Landlord's religiously based refusal to rent to unmarried tenants violates state civil rights act

Law Reporter, May 1999

McCready v. Hoffius, 586 N.W2d 723 (Mich. 1998).

The Michigan Supreme Court held that a landlord's religiously based refusal to rent to unmarried tenants violates Michigan's civil rights act, MICH. CoMP. LAWS 37.2502(1) et seq.

Here, landlords refused to rent to two unmarried couples, citing religious beliefs against cohabitation.

The couples filed complaints against the landlords with the city's fair housing commission and brought separate actions alleging violations of the state civil rights act. Both trial courts granted defendants summary judgment. The appellate court consolidated the cases and affirmed. Baiz v. Hoffius, 564 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997), 40 ATLA L. Rep. 132 (May 1997).

Reversing, the state high court noted the civil rights act provides that a person may not refuse to engage in a real estate transaction based on a person's marital status. The court said that nothing in the legislative history of the act limits the term "marital status" to protection of married couples. The court rejected defendants' argument that their refusal to rent to plaintiffs was based on plaintiffs' conduct, not their marital status, noting that the couples' unmarried status is what makes their conduct immoral to the landlords. Although Michigan public policy favors marriage, the court said that policy does not prevent extending protection against housing discrimination to unmarried couples.

Defendants argued that the civil rights act fails to meet the general applicability requirements used to test the constitutionality of alleged religious freedom restrictions because it has nonreligious exemptions. Rejecting that argument, the court noted the statute does not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not single out any religious group or practice and applies to all people involved in renting or selling property.

The court also upheld the law under the state constitution, MICH. CONST. art. i 4, finding the state's compelling interest in providing equal access to housing outweighs the burden on defendants' religious beliefs. The court noted that the antidiscrimination laws do not require defendants to violate their religious beliefs, only to comply with the civil rights act if they want to rent housing. The court said this was a burden on defendants' commercial activities more than on their exercise of religion.

Accordingly, the court remanded for a determination of damages.

Plaintiffs' Counsel:

James B. Fleming,

Anne D. Fleming, and

Jerrold Schrotenboer, all of Jackson, Mich.

[Documents in this case are available through the Court Documents section in the back section of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Fleming.]