In a suit filed in San Diego federal court December 30, Rowna Nicolas claims she was evicted from an apartment, in effect, for being pregnant. The defendants are B.C. Dage, Inc., owner of a six-unit Hillcrest apartment building at 3624 Fourth Avenue, and Kathryn Bunch, who was managing the apartment at the time.
Nicolas says she was more than seven months pregnant when she signed papers to rent an apartment on April 1 of 2014. She was to move in March 30, she says. She moved in, and right away bathroom pipes burst and flooded the unit. According to the suit, Bunch told Nicolas she could move to a hotel and the company would pick up the tab. The company still owes her $100 for that, according to the suit.
Nicolas called Bunch to find out the status of the repairs. Nicolas mentioned that the baby would be born soon. According to the suit, Bunch said if she had known Nicolas was pregnant, she never would have rented her the room. There was supposedly an unwritten rule that pregnant women or children could not live in the building. Nicolas noted that in the original conversation, she was more than seven months pregnant. Bunch said she thought that Nicolas was "just packing on a few extra pounds."
Nicolas claims in the suit that she was a victim of housing discrimination, her civil rights were violated, and she suffered physical and emotional damage. She wants more than $50,000. I tried unsuccessfully to reach Charles Neuendorf of Dage, owner of the apartment, and Bunch.
In a suit filed in San Diego federal court December 30, Rowna Nicolas claims she was evicted from an apartment, in effect, for being pregnant. The defendants are B.C. Dage, Inc., owner of a six-unit Hillcrest apartment building at 3624 Fourth Avenue, and Kathryn Bunch, who was managing the apartment at the time.
Nicolas says she was more than seven months pregnant when she signed papers to rent an apartment on April 1 of 2014. She was to move in March 30, she says. She moved in, and right away bathroom pipes burst and flooded the unit. According to the suit, Bunch told Nicolas she could move to a hotel and the company would pick up the tab. The company still owes her $100 for that, according to the suit.
Nicolas called Bunch to find out the status of the repairs. Nicolas mentioned that the baby would be born soon. According to the suit, Bunch said if she had known Nicolas was pregnant, she never would have rented her the room. There was supposedly an unwritten rule that pregnant women or children could not live in the building. Nicolas noted that in the original conversation, she was more than seven months pregnant. Bunch said she thought that Nicolas was "just packing on a few extra pounds."
Nicolas claims in the suit that she was a victim of housing discrimination, her civil rights were violated, and she suffered physical and emotional damage. She wants more than $50,000. I tried unsuccessfully to reach Charles Neuendorf of Dage, owner of the apartment, and Bunch.
Comments
California State Housing Laws; "The protection afforded single parents is also available to pregnant women seeking housing, and parents in the process of securing custody of children under 18 years of age. (Gov. Code, § 12955.2.)"
Someone could be in trouble with the State Attorney General as well as the Bureau of Real Estate.
Ponzi: That is possible. This case is worth watching. Best, Don Bauder
Six unit apartment building but the managers says " said if she had known Nicolas was pregnant, she never would have rented her the room." So which is it an apartment or a room? Is it a six unit apartment building or six rooms? There is more to the story it seems.
AlexClarke: My error. It should have been "unit." Best, Don Bauder
Ah yes, then it would seem that the landlord is in deep caca.
AlexClarke: I confess I had to look it up: "caca" means excrement. Your assessment may be correct -- but then, the landlord may have wiggle room. Best, Don Bauder
Most landlords are smart enough to avoid being obvious in their discriminatory rental patterns. This time the manager (probably the ex-manager now) let slip the real reason. For one thing, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to exclude a pregnant woman. After she giver birth, she'll be tied down with the infant for many months, and will certainly not disturb the other tenants. In fact, I'd look at her as an asset to the building, not a liability. But then, who knows why landlords discriminate. They have their reasons, I suppose, even when the reasons are illegal and foolish.
Visduh: In agreeing to rent the unit to a young lady, or to a young married couple, the landlord faces the possibility that there will be a birth. The landlord should not have "unwritten" rules against pregnancy. Best, Don Bauder