SACRAMENTO, CA — The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has filed a lawsuit against the owners of Park Glenview Apartments, a senior living community in Oakland, alleging years of unlawful discrimination against tenants who rely on federal housing assistance. The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, accuses property owners Mortimer and Felicia Howard of refusing to rent to tenants who use Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers—a violation of California civil rights law.
The 84-unit apartment complex, located near Lake Merritt, is reserved for low-income seniors, a population that is particularly vulnerable to housing instability and discrimination. According to the CRD’s complaint, the Howards maintained a longstanding policy of not accepting Section 8 vouchers, effectively shutting out seniors who depend on housing assistance to afford rent.
Under California law, such a refusal is not just unfair—it’s illegal. Senate Bill 329, passed in 2019, expanded California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act to include protections for people who use housing subsidies like Section 8. Landlords are required to treat vouchers as valid income and must participate in the federal program when a qualified tenant applies.
“Housing assistance vouchers are a key part of California’s efforts to keep people in their homes,” said CRD Director Kevin Kish in a press release. “We shouldn’t be denying seniors housing when they have guaranteed money available to help pay for rent. Landlords have an important role to play in addressing housing insecurity in our state. When a property owner doesn’t hold up to their obligations under the law, we’re prepared to take action.”
The CRD began investigating the Howards in 2022 after receiving complaints from prospective tenants who reported being turned away from Park Glenview solely because they used housing vouchers. According to the lawsuit, one applicant was told explicitly that the complex does not accept Section 8, despite otherwise qualifying for the unit.
During the CRD’s investigation, both Mortimer and Felicia Howard admitted that they did not participate in the Section 8 program and refused to enter into contracts with local housing authorities, as required to receive voucher payments. The department determined that the owners’ refusal to rent to voucher holders constituted intentional and ongoing discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. The CRD has increasingly focused on enforcement actions against housing providers who violate state law by discriminating against tenants based on their lawful source of income. In the past year, the department has reached several high-profile settlements, including a $90,000 agreement related to racially biased home appraisals and a $280,000 settlement over sexual harassment allegations by a property manager in Bakersfield.
Just last year, the CRD also secured a $35,000 settlement with a Novato apartment complex accused of refusing to accept Section 8. In another ongoing case, the department sued a San Bernardino landlord who allegedly forced a tenant out after she began participating in the voucher program.
California’s Section 8 protections are critical in a state facing a persistent housing crisis. With median rents far outpacing average incomes, vouchers often serve as the only means for low-income tenants—especially seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children—to access stable housing. Statewide, thousands of households rely on these subsidies to avoid eviction or homelessness.
At the federal level, the Housing Choice Voucher program is the largest source of rental assistance in the United States. It enables tenants to pay a portion of their income toward rent while the remaining balance is covered by the government. However, the program’s effectiveness is undermined when landlords refuse to participate—a practice that has historically been legal in many jurisdictions, but is now banned in California and several other states.
The lawsuit filed by CRD seeks multiple forms of relief. First, the state is asking the court to issue an injunction barring the Howards from continuing to reject Section 8 applicants at Park Glenview. Second, the state is seeking civil penalties and compensatory damages for tenants who were allegedly harmed by the discriminatory policy. Third, the lawsuit demands that the owners take corrective actions to ensure compliance with state housing laws moving forward.
According to the complaint, the Howards’ policy harmed not only individuals who were directly denied housing, but also contributed to broader patterns of housing inequality in Oakland—where gentrification and rising rents have displaced many longtime residents, particularly in communities of color.
Advocates say cases like this one highlight the need for stronger enforcement of existing fair housing laws. While the law clearly protects voucher holders from discrimination, many tenants are unaware of their rights or fear retaliation for speaking out. Housing discrimination based on source of income can be difficult to prove without intervention from agencies like the CRD.
“This lawsuit is a reminder that landlords are not above the law,” said a spokesperson for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, which provides housing advocacy services. “Denying someone housing because they use a voucher is just as unlawful as discriminating based on race or disability. These programs are designed to keep people off the streets and in stable homes. Refusing to accept them is not only illegal—it’s immoral.”
The CRD’s legal team includes Staff Counsel Dylan Colbert, Associate Chief Counsel Azadeh Hosseinian, and Assistant Chief Counsel Nadia Aziz. The department is continuing to investigate similar cases and encourages anyone who has experienced housing discrimination to file a complaint.
Members of the public can also report rental listings or advertisements that unlawfully state “No Section 8,” which are illegal under California law.
As the case moves forward in court, advocates and state officials alike are watching closely. The outcome could have broader implications for how voucher discrimination is addressed across California and how seriously landlords take their obligations under the law.
“This case is about more than one apartment complex,” Kish said. “It’s about whether we, as a state, are willing to uphold the promise of equal access to housing for all Californians—regardless of how they pay their rent.”
There are investors who seek-out Section 8 tenants in markets where housing costs are already low. The guy in the video below has established a business in which he purchases houses that need some repair (under $100K), and then rents them out for around $1,500/month. He’s also trying to encourage others to do so, through the company he’s established. (Seems to have his fingers in more than one related business, and I’m pretty sure he’s successful.)
I’m not sure if corporate landlords are doing the same thing, yet.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwi9Hu0rE5eblY4NiyTyX1A
But ultimately, the “problem” with any subsidy is that they end up being “tin-foil handcuffs”, unless there’s some incentive which won’t destroy the modest benefit (for those able to do more).
That’s why universal basic income (as Musk supports) is probably the way to go. (Rent control is also not based on income, which means it doesn’t discourage tenants from pursuing “more”).
Universal basic income – an idea whose time has come.