Discrimination in RE Brokerage

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Service divide at forefront of Redfin discrimination suit​

Brokerage provides more offerings in majority-white neighborhoods, fair housing groups say​

Redfin has long emphasized its commitment to combating systemic inequality in the housing market, but critics say the discount brokerage contributes to discrimination by making it more difficult to buy homes in non-white communities.
As a lawsuit against the company drags on, additional information is being revealed about its alleged practices.
Bloomberg reported that Redfin is in negotiations to settle a lawsuit brought in 2020 by fair housing groups, which accused the brokerage of engaging in a form of redlining for providing additional services to buyers and sellers of homes above specific price thresholds in particular markets.

According to Bloomberg, the fair housing groups allege that Redfin provides sellers of homes above the set minimum prices with professional photos, 3D walkthroughs, data analysis and increased visibility. Homes below the price threshold either get referred to a “partner agent” or receive no services at all, potentially increasing commissions while driving down sales prices.

“While the actual minimum price varies… its impact is always the same — buyers and sellers of homes in non-white areas are far less likely to be offered Redfin’s services and discounts,” the complaint read.
Redfin has pushed back against accusations of redlining, a discriminatory practice in which services such as mortgages are withheld from communities of color.
view

“Being fair is more important to Redfin than making money,” the company said in a statement to Bloomberg. “We recognize that systemic racism affects who can pay for a broker, a book, or an airline ticket, but using price to determine which homes we can sell is not only legally permitted, it is the only fair way to make that determination.”

The dynamic is particularly noticeable in Chicago, the fair housing groups say.
According to Bloomberg, an analysis detailed in the lawsuit found that in June 2020, Redfin was five times more likely to provide the best services in Chicago areas where at least 70 percent of residents were white, versus where at least 70 percent of residents were not white.

Redfin allegedly made brokerage services available for homes listed at $400,000 or more within Chicago city limits, but $275,000 or more in majority-white DuPage County. In majority-Black Detroit, the threshold for Redfin’s services was $700,000. In majority-white suburbs of Oakland and Wayne counties, it was $250,000.

One former agent, meanwhile, said Redfin would provide services for listings in excess of $225,000 in Chicago’s South Loop, but not for similar properties in more racially diverse Woodlawn.
After the lawsuit was filed in 2020, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman addressed the allegations in a staff email.
“Our long-term commitment is to serve every person seeking a home, in every community, profitably,” he wrote. “The challenge is that we don’t know how to sell the lowest-priced homes while paying our agents and other staff a living wage, with health insurance and other benefits.”

Redfin has not filed a formal response to the complaint.
According to RealTrends, Redfin is the fifth-largest brokerage in the country. In 2020, the company recorded $37 billion worth of sales volume.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
In 2020, Wells Fargo rejected nearly half its Black applicants for a mortgage refinance
One of the country’s biggest mortgage providers turned down nearly half of the refinance applications sent in by Black homeowners while approving almost three-quarters of those sent in by white applicants in 2020.
According to a Bloomberg News analysis, Wells Fargo fell well below industry averages when it came to lowering interest rates through a home refinance to African-Americans, who were approved 71 percent of the time by all other lenders. Wells Fargo’s 47 percent approval rate gave it the worst record among major lenders when considering refinancings for Black homeowners.

Sifting through the information made available via the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which included data for 8 million completed applications to refinance conventional loans in 2020, Bloomberg found Wells Fargo was more sparing when it came to approving refinances overall: it okayed 72 percent of requests from white homeowners vs. an 87 percent approval by all other lenders; 67 percent to Asian lenders vs. 85 percent; and 53 percent to Hispanic lenders vs. 79 percent.

Wells Fargo didn’t dispute the numbers, according to the report, with the San Francisco bank claiming it treats all of its potential customers the same, has a more selective process for approving loans and that “additional, legitimate, credit-related factors” were responsible for the differences in numbers.

Experts say the refinancing gap makes it more difficult for Black families to use their real estate holdings to build wealth. Andre Perry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the news site not getting approval to refinance means Black homeowners have fewer resources to invest in their children, start businesses, renovate their homes, or buy additional homes. Perry’s 2018 study found that the average Black home was valued at $48,000 less than its white equivalent — a differential that amounts to $156 billion in missing Black wealth, according to the report.

In the past, the U.S. Justice Department has gone after banks for lending practices that can raise expenses for minority borrowers. Authorities leveled penalties against U.S. lending giants after studies into the 2008 housing crisis suggested there had been discriminatory treatment. In 2012, Wells Fargo agreed to pay more than $184 million to settle federal claims that it charged Black and Hispanic homeowners higher fees and interest rates after unfairly steering them into subprime mortgages. The bank didn’t admit to any nefarious business practices and said it treated all customers fairly.

