Is rejecting 3 tenants a discrimination in SF?

CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

I have a situation that i would love some inputs for....

I have a 2/1 in SF and I have an application from 3 youngish late 20 professionals...I dont really want to rent to them because I prefer 2 occupants... But my PM told me if I reject them, it is going to be a discrimination...

Is it?

Thank you..

1 Reply

315 views

Most Popular Reply

Joseph CacciapagliaBusiness Member

Lender · San Antonio, TX · Member since 2020 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

Originally posted by @Diane G.:

Thank you to ALL of you for care to spend the time to share your thoughts...

I was not trying argue with anyone, just simply trying to get educated...

How are 3 people going to share 1 bathroom? Seriously?

Are you joking with the bathroom comment, or can you really not imagine 3 people sharing 1 bathroom? I grew up in a family of 6 in a 3 bed 1 bath home. I'm certainly not alone in this either. There are tons of 3/1 homes that are rented to families of 4+. We have several 4/1's here in San Antonio, and some very large families rent them. You have to realize that a lot of tenants can't afford to live they way that you might be able to.

[email protected]979-218-2286

Joseph Cacciapaglia powered by Morty

Website View Page

29 Reply

See this reply in the discussion

108 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Account Closed
San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
As far as discrimination goes, there are only so many protected classes. There is no protected class for unrelated roommates of a certain number sharing only one bathroom. So, if you say that's your reason for turning them down, I don't see how you can be sued for discrimination.

Google protected classes and discrimination and you should quickly find that you aren't violating any discrimination law, even in SF for this reason, as long as you are consistent and can prove that this was a pre-existing qualification.

Now, if they all turned out to be from a protected class (all African Americans, for instance) and you have never used this reason before for turning someone down, it will certainly look suspicious.

And really, why on earth is it your problem how your tenants deal with sharing a bathroom? What if it was a couple with a ton of kids and you couldn't turn them down because of their family unit all sharing one bathroom?

2 Reply
Account Closed
Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
The one bathroom argument is a bit silly. But there is good reason to not want 3 roommates. It is an unstable situation. Any one of them may decide to move for any reason. Then if the other two can't pay, its an issue. Or they find a new third roommate who you have to screen. I also think people are a bit over fearful about discrimination claims. Of course you shouldn't discriminate against protected classes (race, gender, sexual orientation, family status etc) but in reality discrimination claims against a mom and pop landlord renting a single property is almost impossible to prove. There is simply no statistical basis to do so. That is not to encourage any form of discrimination but simply to ease your mind a bit.
1 Reply
Eleazar Becerra
Queens Village, NY · Member since 2016 · 4 posts · 3 votes
6y
@Diane G. No need to get technocratic about it . 100 % discrimination
0 Reply
Wesley W.
Rental Property Investor · The Vampire State · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
6y
The OP was asking if she was LEGALLY allowed to decline these tenants based on the number of unrelated occupants. It sounds like she has her answer, but not sure why she is not asking her attorney. That's what I would do, especially given the market she's in.

Despite the OP and a few others trying to refocus those posting, people still continue to weigh in on their own experience and opinions on the number of occupants and the bathroom.

@Joe Splitrock @Anthony Wick valiant efforts, gentlemen, but people insist on transferring their own issues onto this post and meandering off the friggin' cliff.

LOL...many people on this thread are entirely confused with the colloquial definition of discrimination (which is getting LOTS of use these days on social media) and the legal definition as it relates to housing. Morals, beliefs, upbringing, opinion....all fun topics, but a legal argument they do not make.

Good grief!
2 Reply
Anthony Wick
Rental Property Investor · Ankeny, IA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
@Wesley W.. I grew up in the country. We often used the outdoor bathroom (a tree)! How dare somebody not realize an actual indoor toilet is a luxury that can be used by a dozen people! That's discrimination! Lol. Lol. Lol. I put those Lol's in there to show I am joking. Sometimes, it needs to be done. Anyway, ya, this thread did get out of control on the finer points of how many people can use a single bathroom.
0 Reply
Dennis BurianPro Member
Rental Property Investor · Oklahoma City, OK · Member since 2018 · 32 posts · 36 votes
6y
@Diane G.
This has become a pretty common situation for us. Our portfolio is mostly 1000 s.f. SFHs with 1 bath and I can think of at least a half dozen times we’ve rented to a threesome in a 2-bed/1-bath. It’s not like they don’t know it’s a 1-bath when they rent it, who am I to say they can’t make it work.
Now then, the lease. Normally, we would fully screen all three. All three would be on the lease as lessees and our lease has a clause that if all lessees are individually liable for the terms of the lease. One moves out, fine, the other two are still responsible. If two move out, same thing, the one left is still responsible for the full amount.
[email protected]
0 Reply
Diane G.
OP
CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
Thank you to all for posting... This group of 3 are 20 something, white, 2 boys and 1 girl....
In screen I ask for income and credit score, but I also ask for bank account and would like to see at least $50K in savings... After my PM put out the terms, they stopped contacting her... So I dont have an issue on hand anymore....
I dont dislike these 3 people on a personal level, PM told me they all seemed sweet..I just dont think it is the right fit for the property....
I am sure they will find a good property that works out fantastic for them....
0 Reply
Colleen F.Pro Member
Investor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
6y
@Diane G. 50 thousand in savings? I am starting to wonder about the world you live in. Most of my tenants wouldn't have that (of course we aren't in California). However you should know that " like to see" is not a criteria either 50k in savings is required or its not. Rely on your PM, you hired them after all. I am curious if you have long vacancies.

