Serving renters across California, with offices in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Burbank, Oakland, and Rancho Cucamonga. 📞 (424) 447-0448 ENES

Discrimination

A landlord does not get to decide who deserves a home.

Turned away. Quoted a different deposit. Told the unit was gone, when it was not. Told they “do not take Section 8.” California’s fair housing law is among the broadest in the country, and it covers more than most people realize.

Who is protected in California

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12955 and following) prohibits housing discrimination because of:

  • Race, color, ancestry, or national origin
  • Religion
  • Sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation
  • Marital status
  • Familial status — that is, having children
  • Source of income, including housing vouchers
  • Disability
  • Veteran or military status
  • Genetic information

Government Code § 12955(m) extends all of it to perceived characteristics and to people who are associated with someone who has, or is perceived to have, one of them.

Immigration status, citizenship, primary language — and age

These are protected in California housing, but they come in through a different door, and it is worth being precise. Government Code § 12955(d) makes it unlawful to discriminate on any basis prohibited by Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act — and § 51(b) expressly lists citizenship, primary language, and immigration status. Age reaches housing through Unruh case law on arbitrary age discrimination rather than through § 12955’s own list.

Since January 1, 2025, Civil Code § 51 also protects any combination of those characteristics — intersectional claims are now expressly covered.

Section 8 and source-of-income discrimination

Since 2020, refusing to rent to someone because they hold a housing voucher has been unlawful in California. “Source of income” is defined at Government Code §§ 12927(i) and 12955(p)(1) as lawful, verifiable income paid to a tenant, to a tenant’s representative, or to a landlord on a tenant’s behalf — including federal housing assistance vouchers under Section 8, and including HUD-VASH vouchers for veterans.

Two related duties that come up constantly:

  • The income standard must be based on your portion of the rent, not the full contract rent (Gov. Code § 12955(o)(1)(A)). A landlord requiring you to earn three times the total rent when the voucher covers most of it is applying the wrong standard.
  • Credit history is not the only permitted proof. Since January 1, 2024, a landlord must give a subsidy recipient the option of supplying alternative evidence of ability to pay — government benefit payments, pay records, bank statements — give reasonable time to produce it, and reasonably consider it in place of credit history (Gov. Code § 12955(o)(1)(B)).

What is not unlawful: simply asking about the level or source of your income (§ 12955(p)(2)), or verifying employment, checking landlord references, and confirming identity (§ 12955(o)(2)).

What it looks like in real life

Very few landlords say the quiet part out loud. What we usually see:

  • The unit is “just rented” — and is still listed the next day, or shown to someone else that afternoon.
  • Different terms for different applicants: a higher deposit, an extra month, a co-signer requirement, a stricter income multiple.
  • Steering — families with children pushed toward the ground floor or the back building; a voucher holder told about one property and not another.
  • Rules that fall on one group: limits on children in common areas, pool hours for “adults,” restrictions on visitors, English-only notices where other tenants get help.
  • Advertising that states a preference or limitation — itself unlawful under Government Code § 12955(c).
  • Sudden enforcement of a rule that was never enforced before, right after a protected characteristic became known.

Testing, comparator evidence, and the landlord’s own records are how these cases get proven. What one applicant experienced in isolation can look ambiguous; laid next to how three other applicants were treated, it usually does not.

Intent, effect, and which law to use

This is where the choice of statute matters, and where a lot of published summaries get it backwards.

  • FEHA reaches both. Government Code § 12955.8(a) sets a motivating factor standard for intentional discrimination. Subdivision (b) separately allows a discriminatory effect claim — a facially neutral policy that falls harder on a protected group — subject to a business-necessity defense and a less-discriminatory-alternative inquiry.
  • Unruh generally requires intent. Under Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 — itself an apartment-landlord case — the Unruh Act does not support disparate-impact liability. So Unruh is not the easier path in an effects case; it is the harder one.