In March of 2017, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $110 million to settle a national class-action lawsuit that claimed its employees opened more than 2 million deposit and credit-card accounts without customers’ permission since 2011, according to published reports.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Compass settles discrimination suit, bumps Section 8 commissions​

Housing Rights Initiative: Deal sets “important precedent” for real estate​

A year after watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative sued Compass for discriminating against tenants using housing vouchers, the brokerage agreed to put money toward righting that wrong, promising bigger commissions to agents for Section 8 leases.
The incentive stems from a settlement the parties reached Wednesday.

Compass also agreed to add training so brokers would understand voucher programs and how to file paperwork. Plus, the brokerage said it would educate first-time homebuyers who are becoming landlords on tenants’ rights to use vouchers.

HRI’s suit named 88 brokerages and landlords that dismissed callers who said they were looking to rent with subsidies. It is illegal to do that, but some landlords are known to not want voucher holders, leading brokers to assume they would be wasting their time by showing those apartments to such prospective tenants.

The nonprofit watchdog’s founder and executive director, Aaron Carr, would not disclose how much more Compass brokers would be paid for leases involving Section 8 or other rent subsidies.
HRI said it has settled with several other firms. Some have agreed to post signs in their offices advertising that vouchers are welcome, and others have reserved apartments specifically for voucher holders.
The court-mandated commitments come as city agencies tasked with clamping down on source of income discrimination have struggled with budget cuts and staffing shortages, City Limits reported.
Carr said he is hopeful that the deal with Compass, the country’s largest brokerage, establishes a standard for the industry.

“This agreement sets an important precedent that will reverberate across the real estate sector and put pressure on other real estate companies to reform their discriminatory business practices,” he said in a statement.
Compass did not comment in time for publication.
 

Upstairs Realty

Well-known member
I have worked with exactly one voucher-holding client in my life, and was not successful in finding him a rental. Even with the subsidy, his budget was not high, and we were basically going through classified ads which say, over and over, "no vouchers."

Here's a random example:


I heartily support Fair Housing, and I agree strongly that brokerage services should not be available for rich people only, but the vouchers-not-working problem needs to be addressed at the landlord level as well.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
I'm pretty sure the vouchers demand an agency inspection of the unit and in that particular case perhaps it's another "illegal" basement unit and the owner knows would get rejected? People tend to put things in ads after having negative experiences. Back when most advertising was the Sunday NY Times Real Estate section is saw an ad with "Absolutely no dogs!"
I wondered why the agent would wast valuable ad copy with that since most ads were limited to 5 lines (since NYT charged by the line). Then I found out there had just been a board rejection because the applicant had a dog. So it was mostly about the agent not having done their homework on the previous deal and no being gunshy.
In this case the "no vouchers" wording would be a red flag to me to check if the unit was legal.
 

Upstairs Realty

Well-known member
Excellent point David -- I wish I had considered that at the time.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Redfin settles redlining lawsuit for $4M​

Brokerage will eliminate minimum home price for providing services​

Redfin will fork over $4 million to settle a discrimination suit that claimed the company failed to provide brokerage services for homes listed below a certain price, a practice that plaintiffs dubbed “digital redlining.”
The suit, brought by the National Fair Housing Alliance in 2020, alleged that under the firm’s minimum home price policy, communities of color received fewer services and discounts than homebuyers or sellers in predominantly white areas.

To address those claims, Redfin agreed to end the policy and said it would no longer decline to refer buyers or sellers viewing homes below a certain threshold to partner agents — those employed by a brokerage affiliated with Redfin.
Although the firm will no longer base referrals on strict price caps, it will continue to use “price thresholds” to determine whether to connect buyers and sellers with Redfin brokers.
A company spokesperson said connecting clients with brokers based on price allows Redfin to manage agent capacity, as the firm often fields more requests than it can handle.

As an added check on potential discrimination under that system, Redfin agreed to implement a “monitoring and alert system” that will flag when minimum price points in communities of color exceed those in majority-white neighborhoods.
Redfin will establish a set of potential corrective actions to address any discrepancies that arise between white and nonwhite areas. Under the agreement, the firm has six months to present that corrective action plan to NFHA, which can then suggest tweaks.
The brokerage, which admitted no wrongdoing, also agreed to ramp up diversity hiring initiatives by building relationships with nonwhite real estate trade groups, holding job fairs at historically black colleges and recruiting from realty firms owned by people of color.

Prior to the lawsuit, Redfin employees criticized the firm for nepotism. Agents said those practices showed the company was not prioritizing diversity in its hiring.
CEO Glenn Kelman told The Real Deal that Redfin was combatting those allegations by advertising jobs to candidates of color for three months before opening them to a wider pool of candidates.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

In redlining case, New Jersey lender to pay $12M​

Lakeland Bank settles case alleging one of real estate’s most infamous practices​

The Justice Department has settled another case involving alleged redlining by real estate lenders, this time in New Jersey.
Lakeland Bank came to terms with the Department of Justice on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. The New Jersey-based bank didn’t admit wrongdoing, as is often the case in settlements.

