I.Introduction. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(A)

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was brought into place when discrimination in the housing market became an apparent issue throughout the United States. While many African American and Hispanic men were risking their lives in the Vietnam War, their families back home were being denied rent and purchasing opportunities solely because of their race or ethnic background. Many others were also rejected

I currently live on campus at Florida International University, and I recently received an email in regards to the new policy introducing gender-inclusive housing. I am applying for housing for the 2016-2017 academic year, and I found out that the university is now allowing gender-neutral housing that “affords FIU students the option to live on campus in a single room suite or apartment with whomever they choose, regardless of biological sex, gender, or gender identity.” I have heard of this housing option as it is implemented in other universities, but now that it has come to FIU, I would like to research more on the pros and cons of gender-neutral housing as it pertains to campus living. The Gender-Inclusive

Federal policy has attempted to address the issue of discrimination in housing choice with the enactment of the Fair Housing Act (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010). In fact, “in 1988, the Fair Housing Act expanded protection to include persons with mental and physical disabilities” (Ziaja, 2002, p. 313) in an effort to thwart discrimination in housing choice for disabled individuals. Ziaja (2002) noted that the enactment of the Fair Housing legislation has led to other federal policies dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled individuals, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); however, disabled adults continue to experience discrimination in housing

Homelessness is one of the oldest problems that exist, fast forward almost 40 years since it’s been recognized as one and still there has been no avail to finding a real solution. The definition of homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act is defined as an individual: “who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and a person who has a nighttime residence that is supervised publicly or privately operated shelter, and c) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or a private or public place not designed for, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.”

In 2011, the Los Angeles Human Right to Housing Collective joined together with citywide residents to protest unfair housing practices, and increasing rents at Los Angeles City Hall. Over the past four years, Los Angeles residents have seen rapid increases in rent, which is leading to more and more people moving out of L.A. in the hopes of finding more affordable living arrangements. The three percent rental increases that Los Angeles residents are accustomed to have been climbing this past year, and in 2016 many Angelenos could be seeing a four or maybe even five percent cost of living increase. Studies from the U.S. Census will show that Los Angeles renters occupy not even 50 percent of Los Angeles county housing units. In comparison to the percentage LA renters are taking home per paycheck, it is now becoming more affordable to buy property in Los Angeles, rather than rent.

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

The act was expanded in 1974 to include prohibition against gender discrimination. It was expanded again in 1988 to protect people with children and disabilities. Gender orientation was not included in the Fair Housing Act but many states still address it. Since this bill was made people no longer need to worry about being discriminated upon. Now all they need to worry about is if their financial resources are

“The Nitpicking Nation” by Stephanie Rosenbloom, provides solid evidence proving individuals seeking housing on Craigslist are without a doubt being discriminated against. Within the article, one will find more ethos and logos than pathos. The ethos describe how trustworthy the writer is and the objectives the writer is trying to make. The logos is nothing more than support. Support comes from many things, such as, reasons behind the story and the overall statistics, testimonies, and facts.

There were six homeless named in this case as plaintiffs Pamela Kincaid, Doug Deatherage, Charlene Clay, Cynthia Greene, Joanna Garcia, and Randy Johnson, but included were others that were similarly situated in the City of Fresno. The six homeless named in the suit shared their personal stories each being different but all involving the City of Fresno Police and City employees/management confiscating and destroying their belongings.

Whether under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHA), which makes it illegal to discriminate in housing on the basis of an individual’s handicap, Ms. Mary Land, the widowed owner, manager, and landlord¬¬ of a historic building with Tiffany stained glass transforms, extinct pinewood flooring, and mahogany woodwork¬, violated the FHA by refusing to rent an apartment to Mr. Jim Rent, a potential paraplegic tenant with acute transverse myelitis (ATM), when enforcing a first-come first-served parking policy, where there are only three allocated spots available to the nine apartments, and a no-pets policy, where Ms. Land had an allergy and a tenant potential could go into anaphylactic shock, where Mr. Rent required access to a dedicated parking spot for his specially-equipped van, which allowed him to use his mobility device the iBOT™, the use of a medical alert response companion dog (MARC dog), that was certified, prescribed, and trained to assist Mr. Rent with his daily routine, and needed to make structural modifications to the apartment and bathroom, in order to insure his mobility and safety in the apartment, even though Mr. Rent, six months prior, had a history of leaving items on the stove, causing fire alarms to go off notifying the fire department, and leaving water running in the bathtub, which lead to several floods of his apartment requiring new flooring and carpeting.

California employers must comply with AB 1825, a state law mandating sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors and managers. Through questions and answers, this article highlights this 2006 laws requirements and provides guidance on meeting them.

The act of the defendant, Moore, was intentional and harmful contact took place causing apprehension among the plaintiff. The apprehension was not caused by negligent behavior. The apprehension the plaintiff felt started with a threat following a previous meeting between the two teams and escalated into a physical altercation (Cotten, 2013).

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Domestic violence should be considered for both parties because if a man can do it a woman can do it. Gender profiling is a substantial problem with domestic violence and how the different genders are dealt with.” Gender profiling is a big one because everyone automatically thinks men are the abusers. “Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation” (Domestic Violence 1). No matter what you are and how you look it’s still domestic violence. The percentage of 4% of men and 8.2% of women were estimated to have experienced domestic abuse in 2014/2015. Gender profiling leads to race religion and sexual orientation.