Unruh does bring something powerful to an intentional case: Civil Code § 52(a) provides for actual damages plus up to three times actual damages, but in no case less than $4,000, per offense, plus attorney’s fees. And Civil Code § 51(f) makes an ADA violation a per se Unruh violation, with no intent required for that route.

Where federal law fits — and where California is broader

The federal Fair Housing Act protects seven characteristics: race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. California protects all of those and adds gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, veteran and military status, genetic information — and through § 12955(d) and Unruh, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status.

Government Code § 12955.6 provides that FEHA may not be read to give protected classes fewer rights than federal law, and may be read to give greater rights.

Why we anchor these claims in California law right now

In September 2025 HUD withdrew eight fair housing guidance documents, including its memorandum applying the Fair Housing Act to sexual orientation and gender identity and its 2020 guidance on assistance animals. A proposed rule to remove the federal disparate-impact regulation is pending and not final. None of that changes California law — Government Code § 12955 and the California regulations stand on their own — and it is a good reason to build these cases on state ground.

Deadlines and how a claim proceeds

  • One year to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (Gov. Code § 12980(b)). Note again: housing is one year, employment is three.
  • Two years to file a civil action, measured from the occurrence or termination of the practice, not counting time an administrative proceeding was pending (Gov. Code § 12989.1(a)).
  • You are not required to go to CRD first. Government Code § 12989.1(b) permits a civil action whether or not a complaint has been filed.
  • One year for a HUD complaint; two years for a federal civil action.

Remedies in a civil action include actual and punitive damages with no statutory cap (Gov. Code § 12989.2), injunctive relief, and fees and costs including expert fees — awarded at the court’s discretion to the prevailing party, in either direction.

What helps most

  • The listing. Screenshot it, with the date, and check it again after you were told it was gone.
  • Every message. Texts and emails with the landlord, agent, or manager — especially anything about deposits, income requirements, children, or vouchers.
  • The application and what you were quoted. Terms in writing are the comparison point.
  • Names. Who showed you the unit, who took the call, who else applied.
  • Notes, same day. Write down what was said while it is exact. Approximate quotes lose their force.

What you may be able to recover

Actual damagesHigher rent paid elsewhere, moving costs, lost deposits, time and expenses
Emotional distressRecoverable under both FEHA and Unruh
Punitive damagesUncapped under Gov. Code § 12989.2
Statutory damagesMinimum $4,000 per offense under Civ. Code § 52(a), up to treble actual damages
Injunctive reliefOrders requiring the landlord to rent to you or change a policy
Attorney’s feesAvailable to a prevailing party, including expert fees

What a particular case is worth depends on the facts, the conduct, the harm, and the defendant. We will not quote you a number on a phone call, and you should be skeptical of any firm that does.

Common questions

Housing discrimination — what people ask us

No. Since 2020 it has been unlawful in California to refuse a tenant because of source of income, and Government Code §§ 12927(i) and 12955(p)(1) name Section 8 vouchers specifically. A landlord may still screen you — references, employment verification, identity, and a credit assessment that must offer an alternative-evidence option — but “we do not take vouchers” is a violation on its face.

That is one of the most common fact patterns in fair housing, and it is provable. Screenshot the listing and check it again over the following days. If it reappears, or if someone else was shown the unit after you were turned away, that comparison is the case. Testing by a fair housing organization can confirm it.

No. Familial status is protected under both FEHA and the federal Fair Housing Act. That covers outright refusals and also the subtler versions — occupancy limits stricter than the law allows, steering families to particular units or floors, and rules restricting children’s use of common areas.

No. Government Code § 12989.1(b) lets you commence a civil action whether or not an administrative complaint has been filed. The administrative route has its uses — it is free and CRD investigates — but it is not a prerequisite, and it has its own one-year deadline. One caution: if CRD obtains a conciliation agreement with your consent, that generally forecloses a separate suit on the same practice.

Nothing up front. We work on contingency — no fee unless we recover for you — and the initial consultation is free.

Free consultation. No fee unless you win.

Tell us what happened. We will tell you honestly whether you have a case — and what it would take to bring it.

📞 Call now Free case review