The bank, which operates out of northern New Jersey and the Hudson Valley, agreed to create a $12 million homeownership fund. It will also open two new branches and increase mortgage lending in underserved communities of color in northern New Jersey.

Borrowers from affected communities will be eligible for up to $15,000 to make down payments, pay for closing costs or insurance, or reduce interest rates by buying points. The agreement still needs a judge’s approval.
The Justice Department investigated the bank’s practices from 2015 through last year. The federal agency accused the bank of denying or discouraging loans in some New Jersey neighborhoods on the basis of race, color or national origin, a decades-old practice known as redlining.

The community bank operated solely out of majority-white neighborhoods, making it more challenging to fairly serve credit needs in Black and Latino communities.

Lakeland said it settled to avoid lengthy litigation. The bank, which operates 68 branches, is in the midst of a $1.3 billion merger with Provident Banks. The merger remains on track, said Provident, which knew of the pending settlement.
The Justice Department has prioritized redlining cases in recent months under its Combatting Redlining Initiative.

In July, a former mortgage lender with ties to Warren Buffett, Trident Mortgage Company, agreed to pay $20 million in the second-largest settlement of a redlining case in Department of Justice history. The company, which no longer provides lending services, will also be required to contract another lender to provide services to affected communities.



ProfilesEngineServlet
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Appraisal gap worsened as racial disparity persists​

Home values in white neighborhoods increased more than in communities of color​

Home appraisals shot up across the country in recent years, especially during the pandemic. But the racial gap in appraisals has only worsened.
Sociologists Junia Howell and Elizabeth Korver-Glenn published a report this week about the growing appraisal gap, Bloomberg reported. The report relies on data released by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a collection of more than 47 million appraisal records dating back to 2013.

Since 2020, homes in mostly white neighborhoods increased in value by an average of $136,000, the report stated. Homes in mostly non-white neighborhoods, however, only increased by an average of $60,000.
In the hottest housing markets, the gap widened to nearly three times the rate of more stable markets.
Since 2013, homes in white communities have been appraised on average as being $371,000 more valuable than homes in non-white communities. The appraisal gap surged 75 percent, most acutely in American Indian, Alaska Native, Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
The report made two recommendations: a revised approach to appraisals within the industry and reparations for victims of the appraisal gap.
Appraisers use comparable sales to make assessments. But systemic racial bias has seeped into the process, as the longtime discrepancy between valuations in white and non-white communities perpetuates a cycle of disparity. At times, racial bias has become more explicit, such as tales of Black homeowners removing evidence of their race during appraisals, landing higher valuations than when that evidence remains in the home.
In March, the Biden administration unveiled a five-point plan to combat racial bias in appraisals and home lending. The plan called for appraisers to receive clear guidance on anti-discrimination laws and for violations to be enforced more strongly.
Unconscious bias may be coupled with the makeup of the industry. The appraisal workforce is 97 percent white, something the administration’s task force is looking to diversify.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
Bill targets co-op discrimination against buyers
Boards would need to explain reasons for rejecting applicant

Two city politicians are introducing a bill aimed at curtailing discrimination by co-op boards.
Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and City Council member Pierina Sanchez will unveil their legislation today, the New York Daily News reported. It is part of a package of bills aimed at co-ops.

The bill would require co-op boards to provide a written rationale for rejecting an applicant within five days of the decision. Rejections often trigger suspicion of discrimination among non-white applicants but only rarely lawsuits, because boards need not disclose their reasoning.
Under the legislation, co-ops would need to identify each part of an application that they found problematic and affirm those statements under the penalty of perjury. Failure to comply with the timeline could result in fines of $1,000 to $25,000.

“For too long, a complicated, nebulous and opaque co-op process has left open the possibility for discrimination and denial of housing to qualified applicants,” Williams told the publication.

Co-op and condo discrimination is a longstanding problem, as there is little to no transparency in the review process. Various legislative attempts have been made to address the issue, including a bill introduced two years ago in the State Senate requiring co-ops to explain rejections in writing. It never passed, but one in Westchester County did.
Opponents of such bills argue that revealing reasons for rejections would put boards at risk of being sued, although no evidence supporting that claim has surfaced.

Separate legislation being introduced Thursday would require co-ops to disclose their finances to prospective buyers after a shareholder has accepted an offer to sell. Disclosures would include cash flow, debt and operating expenses.
Another bill would standardize the application process, in an attempt to eliminate fair housing violations. Boards would have 45 days to respond to an application and spell out any conditions for acceptance. Penalties for violations would also range between $1,000 and $25,000.
 

Upstairs Realty

Well-known member
OMG. I am so committed to Fair Housing, and I spend a great deal of my "practice" getting applicants into co-ops that they thought they could never ... but how's this new bill going to work? About half the co-op turndowns I hear about anecdotally are because the applicant's an a-hole -- doesn't comply with application procedures because they don't think they have to; lies on the application for reasons of their own privacy, and then argues their privacy > their neighbors' need to vet them; and then, our old favorite, someone marches into an interview and tells the board exactly how they "should" have been running the building. And we all have dealt with those types -- "idea people" who say that their contribution is their vision, but as a result won't lift a finger to do any of the actual work. Will co-ops have to accept those people now?
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Judge OK’s sweeping broker discrimination lawsuit​

Corcoran, Compass, others accused of rejecting Section 8 users seeking rentals

A major lawsuit accusing dozens of property owners and brokerages of discrimination got a green light from a federal judge.
On Tuesday, Judge Sidney Stein allowed the plaintiffs to proceed to discovery, Gothamist reported, meaning some brokerages and building owners will be forced to turn over documents and emails.

The watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative filed its sweeping lawsuit two years ago, alleging 88 landlords and brokerages in the city discriminated against testers pretending to be tenants with Section 8 housing vouchers. About a dozen of defendants appear to no longer be involved.
HRI filed the suit after recording dozens of conversations by investigators posing as apartment seekers. Some faced subtle discrimination, while others were told directly that the landlord does not accept vouchers. Discrimination based on source of income is illegal in New York City.

Among those named in the original complaint were Compass, the Corcoran Group and Century 21. Compass settled with HRI last year, promising bigger commissions to agents on Section 8 leases, among other steps.
Voucher discrimination can be a proxy for racial or disability discrimination. Black and Latino tenants make up 82 percent of Section 8 voucher recipients in the city, while people with disabilities account for 28 percent.

The judge agreed with the complaint’s assertion that anti-voucher policies amounted to racial discrimination, which was banned by the Fair Housing Act.
HRI founder Aaron Carr told Gothamist that the decision shows “that if you are illegally discriminating against low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled, the question of whether you will be caught is not a matter of if, but when.”

Enforcement, however, has been largely left to his nonprofit. And it’s not clear how much the lawsuit will dissuade the behavior if it does not result in a substantial monetary award. The plaintiffs say their primary goal is to change the behavior of landlords and their brokers.

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Ex-Bespoke exec alleges racial discrimination, harassment​

Complaint claims racial slurs, demotion by founders Zach and Cody Vichinsky

A former Bespoke executive alleged his time at the luxury brokerage was plagued by discriminatory and overtly racist behavior from co-workers and the firm’s founders.

Jarret Willis, who is Black, alleges in a complaint filed in New York Supreme Court founders Cody and Zachary Vichinsky engaged in overtly racist behavior and allowed other employees to use slurs when addressing him.
In the complaint, filed with former colleague Harlan Goldberg, Willis alleges the founders and other employees discriminated against him, disparaged him in racist terms and had a white employee contact his clients to demand they deal with him and not Willis.

“Bespoke unequivocally denies these false and untrue allegations, which arose regarding an ongoing attempt to collect unjustified commissions from the company,” the brokerage said in a statement.
Joseph De Sane, a managing director at Bespoke, called the allegations “the furthest thing from any truth I have ever known here.”
Willis was promoted to vice president of Bespoke Parallel in April 2021, a division of Bespoke that seeks to establish the brokerage in new markets. In that position, Willis interacted with the Vichinskys and an employee in the New York office secretary, who the complaint says used the N-word on a daily basis when addressing Willis in person and over text message.

“Happy birthday you n*****!!!!” an office employee said to Willis on August 17, 2022, according to a text message viewed by The Real Deal.

The Vichinskys also participated in the verbal abuse, according to an employment complaint Willis filed with the New York Division of Human Rights, including when Cody employed the N-word and suggested he and Willis get watermelon and fried chicken for lunch.
The complaint said the Vichinskys also nicknamed Willis “Jafar” after the villainous cartoon character in Disney’s “Aladdin.”
Willis and Goldberg alleged the Vichinskys’ discrimination went beyond a toxic work environment to include demotions and withheld commissions.
After reporting a white broker for interfering with his clients, the complaint says Willis was demoted from his role as vice president and missed out on more than $1 million owed in commission from procuring a buyer at the Waldorf Astoria Residences Miami.
“I know that the real estate industry will come together to pounce out any form of discrimination and make sure that bad actors like this are unable to work in our industry,” attorney Adam Leitman Bailey said in a statement. “We hope this is the last civil rights case we ever have to bring as a law firm.”

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Long Island brokerages, landlords accused of Section 8 discrimination​

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices among players named in Housing Rights Initiative suit
A tenant watchdog group filed a discrimination suit against a group of Long Island brokerages over their dealings with renters using government-issued housing vouchers.
In a suit filed Thursday, Housing Rights Initiative accused 12 real estate companies of refusing to rent apartments to testers posing as would-be tenants with Section 8 housing vouchers. Discrimination against tenants due to income source is illegal in New York State.

