against businesses with discriminatory practices. Here are some examples from 2019:

A housing provider in Newport News, Virginia, agreed to a settlement after NCRC’s testing showed that a white “tester” was given substantially better treatment than a Latino tester. 

In this case, both testers spoke to the same leasing agent on the same day and inquired about a one-bedroom apartment. The Latino tester was told that there were no one-bedroom units available, while the white tester was told that a one-bedroom unit was available. The white tester was given a tour, and the Latino tester was not.

The housing provider settled with NCRC and agreed to pay $2,500 in damages. The provider also agreed to arrange for its staff to receive civil rights training. 

In a similar case in Jacksonville, Florida, a housing provider agreed to a settlement after NCRC’s testing showed that a white tester was given substantially better treatment than an African American tester. 

In this case, a white tester and an African American tester spoke to the same agent on the same day. The white tester was given a tour and offered a discount. The African American tester was not offered a tour or a discount. The white tester received a call from the housing provider the next day, while the African American tester was never contacted.

The housing provider settled with NCRC, agreed to pay $1,500 in damages and to arrange for its staff to receive civil rights training.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, NCRC filed a complaint against a housing provider that provided substantially better treatment to an able-bodied tester than to a tester with a disability. 

In this case, both testers left messages for the same employee on the same day. One tester mentioned in her message that she uses a wheelchair, while the able-bodied tester mentioned nothing related to disability. The employee of the housing provider only followed up with the able-bodied tester.

The City of Charlotte investigated and charged the housing provider with discrimination. The case is now headed to a public hearing. 

These cases show that laws alone are not enough. Even when companies claim to follow the law, their employees can still pick and choose who they work with based on their own personal biases. This results in discrimination in housing, as well as other aspects of life, that still impact the lives of millions of Americans. 

Jake Lilien is NCRC’s Compliance Program Manager.

To learn more about discrimination in housing, contact:

Sara Oros
Program Coordinator, Fair Housing/Fair Lending

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Scroll to Top

Redlining and Neighborhood Health

Before the pandemic devastated minority communities, banks and government officials starved them of capital.

Lower-income and minority neighborhoods that were intentionally cut off from lending and investment decades ago today suffer not only from reduced wealth and greater poverty, but from lower life expectancy and higher prevalence of chronic diseases that are risk factors for poor outcomes from COVID-19, a new study shows.

The new study, from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) with researchers from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health and the University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab, compared 1930’s maps of government-sanctioned lending discrimination zones with current census and public health data.

Table of Content

  • Executive Summary
  • Introduction
  • Redlining, the HOLC Maps and Segregation
  • Segregation, Public Health and COVID-19
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
  • Citations
  • Appendix

Complete the form to download the full report: