OPPONENT TESTIMONY for House Bill 149
House Financial Institutions, Housing & Urban Development Committee
May 20, 2015
Hilary King, Executive Director
Housing Research & Advocacy Center
Chairman Terhar, and members of the House Financial Institutions, Housing & Urban
Development Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on
House Bill 149 today. My name is Hilary King and I am Executive Director of the Housing
Research & Advocacy Center a nonprofit fair housing agency. I also have practiced real
estate law in New York and worked as a Realtor in Ohio.
House bill 149 removes the punitive aspects of adjudication and severely reduces civil
penalties for violations to levels that are not sufficient to deter people who discriminate.
This makes it harder for people whose civil rights are violated to receive justice.
From my work as a real estate agent, I know that all Ohio real estate agents are trained in
the fair housing laws before they can become agents and that they are required to obtain
training every three years to maintain their licenses. When I worked as a Realtor with
Howard Hanna Smythe Cramer, I worked with colleagues who strongly supported the fair
housing laws. They worked to ensure that all of their clients were treated fairly. A question
of housing discrimination never crossed my desk.
The Housing Center estimates that over 30,000 instances of housing discrimination occur
in Northeast Ohio every year. The number of housing complaints that are raised before the
Ohio Civil Rights Commission every year is very small. The number of cases where the
Commission determines probable cause every year is even smaller. It is actually very rare
for a housing provider or real estate professional to become a Respondent. The Ohio Civil
Rights Commission does not find probable cause of housing discrimination in all of these
cases. When probable cause is determined, damages are justified.
In order for fair housing organizations to be successful in an administrative charge, they
must prove a violation of the fair housing laws by a preponderance of reliable, probative
and substantial evidence. According to Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. V. McGlone (1988), 82
Ohio St.3d 569, this means evidence sufficient to support a finding of unlawful
discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Title VIII), as amended.
When the Ohio Civil Rights Commission proves a violation of the statute, the Complainant is
entitled to relief which could be actual or punitive damages.
Actual damages are awarded “to put the plaintiff in the same position, so far as money can
do it, as…[the plaintiff] would have been had there been no injury or breach of duty…” Lee
v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 429 F.2d 290, 293 (5th Cir, 1970). Therefore, Complainants
could recover damages based on injuries including economic loss and emotional distress.
Punitive damages are awarded to deter future illegal housing discrimination. They serve as
a deterrent. The amount of punitive damages depends on a number of factors, including:
the nature of Respondents’ conduct; Respondents’ prior history of discrimination;
Respondents size or profitability; Respondents cooperation or lack of cooperation during
the investigation of the charge; and the effect of Respondents’ actions upon Complainants.
O.A.C. 4112-6-01.
The Commission can also order a Respondent to “take any…affirmative or other action that
will effectuate the purposes of this chapter.” R.C. 4112.05(G)(1). For example, in a fair
housing charge, the action would include training on fair housing laws from a nonprofit fair
housing agency. It could also include an equal housing opportunity statement in all
advertisements, rental applications and agreement, and other document; and continued
monitoring of advertisements and rentals.
Compensatory damages for fair housing organizations are computed based on tangible outof-pocket expenses for diversion of resources and frustration of mission. Frustration of
mission and diversion of resources are also the legal requirements for organizational
standing.
Frustration of mission is the conflict between the mission of the fair housing organization
and the defendant’s conduct. Most fair housing organizations are small agencies so that the
time devoted to investigating a complaint is lost to other activities. This time could have
been better used to eliminate housing discrimination through education and outreach for
the community as a whole. Frustration of mission damages can include future testing,
future training, future monitoring, future staff time to counteract discrimination and future
expenses for activities to counteract defendant’s discrimination.
Diversion of resources is computed based on the Respondents’ conduct which causes the
fair housing organization to take actions to address the injury to the mission of the agency,
and to conduct testing and investigation of the complaint to gather evidence to determine
whether there is probable cause that the alleged housing discrimination has taken place.
Diversion of resources can include (1) overhead for the amount of employee hours worked
on the case times the hourly rate for intake and investigation, (2) out-of-pocket expenses,
(3) testing, (4) educational or other efforts taken to counteract the alleged discrimination,
(5) projects which the agency was not able to undertake or complete because of the alleged
discrimination, including those the agency was delayed from undertaking or completing, or
was unable to undertake or complete as a result of the efforts taken to counteract the
discrimination; and (6) future projects the agency might undertake to counteract the
alleged discrimination including the following:

presenting lectures, seminars, classes, or conferences;




holding informal discussions, conversations, or roundtables;
sending letters and materials to targeted populations or specific geographical areas;
targeted outreach and counseling; and
any other activities taken as a result of the discrimination which is not part of the
agencies normal activities.
When presenting fair housing information to landlords, Realtors, municipal officials and
social service providers, I have recognized and applauded Ohio representatives who
originally acted to provide broader protections for your constituents. This protection has
benefited Ohio residents particularly in rural areas and the majority of Ohio residents who
live in one, two, three or four family homes. House Bill 149 would take away these
protections from your constituents. For those who would still have fair housing
protections, it would diminish their ability to obtain justice for discriminatory acts which
damage them and their families.
It is ironic that this bill has been proposed at a time when the Housing Research &
Advocacy Center is receiving a growing number of fair housing complaints. Your
constituents need more protections not less. Ohio fair housing agencies work tirelessly
with limited resources to ensure that the fair housing laws are upheld. Damages provide a
deterrent which protects individuals who might experience housing discrimination. Our
resources would be much better spent providing education and outreach so that all Ohio
residents and housing providers would understand the civil rights protections that exist.
We would prefer to work together to eliminate housing discrimination.