Among the defendants named are Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Laffey International Realty and Coldwell Banker American Homes, formerly known as Century 21 American Homes.
The suit is based on a team of investigators organized by HRI to pose as apartment seekers with government-sponsored rental assistance and record their interactions with brokers and landlords representing voucher-eligible units.

The defendants’ refusal to accept housing vouchers has created a “staggering reduction in the available inventory of safe and affordable housing for some of the most vulnerable residents of Nassau County,” attorneys for the watchdog group said.

The lawsuit joins a similar case filed in 2021 by the group, which alleged discrimination against voucher-holding renters by 88 brokers and landlords in New York City. A federal judge in February approved the plaintiffs’ request to move the case to discovery, requiring some of the defendants to hand over documents and emails.
Compass, the Corcoran Group and Century 21 were named among the defendants in the 2021 lawsuit. After settling with HRI last year, Compass vowed to take steps to mitigate further discrimination, including boosting commissions for agents on Section 8 leases.
The latest suit aims to push state agencies to demand compliance amid an affordable housing crisis, according to HRI founder and executive director Aaron Carr, who called for the New York State Department of State to respond to “the systematic issue of housing discrimination by systematically revoking the brokers’ licenses of those who engage in it.”

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Newark, Jersey City brokerages, landlords hit with discrimination suit​

Housing Rights Initiative accuses 26 of voucher refusal

A tenant watchdog group is at it again, suing dozens of brokerages and landlords over alleged voucher discrimination.
New York-based Housing Rights Initiative sued 26 landlords and brokers in Newark and Jersey City, the New Jersey Monitor reported. The complaint, filed this week in state Superior Court, accuses the parties of discriminating based on income.

The brokerages named in the complaint include national residential firms Keller Williams, RE/MAX, Weichert Realtors and Century 21.
HRI’s testers posed as apartment hunters seeking to rent a unit using a federal voucher. The accused allegedly rejected the undercover tester, using excuses from hitting voucher caps and not accepting vouchers at all to “looking for a traditional renter,” according to the complaint.

The watchdog group doesn’t typically seek financial penalties, instead on the hunt for accountability. Carr told the Monitor he hopes a judge requires landlords to set aside more units for voucher holders and keep track of voucher applicant data. He also wants an “enforcement monitor” established in the state.

New Jersey is trying to step up its enforcement of source-of-income discrimination, although penalties aren’t necessarily scaring many. The New Jersey attorney general’s office in February announced enforcement in eight cases without naming those who were being penalized. Only two of the eight required payments from the offending party.
Voucher discrimination is a common form of discrimination against tenants, sometimes serving as a proxy for racial or disability discrimination; tenants with vouchers are disproportionately people of color or people with disabilities.
In April, HRI filed a discrimination suit against a group of Long Island brokerages over their alleged dealings with renters using government-issued housing vouchers. In 2021, HRI filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination against voucher-holding renters by 88 brokers and landlords in New York City. That lawsuit was recently allowed to move forward by a federal judge.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Black agent wins $788K from Brown Harris Stevens in discrimination case​

Hamptons broker alleged wrongful termination after complaining of bias

Brown Harris Stevens of the Hamptons wrongfully terminated one of its agents after she reported facing racial discrimination, a federal judge ruled last week.
Shauncy Claud, who is Black, sued the brokerage in 2018, alleging her direct manager made comments about her race and treated her differently from her white colleagues, and that she was let go in retaliation for complaining about it to a senior executive.

The judge, Nina Morrison, awarded Claud $788,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, including funds for back pay and emotional distress, according to the decision filed in the Eastern District of New York.
The brokerage denied wrongdoing and said it would appeal.

“Brown Harris Stevens has always championed nondiscrimination in all settings and was disappointed in the current ruling, particularly since a prior decision in the case had dismissed any discrimination claims,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
The ruling follows a trial that concluded in February. Claud was represented by attorneys Oliver Koppell, who previously served as the New York state attorney general, and Dan Schreck. Schreck said only “one unrelated claim” in the case was dismissed, not the case itself.
Claud, a Southampton native, joined BHS in November 2016 following two years at Town & Country. Claud was the only Black agent at its six Hamptons offices, which had only one Black employee.

In the lawsuit, Claud alleged that her manager, senior executive director Robert Nelson, made “uncomfortable” comments to her about her race, including telling her she was “the only Black agent in the Hamptons” when she asked to have a conversation about her work.

