Government Could Restrict Landlords' Use of Criminal Background Information

By Michael Klazema on 4/21/2016

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (or HUD) wants to crack down on landlords for the use of criminal background checks in housing applicant screenings. Under a pending set of rules, HUD would reportedly be more adamant about flagging and punishing landlords for fair housing violations. Specifically, in regards to background checks, landlords could land in big trouble for dismissing housing applicants summarily due to felony status or using arrest records as a means to reject applications.

Some are worried that HUD's new rules are part of a social justice crusade and limit the freedoms of American business people. In an article published by, for instance, the deputy director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Right on Crime Center noted that felons are "not a protected class" and argued that HUD was more worried about "the stigma of past criminal offence than public safety."

However, while felons aren't a protected class, HUD's argument is that background checks and the decisions landlords make because of them have a disproportionate impact on minority groups—specifically African-Americans. If this argument sounds familiar, it's because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has made them before in regards to background checks used for employment purposes.

In many ways, HUD's proposed "guidance" on the housing background check issue is identical to the EEOC's current guidance on employment background checks. Just like the EEOC, HUD would bar landlords from taking arrest records into account when judging housing applications. This move makes sense: arrests are not a sign of criminal guilt and should not have any bearing on housing decisions. Without a conviction, an arrest cannot be taken as a prediction that a housing applicant is a threat to "public safety." Someone who was arrested but not convicted could have been wrongly accused and cleared of wrongdoing, or never charged with a crime at all.

Also like the EEOC, HUD doesn't want landlords tossing out applications of anyone who has a criminal conviction—or even anyone who has a felony charge. Instead, the department says that landlords must prove their policies for barring applicants are "necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest."

In other words, if a landlord wants to bar an applicant for a criminal conviction, the landlord must have a strong argument for why the applicant might pose a threat. For instance, a convicted murderer or rapist might be dangerous to other tenants or the nearby community. In essence, landlords would have to decide on a conviction-by-conviction basis to determine whether or not they had a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" reason to bar a housing applicant based on criminal history.

HUD's rules are not yet final. Stay tuned to learn more about these background check-related developments in the housing industry.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.