@Russell Brazil Narragansett wants to make it 3 unrelated people. The logic astounds me.
3 Reply
Account Closed
New to Real Estate · Antioch, CA · Member since 2020 · 36 posts · 19 votes
6y
50 thousand in liquid savings? If we ballpark and say even on the high end rent is 4k for a 3b/1ba in the FiDi, that's more than a year's worth of money to cover rent if someone were unemployed. Not trying to criticize (enough people on this thread have raked you through the coals already) but am curious what the reasoning is.
1 Reply
George Munoz
Real Estate Agent · Fort Lauderdale, FL · Member since 2018 · 360 posts · 213 votes
6y
If I where you I will keep them, everything seems to check the box, based on what you said. Or if by any chance if you still have time or if yo end up not having them and to avoid similar situation you could put a section on your contract stating you only allow 2 people per room and in the event of having an extra person that will be staying on the premises for more than 2 week Tenants will be responsible for an extra $50 or $25 per extra person. ( I remember I saw that long ago when I was single on my first apartment living by myself) I still remember and thought it was clever. (Up to you, but I will honestly keep them ) Like someone else said here, Maybe they are trying to safe on rent. and with everything going on , corona, 30 million Americans unemployed. 2/1's are tough to find reliable tenants. This could be something good for you . If one of the 3 loose their job the other 2 could take care of rent... I see it as a blessing...
0 Reply
Michael J. Ray
Atlanta, GA · Member since 2020 · 58 posts · 15 votes
6y
@Diane G. Growing up with little with a lot of siblings 3 people can share 1 bathroom. Trust me it’s been done lol unfortunately. Renting to 3 tenant in my eyes is a win. 3 people going in on rent, let’s you know rent will be paid on time. Just my opinion on why you shouldn’t deny them.
0 Reply
Troy B.
Rental Property Investor · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2014 · 26 posts · 19 votes
6y
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Will Dixon:
@Diane G.
Assuming we are reading the same posts here, I don’t understand how you are coming to the conclusion that it is NOT discrimination. Read this if you need further explanation that it is in fact discriminatory.
https://www.sfaa.org/Public/Ma... am not one to get into an argument with someone on BP, but I feel like this is a platform meant to educate. Whether that education be for making someone a better RE investor or a better landlord (they should go hand in hand). It gives me a sick feeling that you have challenged your PM’s knowledge about grounds for discrimination, asked for clarification here, and then drawn your own contrary inference that appears to be based on your own preconceived notions about habitability. I won’t say I agree with 100% of the tenant friendly laws that exist in CA, especially SF & LA, but they are the laws and they exist to protect tenants from what you appear to be doing right now. Do the right thing.

I read this link and digging into the code, it prevents a landlord from raising rents or evicting if people add additional occupants to an existing lease. It doesn't say limiting occupancy of non-related adults is discriminatory as a tenant screening practice.
The amendments are in section 6.15A which covers subletting and section 37.9 which covers eviction. In other words the text is in sections that apply to existing tenants.
You could argue the end effect is the same, because this person could just have two people apply and move the third person in later without recourse. But to say having occupancy limits on unrelated adults is not allowed per screening and is considered discrimination doesn't seem correct. Unrelated adults are not a protected class federally and it doesn't appear locally in San Francisco. If they were a protected class, it would be listed as such. I listed the protected classes from the ordinance in an earlier post.
Personally I would just rent to the three roommates, because it is San Francisco. The anti-landlord hate there is so great that I would be afraid to deny anyone for any reason. It is sad that a landlord doesn't have the right to limit wear and tear on their property. Theoretically by San Francisco occupancy standards there could be 5 adults in that apartment.

Thank you for your constructive post.

1 Reply
Chris Pasternak
Real Estate Broker · Pueblo, CO · Member since 2013 · 368 posts · 303 votes
6y
Originally posted by @Diane G.:
Thank you to ALL of you for care to spend the time to share your thoughts...
I was not trying argue with anyone, just simply trying to get educated...
How are 3 people going to share 1 bathroom? Seriously?