In another instance, Nelson allegedly referred to Claud as a “pitbull” who “likes to take things from others.”
Claud claimed that Nelson repeatedly dismissed her requests for mentorship and guidance and reassigned her work to other agents.
She also said Nelson failed to help protect her exclusive listings. When Claud was hired as an exclusive agent for a Southampton property at 117 Pulaski Street, another agent, Christopher Burnside, listed the home as an open listing — a move that violated company policy and would have diverted 10 percent of the commission to him.
Nelson allegedly refused to update the listing until the owner complained. The home sold for $1.5 million in February 2021, according to Zillow.

Claud eventually shared her concerns with Aspasia “Cia” Comnas, the senior managing director, who she said promised to help her “come up with a game plan.” Comnas denied ever discussing Claud’s claims of racial discrimination with her.

Two weeks later, Comnas fired Claud without having discussed with her the possibility of termination.
Claud’s dismissal followed a tense altercation with the daughter of one of her clients, Cassandra Brown. Claud claimed that Brown did not want her to share details about a listing with anyone, including her daughter, Karen Ham. Claud alleged that when she refused to discuss the property on a phone call with Ham, Ham yelled and cursed at her, so she hung up.
At the trial, Comnas testified that both Ham and Brown called her to complain about Claud’s behavior, though the judge stated that the evidence and testimony indicated Comnas spoke only with Ham.
After that conversation, Comnas sent an email to Nelson saying that she needed to “fire Shauncy ASAP” due to her “outrageously rude treatment” of Brown and Ham.
“The client did not want Shauncy to know she had complained as they were a bit afraid of her – so we will have to wait a day or two and then fire her after we have changed the Southampton office lock,” Comnas wrote in the email. “Shauncy is someone who could easily try to break in and do damage after being fired.”

Claud spent two years with Nest Seekers International following her termination, though she only worked full time for about a month. She claimed that her termination from BHS damaged her reputation and she wasn’t able to secure the same amount of business.
In fact, she said, it “ruined” her real estate career.
In 2019, Claud left Southampton — where she grew up and where her parents and grandparents still live — and moved to Atlanta.
“Home kind of reminds me of that awful situation,” she said.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
NAR and president accused of sexual and racial discrimination

Lawsuit filed in federal court claims that NAR fired a Black staffer after she broke off a relationship with then president-elect Kenny Parcell

June 28, 2023, 6:06 pm By Brooklee Han

The National Association of Realtors’ legal troubles have continued this week. A new lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, accuses the trade group of racial and sexual discrimination and alleges that NAR president Kenny Parcell harassed female employees.

The lawsuit’s plaintiff, Janelle Brevard, claims that she was fired from her position as NAR’s chief storyteller after breaking off a relationship with Parcell in June 2022 and speaking to lawyers about his alleged sexual harassment.

The complaint also argues that Brevard, who is Black, was singled out due to her race.

While mentioned by name several times throughout the complaint, Parcell is not named as a defendant in the suit.

During her tenure as NAR’s chief storyteller from August 2019 until September 2022, Brevard never had any performance or disciplinary issues, according to the complaint.

The complaint states the Brevard’s relationship with Parcell began when he was serving as NAR’s president-elect and it involved “sexually explicit conversations as well as Parcell’s request for sexual favors.”

Brevard also has “various text messages, photos and other items evidencing the sexual relationship” with Parcell, according to the filing.

The complaint states that in June 2022, Brevard told Parcell she no longer wished to continue the relationship — and that Parcell “threatened to retaliate.”

“Specifically, Parcell would exclude plaintiff from meetings plaintiff would normally attend; he excluded plaintiff from business trips she would normally attend; Parcell would disparage plaintiff at every turn; and Parcell even made several threats to plaintiff that he would terminate her employment,” the complaint, which refers to Brevard as the plaintiff, reads.

The complaint states that three months later, in September 2022, Brevard was called into a meeting and told she was fired for not disclosing her relationship with Parcell. The complaint notes that this occurred just after Brevard met with attorneys to discusses alleged sexual harassment.

However, Brevard was allegedly not the only female employee to meet with attorneys to discuss Parcell’s behavior.

According to the complaint, three other women, who are all white, met with attorneys to discuss allegations that include “sending lewd text messages and photos, forcibly placing a female staff member’s hands on his genitals and publicly berating and refusing to work with a pregnant staff member.”

The complaint argues to that due to this, the NAR “does not have a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for” firing Brevard and that NAR “discriminated against plaintiff based on her race.”

The suit alleges six different counts of racial and sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation in total and asks the court to award Brevard lost pay and benefits, reinstate her job, and award her compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional damage.

“NAR prides itself on being a welcoming and inclusive environment for all our employees,” Mantill Williams, NAR’s vice president of communications, wrote in an email. “It is our practice to fully investigate all claims that are brought to our attention and take action, as warranted. We reject the claims filed in this lawsuit and we will vigorously defend against them.”

