Lou Budetti, the principal broker with ERA Insite Realty Services in White Plains[one of the brokers named-Phil], said his office does not accept business from landlords that want to discriminate.
"If they do, we don't take their properties," he said. "And if they do we disengage any listing agreements we have with sellers and terminate any rental listings we have."
"We'd be foolish not to," he said. "We don't tolerate it and wouldn't risk our license or our business for any single landlord or property owner."
Any broker that is willing to jeopardize their livelihood for a commission is insane. However, a new agent trying to get going in this business may be tempted to stray "just this once," which is a bad thing indeed. The brokers can be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 if caught and found guilty, and that is enough to train your new associates rigorously. The landlords aren't off the hook either:
In July 2003, the human rights division won a ruling from an appeals court upholding its 2001 decision in favor of an interracial couple after a landlord refused to let them rent an apartment in Yonkers. The state Appellate Division agreed that Pat Matteo, the owner of a three-family house in Yonkers, illegally discriminated against Timothy Pachonka, who was white, and his wife, who was black.
The human rights division, after finding that Matteo told the couple he would not rent to them because he did not approve of "mixed race" marriages, ordered Matteo to pay $35,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, along with damages for mental anguish and humiliation.
Some might say that is overdoing it. As a real estate professional, landlord, and husband in a mixed race marriage, I disagree. Government cannot legislate against bigotry in a man's heart, but it should punish the outcome severely.
Dear Needle:
I don't understand your point.
You conclude your post with the very admirable directive that bigotry should be punished severely, but up until then, you seem to criticise the penalties imposed upon brokers who discriminate or who might be vicariously liable for an employee's actions.
It seems very contradictory.
As to your substantive arguments, vicarious liablity is imposed because of the defense raised by the owner/broker that an agent committed the discriminatory act -- which probably was successful too often.
As a result, by imposing vicarious liability, not only is the defense removed, but prospectively, an owner/broker is forced to take an active role in requiring all agents to comply with the law.
Moreover, I seriously doubt that if the owner/broker did just that, he or she would not receive the maximum punishment, as you seem to imply.
Finally, as to the example involving the novice, we are all "tempted" to break the law, e.g., by claiming business expenses that are personal.
Clearly, that is no justification.
Lawrence
Posted by: Lawrence | June 10, 2005 at 05:09 PM
Amazing what you find when you Google your own name. Very interesting article, but in this case, there was no broker or agent involved. Mr. Matteo lived next to my grandmother, then my parents when my grandmother passed away. When the apartment came up, it was a great deal. My parents actually lived in his third floor apt. when they were first married, and I lived there till I was about 3.
The most amazing thing about this case is that it took almost 7 years from start to finish.
Sincerely,
Timothy S. Pachonka, Jr
Posted by: Timothy Pachonka | March 27, 2007 at 01:28 AM