State Housing Law Affecting Victims publications
1985 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. 45 (1985). This opinion, issued by the New York Attorney General in 1985, forbids landlords from evicting victims of domestic violence.
This law prohibits Californian landlords from evicting a based upon an act of sexual assault, domestic violence, or stalking committed against the tenant. This law only applies if the tenant does not live with the perpetrator and the tenant has a police report or restraining order based upon the incident that was issued in the past 180 days. However, a landlord may still evict a tenant if the survivor invites the perpetrator to his or her house or if the landlord believes in good faith that the perpetrator will act violently against other tenants.
This law allows victims of crimes, including sexual assault, to force their landlord to change the locks on their houses or apartments. The survivor can use either a police report or a court order to document the violence. This code section only applies if the tenant DOES NOT live with the perpetrator.
This law allows victims of crimes, including sexual assault, to force their landlord to change the locks on their houses or apartments. The survivor must have a restraining order against the perpetrator. This code section only applies if the tenant DOES live with the perpetrator.
This law applies to all Californian landlords; it allows survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse and stalking to terminate their leases upon thirty days written notice to the landlord. The survivor remains responsible for rent for the thirty days notice period.
This Colorado law provides an eviction defense for victims of domestic violence and victims of domestic abuse. According to this law, victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse can assert an affirmative defense to being evicted from their homes and apartments, if they are being evicted because of the abuse against them.
This District of Columbia statute bars discrimination against people because of their status as a victim of "intrafamily violence." Thus, under this statute, it is illegal to discriminate against a victim of domestic violence by denying her a job, denying her a housing opportunity, or denying her any other legal right to which she would otherwise be entitled.
This Washington D.C. law makes it illegal for a landlord to evict a victim of "intrafamily violence," if the "intrafamily violence" or the acts surrounding the "intrafamily violence" are the reasons for the eviction.
R.I. GEN. LAWS § 34-37-5(2012). This Rhode Island law outlines Rhode Island’s strategy for actively eliminating housing discrimination against victims of domestic violence.
This Rhode Island law stipulates that it is against the State's laws and public policy to discriminate against victims of domestic violence by denying them housing or housing opportunities.
This Rhode Island law states that the right not to be denied housing or housing opportunities based upon one's status as a victim of domestic violence is a civil right.
This Rhode Island law states that it is illegal to deny a person housing or a housing opportunity based upon her status as a victim of domestic violence.
This Rhode Island law provides the definitions necessary to interpret the Rhode Island fair housing laws.
This Rhode Island law outlines the types of practices and discrimination that are forbidden against victims of domestic violence.
This Rhode Island law prohibits people from intimidating or interfering with victims of domestic violence who have asserted their rights under Rhode Island's fair housing laws.
In this case, Indigo Real Estate Services attempted to evict Ms. Rousey after violent altercations with her partner. Indigo finally agreed cease its attempts to evict Ms. Rousey because it is a violation of Washington state law to evict or discriminate against a tenant because she is a victim of domestic violence. Then, Ms. Rousey attempted to redact her personal information from court records. The trial court did not grant her request. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that it was not sufficiently based on law and fact.