The attorney listed for the plaintiff did not return a request for comment prior to the time of publication.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
Some people might have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Elliman, top agents named in Section 8 discrimination suit​

Noble Black, Holly Parker and Tamir Shemesh among top brokers in suit
Top NYC Resi Brokers Investigated in Section 8 Voucher Probe

Douglas Elliman's Noble Black, Holly Parker, Nest Seekers' Tamir Shemesh and Douglas Elliman's Frances Katzen (Elliman, Nest Seekers, Getty; Illustration by Kevin Rebong for The Real Deal)
By
SEP 20, 2023, 2:00 PM
Douglas Elliman and some of the biggest names in New York City residential real estate are at the center of a lawsuit claiming they violated discrimination statutes in the Fair Housing Act.
The list of defendants in the suit filed last month in federal court reads as a who’s who of New York City luxury agents, who allegedly either failed to respond to Shaniqua Newkirk when she sent emails requesting help finding Section 8 housing, or failed to provide adequate help.

The lawsuit says that Newkirk, who is Black, tried to find agents to help her use her voucher to find a home in the spring of 2021. She was unsuccessful, and in June of that year she found a list of New York City’s most successful agents and brokers, whom she contacted to enlist their help with finding a suitable unit.
But “Newkirk was unable to secure alternative housing prior to the expiration of her voucher,” the complaint says, and she was “forced to remain in a decrepit rodent and vermin-infested apartment.”

Among the brokers the suit says failed to assist Newkirk are Noble Black, Holly Parker, Tamir Shemesh, Frances Katzen, Lauren Muss and Tal and Oren Alexander — all names that have appeared in The Real Deal’s rankings of the city’s residential brokers in recent years. Other top Elliman agents named in the suit include Elana Schoppmann, Diane Johnson, Eleanora Srugo, Ann Cutbill Lenane and Janna Raskopf.
The suit also alleges that Elliman is in violation of city laws requiring it to “prominently and conspicuously” display a link to the Fair Housing and Anti-Discrimination notice on its homepage.
“Only at the very end of the homepage in tiny font under the heading of State Disclosures is a link to the Fair Housing and Anti-Discrimination Notice,” states the suit. “Defendants are more concerned with their luxury brand than they are with following the law.”
Newkirk’s attorney, Steven Siegel, did not return a request for comment.
Elliman disputed the claims.

“We will be challenging the merits of these predatory and baseless claims,” a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. “Douglas Elliman has a zero tolerance policy towards unfair and illegal treatment of any individual or group. We pride ourselves on our mandatory agent training program that is inclusive of rigorous fair housing law education.”

Broker responses — or not at all — can spell violation

Some agents seemed not to understand what a Section 8 housing voucher is in their responses to Newkirk, according to selections from broker responses included in the complaint.
“I only specialize in luxury real estate transactions and don’t even know what sec 8 means,” Madeline Hult Elghanayan told the plaintiff.
The last correspondence between Newkirk and Diane Johnson was Johnson asking: “I really don’t know what Sec 8 voucher is?”

Jennifer Kalish said: “At this moment I don’t have any landlords or owners that are accepting Section 8. But I will keep you in mind if anything comes to mind.”
Fair housing attorney Craig Gurian, speaking generally and without direct knowledge of the lawsuit, said violations are judged by whether the agents responded to Newkirk as they normally would a client. Agents who told Newkirk they don’t have apartments that qualify for Section 8, or who said they don’t work in that sector of the market, may be found guilty of a violation for not referring her to a colleague who does.
It’s possible for an agent to have violated fair housing by not responding to an email, Gurian said, if the expectation is that they would respond to other client inquiries.

“I basically was named for not responding to an email,” Srugo told TRD. “And when I search my inbox, I don’t have any record of ever receiving it.”

But exhibits filed in court show Newkirk sent emails to Srugo on June 14 and 15, 2021, which went unanswered.
Among the agents who also didn’t answer Newkirk are Sarah Burke, now with Compass, Jane Powers, Neal Sroka, Joshua Lieberman, Rachel Medalie, Elena Sarkissian, Frances Katzen, Lauren Muss, Bruce Erhmann, Eileen Hsu and the Alexander brothers, who have since left to form their own company, Official, backed by white-label firm Side.
Newkirk’s communications with other agents varied.
Cybele Kadagian, now with Sotheby’s, appears to have offered to help Newkirk, but her email appears to have gone unanswered by the plaintiff.
“Yes, landlords do accept Section 8. I do not currently have any of these apts. What are you willing to spend and what area?” wrote Kadagian.

Tamir Shemesh, now with Nest Seekers, said: “Of course we are willing to help. How many bedrooms are you looking for and how much are you looking to spend?”
Newkirk responded by saying she was looking for a one-bedroom and that her voucher was good for $1,705 per month, but Shemesh never responded to that email or a follow-up.
When Newkirk asked Holly Parker if she had any apartments that take vouchers, Parker responded: “I’m sorry but I don’t have access to those.”
Jason Walker, Andrew Azoulay, now with Bespoke, and Emily Sertic all said they didn’t have any listings accepting vouchers.
Ann Cutbill Lenane said: “I wish that I could help you but I know that Section 8 housing right now it’s so hard to find and I never deal with it at all but good luck with your search.”

