Are you allowed to screen tenants by appearance or dress?

Question

I don't mean by race or ethnicity but:

If someone shows up to apply covered with tattoos or wearing those pants that hang below the butt, is that enough legally allowable to screen them out? Or do you need to go ahead with the screening process and try to find another reason to get rid of them (evictions) to be fair?

Michael Rossi · Answer

Bienes,

It depends on your state and maybe even your local law.  Appearance is not a protected class for Federal or Ohio discrimination purposes,  Neither is sexual orientation (sorry Eddie), unless Obama's changed that today.  You need to KNOW your state law!

I do screen tenants everyday by the way they look and that applies equally to people of every race, gender, religion, etc.  If a person shows up with K I L L written on their knuckles, I'm not taking them whether they're white, black, or pink polka-dot!!!  The same is true of anyone showing up with pants that are so big they must be held up with one hand.  If they are doing their best to dress like a gangster - they will almost certainly act like a gangster.  NO THANKS!

Eric Wang · Answer

Information is from The California Fair Housing Encyclopedia, ISBN: 0-9729019-1-4.  A book I received from California Apartment Association.

Yes, they will have to prove discrimination.  They will  pretend to be tenants, calling you and visiting your property.  You will be under the watchful eye for a while.  If they find nothing, they move on.

California protected classes:  Marital status, sexual orientation, age, ancestry, source of income, medical condition, arbitrary discrimination, perception and association.

Eddie Ziv · Answer

Posted by Eric:
"In California, it's know as Arbitrary Discrimination, which means "discriminating against a person or group of person based on their personal characteristics, such as person who are tattooed or have body piercings." Not only do we have Federal Protected classes, we Californian also have State Protected Classes we need to follow by. "
______________________________________________

First, everything that is Arbitrary is arbitrary. Second, I'd love to see that law you are referring to. (Any link?)
So here is the deal. In order to prove discrimination, the plaintiff need to gather evidence. That means subpoena all applications from the defendant (landlord) received for the said rental property for that period of time. Then the plaintiff needs to contact all applicants and prove pattern. Then the plaintiff needs (in case of a trial or arbitration) to call for witnesses, etc, etc. Now if you fall within the federal discrimination law , then you have grounds  and therefor a case, but to go through all  the hustle because you ware certain cloth or have tattoos - that's a stretch.

Account Closed · Answer

I don't care if an applicant is a green martian. If he can pass my screening and meets my written criteria, I'll be very happy to rent to him.

The trick is to establish a written criteria that allows you to eliminate applicants who are iffy.  The chances are slim that a gang banger with prison tats is going to pass my screening process.

I don't care what they look like. What I care about is whether or not they will pay the rent on time and that they not tear up my property (which includes not growing or manufacturing drugs in my house).

Youngsters often copy what they see the celebs wearing. I don't think it means much. Screen. If they are bad, someone already knows it; just find that someone and then you can reject.

(I had a real sleezy looking banger turn out to be a computer geek with a very substantial income, no legal issues of any sort, and extremely good rental references-- I'm not passing on a tenant like that in this market!)

Rich Schroeder · Answer

CA is its own monster with crazy laws and rules, mostly run by democrats.  I wonder why they're bankrupt?

Eddie Ziv · Answer

Hhhuuu! And I thought cash flow was the only reason not to buy a rental property in California. Silly me... :crazed:

Dick Green · Answer

California appears to really side with the tenant.
http://www.ag.ca.gov/publications/womansrights/ch4.php

I'd be really ticked off If I came under scrutiny for choosing the better applicant.

Timothy W. · Answer

I've yet to have a guy who came to an appointment dressed like a gangbanger turn out to be an investment banker.  I haven't denied anyone's application based on how they've dressed, but it gives me a heads up on how their background check is likely to be dressed.

Corey Demuth · Answer

I could be wrong but I don't think you have to send the guy a freakin notice saying why he didn't get the apartment. If he calls asking, just tell him you're sorry but a more financially qualified tenant was matched up with it. No? Just find one totally objective fact about whoever you DO end up renting to, and use that as your basis if anyone comes around asking questions later. I suspect whoever you do rent to, will probably have a better work history, more solid references, better credit scores, or something along those lines, than the douche bags with the pants below their ass and the finger tatoos

Eddie Ziv · Answer

MikeOH posted:
"Neither is sexual orientation (sorry Eddie), unless Obama's changed that today"
___________________________________________________
Yap, you were right Mike, The following states do have sexual orientation discrimination laws:
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Are you allowed to screen tenants by appearance or dress?

Most Popular Reply