LOL! I grew up family of 4 with 1 bathroom...seriously!?!? If this is what you're concerned about just buy mutual funds

0 Reply
Nadir M.
Property Manager · Westminster, CO · Member since 2018 · 486 posts · 110 votes
6y
@Diane G.
Are you not able to reject them and tell them that a more qualified tenant was chosen? Because if an application was submitted with two applicants only then they would be technically more qualified. Check with your state laws as well they may only accept so many tenants per room for a condo
0 Reply
Cheryl Vargas
Rental Property Investor · Rohnert Park, CA · Member since 2014 · 307 posts · 160 votes
6y
@Diane G.
There are tons of houses that have 3 bedrooms and 1bath, so I’m sure that lots of people have to share a bathroom. They just have to be more patient and willing to wait while someone is in the shower.
0 Reply
Tyion Bridgeman
Real Estate Agent · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2014 · 135 posts · 40 votes
6y
Would you reject a married couple and a young child?
0 Reply
Diane G.
OP
CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
@Tyion Bridgeman
That is two adult... so no I won’t reject that ... as a matter of fact, the previous tenants were a couple and a kid...
0 Reply
Tyion Bridgeman
Real Estate Agent · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2014 · 135 posts · 40 votes
6y
So that sounds like age discrimination or familial status discrimination to me.
0 Reply
Account Closed
San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
6y
Originally posted by @Diane G.:
Thank you to all for posting... This group of 3 are 20 something, white, 2 boys and 1 girl....
In screen I ask for income and credit score, but I also ask for bank account and would like to see at least $50K in savings... After my PM put out the terms, they stopped contacting her... So I dont have an issue on hand anymore....
I dont dislike these 3 people on a personal level, PM told me they all seemed sweet..I just dont think it is the right fit for the property....
I am sure they will find a good property that works out fantastic for them....

It doesn't seem likely that you are for real. But, in case you actually are - requiring $50K in savings could be considered discriminatory, if protected classes in that location would be unfairly disadvantaged.
I think you are way too into micromanaging your property manager. Why pay one if you want to have this kind of micro control?
At any rate, it seems highly unlikely that you are genuine. And if so, good luck, especially in SF.
3 Reply
Aigo Pyles
Flipper/Rehabber · Memphis, TN · Member since 2020 · 758 posts · 285 votes
6y
Why you don't want to rent them? Three isn't that bad.
0 Reply
Lawrence LeungBusiness Member
Property Manager · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2018 · 97 posts · 80 votes
6y
@Diane G. A little late to the game on this one... I'll save you an additional opinion and just call out that what @Elliot Blanford and @Account Closed said are correct in that what you are doing is discriminatory, but not based on any protected classes.
Whatever criteria you use for screening applicants needs to be applied consistently across all applicants and within the context of any existing laws both local, state and federal. And that is not just protected classes but other areas like source of income. (so Sue's comment about the $50k is not discriminatory as long you apply it to ALL your applicants)
To answer your original question, the law you are looking for you can thank Jane Kim. She sponsored a bill when she was on the Board of Supervisors back in 2015 that passed and updated the SF Rental Ordinance to include provisions around occupancy limits.
In summary your PM is right. To not accept them is just a gamble on whether or not you think your applicants are not savvy enough to know they can sue you, and that is a gamble I would rather not take in a place like San Francisco.
KeyOpp Property Management4.6288 Reviews
Website View Page
0 Reply
John Clark
Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
"so Sue's comment about the $50k is not discriminatory as long you apply it to ALL your applicants"
------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you and Sue are wrong. Unless the owner can show that there is a reasonable relationship between a minimum of $50,000 in liquid savings and protecting the landlord's interests, and that a lesser sum would not do, the owner stands to get nailed for disparate impact racial discrimination. Far fewer black or latino prospective tenants will have the requisite trump than white prospective tenants. For background, start with Griggs v Duke Power.

0 Reply
Diane G.
OP
CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
@John Clark - i actually looked up that court case, and not sure I agree with you...
if $50K saving is discriminitary, then you can say 3X income is also discriminatory since blacks and latino are less likely to earn that income....
no offense to you personally, but this argument is complete BS IMO
0 Reply
AJ NA
Member since 2020 · 11 posts · 22 votes
6y
@Diane G. you are a walking discrimination case and posting this on an open forum with your name is a fool’s move. Lot of great advice above, but many aren’t from SF or Cali. You need to be a member of a landlord’s association who can easily provide advice for questions like this, without you exposing your potential discrimination to 8 billion people.
0 Reply
John Clark
Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
"if $50K saving is discriminitary, then you can say 3X income is also discriminatory since blacks and latino are less likely to earn that income...."
----------------------------------------------
You miss the salient point: Rational relationship. Income that is 3X rent has been shown to be rationally related to one's ability to afford the rent (look up "rent burdened" some time). Therefore 3X rent/income ratio is acceptable.

That is not the case with having renters have $50k in savings, which is just about the median income of families in the US. I don't know if you want $50k per tenant, but that just makes your position even more ridiculous. People pay rent out of current income, not savings. Saving are only to help for a rough patch.

So unless you can show a rational relationship between insisting on $50k in liquid assets and paying rent, you are running a severe risk of disparate impact discrimination.

0 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.