2008 Agendas and packets - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bill Malinen February 25, 2008 Page 2 certainly can do so. But we can point out some with sarne definite certainiy at this point in time. First, we would note that Minnesota Statute § 363A.09, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, prohibits certain discr�minatary practices relating to rea! property. "1'he basic prohibitions af the Minnesota Human Rights Act relate to discri�tninatian against persans ar groups of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regarc# to pablic assistance, disabi�ity, sexual orientatian, or farnilial status. Yn terms �f real estate, it is discrimination to refuse to sell, rent or lease property on any af the above grounds. [t is also a violation af the law to make any inquiry in connection with the sale, rental or iease of any reai property bascd on such classi�cations. Significantly, in detennining the reach of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the State of Minnesota has not extended the reach of tt►e Human Rights Act to citizenship, and legal resident status. We do not believe that nationai origin and citizen, resident legal alien status are the same thing. An application could seek infor�nation on whether an individual is a citizen or a resident legal alien without seeking to determine the national origin of the individual. Therefore, the Cauncil and Commission would want to be aware that they are prohibiting something that the l�w otherwise e�llows in the state of Minnesota. We are not saying that because the Human Rights Act does not caver this area, that the City could not decide to impose some ordinance. We are aware of public entity clients of ours in the past going beyond the protections of the Human Rights Act in their policies �nd pracedures. So we are not saying that state law prohibits that. We are aware of some litigation regarding Eocal ordinances that impact upon the renting vf property on the basis of citizenship. In a case entitled Viltas at Parkside Partners v. Citv of Farmers Branch, Civil Aetion No. 3-Ob-CV-2371-L, a case out a€ the northern district of Texas; that court granted a preliminary injunction against a local ordinance that required owners and properly mana�ers to obtain evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status in the lease and rental of property. While that is the opposite of what is being propased in this case, the basis upon which the court entered a preliminary injunction is illustrative af sarne of the issues that arise out of rhe passage of such ordinances, regardless of whether they require evidence of citizenship or prohibit obtainin� such evidence. In the Texas case, ane of the argurnents made was that the ordinance was preetnpted by federal law. �i making its ruling on the preliminary injunctian, the court agreed that preemption applied in that case. We would note far the Council that there aze at least three separate preemption tests set forth in this area that are looked at and anatyzed under a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1976, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976}.