Worcester Housing Authority v. Massachusetts Com'n Against Discrimination
| Decision Date | 12 December 1989 |
| Citation | 406 Mass. 244,547 N.E.2d 43 |
| Parties | WORCESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION. 1 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Michael W. Clancy, Worcester (William J. Ritter, with him), for plaintiff.
Sharyn E. Dreyer, Boston, for defendant.
James M. Shannon, Atty. Gen., Rosanna Cavallaro and Ruth A. Bourquin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Secretary of Executive Office of Communities and Development, submitted a brief.
Jeffrey W. Purcell, Steven A. Hitov and Richard M.W. Bauer, for Mass. Union of Public Tenants & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
This case raises the issue whether, in denying public housing benefits to three unmarried couples on the sole basis that they were not married, the Worcester Housing Authority (authority) violated subsections (6) and (7) of § 4 of G.L. c. 151B (1988 ed.), which make it unlawful for managing agents of publicly assisted housing accommodations "to refuse to rent or lease ... or withhold from any person or group of persons [housing] accommodations because of the ... marital status of such person or persons." The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (commission) concluded that the authority's policy was unlawful. The commission directed the authority to cease following the policy, to furnish benefits to the complainants, and to pay them damages. The authority brought a petition in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 151B, § 6, to set aside the commission's decision. A judge in the Superior Court allowed the commission's motion for summary judgment, and judgment entered affirming the commission's decision. The authority appealed and we granted its application for direct appellate review. We agree with the commission that G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6) and (7), are unambiguous and that the plain words of the provisions prohibit the authority from maintaining its policy.
The commission became involved in the controversy as the result of complaints brought by three couples who had been denied either access to public housing or rental assistance payments by the authority. Each of the couples had been living together. One couple were the parents of one child, another of four children, and a third of two children. The man and the woman comprising each couple were not married to each other. In each case, the authority denied the couple's application because the man and the woman were not married to each other, and, consequently, could not meet the authority's definition of a "family." 2 In keeping with that definition, the authority refuses to provide housing or housing-related benefits to unmarried couples and their children.
General Laws c. 151B, § 4(6) and (7), were amended in 1973 (St.1973, c. 187, §§ 1-3) to prohibit discrimination in housing based on marital status. As revised, the statute makes it unlawful
"to refuse to rent or lease or sell or negotiate for sale or otherwise to deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons ... accommodations [and assistance] because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, sex, age, ancestry or marital status of such person or persons " (emphasis supplied).
The authority makes numerous arguments urging us to conclude that the language in the statute protects only divorced and single individuals and not the unmarried couples who filed the complaints in this case. These arguments include the authority's view of how the statutory language should be interpreted, reference to decisions from other jurisdictions and a discussion of what the authority perceives to be good public policy.
In our view the authority's contentions are eclipsed by the reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v. Desilets
...by G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6). There is no merit to this argument. This court's opinion in Worcester Hous. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 406 Mass. 244, 547 N.E.2d 43 (1989), makes clear that the prohibition in G.L. c. 151B, § 4(6), against discrimination in leasing because......
-
Freeman v. Sullivan
...42 U.S.C. § 1437f, and the regulations promulgated by HUD to effectuate the Act); Worcester Housing Authority v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 406 Mass. 244, 547 N.E.2d 43 (1989) (considering the legality of a public housing authority's eligibility determination under Massach......
-
Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com.
...position. (Attorney General v. Desilets, supra, 418 Mass. at p. 320, 636 N.E.2d at p. 235; Worcester Hous. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination (1989) 406 Mass. 244, 547 N.E.2d 43; Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Com'n., supra, 874 P.2d at p. 278; Foreman v. Anchorage Equa......
-
Donahue v. Fair Employment and Housing Com'n
... ... , which prohibits "marital status" discrimination. However, we find that the Donahues are entitled ... regarding the statutory prohibition against marital status discrimination in housing and to ... Kern County Housing Authority, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 89, 130 Cal.Rptr. 375.) ... 1199, 1201-1202.) Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court observed that their ... ...
-
The Right of Religious Landlords to Exclude Unmarried Cohabitants: Debunking the Myth of the Tenant's "new Clothes"
...to a housing shortage for cohabitants. See id. at 235; see also Worcester Hous. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 547 N.E.2d 43, 44-45 (Mass. 1989) (holding state statute prohibiting public housing agents from withholding public accommodations because of marital status w......