The rest of the defendants in the case include licensed brokers Kari Kaplan, Wendy E. Sanders, Lauren Litt, Jaqueline Teplitzky, Andrew Anderson and Suzan Kremer. The suit also names executives, including chief counsel Kenneth Haber, Long Island CEO Ann Conroy and residential leasing vice president Hal D. Gavzie.

Fair housing troubles in the tri-state area

Elliman was previously one of several residential players named in a three-year Newsday investigation on fair housing violations on Long Island. A 2019 report outlined pervasive discrimination against people of color posing as home buyers, triggering a state probe in which 67 agents and executives were subpoenaed.
Some cases against agents fell apart, but the state did pass legislation in 2020 allowing the government to revoke real estate licenses in cases of discrimination. This year, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration expanded an undercover tester program.
In March, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development announced it would spend $3.1 million to combat source-of-income discrimination, in which owners or brokers turn away tenants seeking to pay with vouchers or other public assistance. The U.S. Department of Justice has had a fair housing testing program since 1991.

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Elliman fair housing suit picks at agent confusion​

Despite education promises, confusion abounds on variety of violations

Does lip service count as service?
That’s the question at the center of a discrimination lawsuit that’s ensnared Douglas Elliman and nearly a dozen top real estate agents in New York City.

It’s also a question agents may be asking themselves about industry leaders, four years after a bombshell expose on housing discrimination on Long Island prompted executives from the city’s biggest residential firms to change the industry’s zeitgeist.
The lawsuit filed in August by Shaniqua Newkirk, a Section 8 voucher holder, against Elliman and 30 of its past and present agents alleges the defendants violated discrimination statutes in the Fair Housing Act by ignoring her emails or by providing her with inadequate help.

Some agents, like Tamir Shemesh initially offered to help but ignored follow up inquiries from Newkirk, who identified herself immediately as a Section 8 client in all of her initial emails. Others, like Noble Black, told Newkirk they didn’t have any listings in her price range. Some agents expressed confusion about what Section 8 is and others ignored her outreach altogether.
“We will be challenging the merits of these predatory and baseless claims,” a spokesperson for Elliman said in a statement on the lawsuit. “Douglas Elliman has a zero-tolerance policy towards unfair and illegal treatment of any individual or group. We pride ourselves on our mandatory agent training program that is inclusive of rigorous fair housing law education.”
Compass, Elliman, Brown Harris Stevens, Corcoran and Coldwell Banker Warburg hold regular training and/or discussions on fair housing, according to representatives for each brokerage, and agents are also required to take three hours of fair housing continuing education classes every two years.
But confusion seems pervasive in the industry, despite firms overwhelmingly pledging a commitment to education four years ago. Comments on The Real Deal’s social media responding to news of the lawsuit took issue with the variety of responses the plaintiff included in the complaint.
“Don’t agents have the ability to say hey, I work as a luxury agent, I do not do rentals … I do not service areas outside of where I choose?” said Steven Christie, an Elliman agent in New York.

Dimitri Petrovsky, a Corcoran agent, expressed exasperation at the idea that luxury agents would have to respond to a client in another sector of the market.

“I don’t get how these agents can be held liable for not working that sector,” he wrote. “If they had listings that fit the criteria and refused to show it to her that would be different. But how can you ask an agent who works luxury markets. This really sounds like a staged situation to go after big names.”
The list of defendants in the suit filed last month in federal court reads as a who’s who of New York City luxury agents, including several that have appeared in TRD’s rankings of the city’s residential brokers with tens, or hundreds, of millions in sales volume.
“We aren’t allowed to specialize in certain areas or price points? We have to help every single person who comes to us anywhere in the state of New York in any price range because that’s where we are licensed?” Compass agent Christine Muldoon wrote.

Normally, agents are free to choose their clients. But Section 8 holders are a protected class, meaning they cannot be denied service. Whether that occurred in Newkirk’s case remains to be decided, but generally speaking, luxury agents cannot ignore a Section 8 client.

“In order to carry out the purpose of the anti-discrimination law, you need to have some extra checks and balances,” said attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III. “While it probably isn’t going to seem fair to the average agent you talk to, it’s just necessary.”
Kennedy said brokerages are hesitant to beef up their training because doing so might blur the line between independent contractor and employee status for agents. But Neil Garfinkel, who works as broker counsel for REBNY, said brokerages can likely avoid that complication.
“Brokerages have an obligation to supervise their agents,” he said. “They can’t demand that someone attend a training every week. But I believe fair housing is so important that if they require their agents to attend a fair housing course that they absolutely have the right to do that and it would not bleed over the line.”
 
Top