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
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.
This page is general information about California law, current as of August 2026, and is not legal advice. Statutes and local ordinances change, deadlines vary by claim, and several of the fee provisions discussed above run to the prevailing party in either direction. Reading this page does not create an attorney–client relationship. For advice about your situation, talk to a lawyer.