What questions can R.E. Agents legally answer? (Realtors, state, buy)

[Silverfall]

Garth, it's not that a real estate agent can't help a client find what they want...the issue is when agents aren't helping a client find what they want and are ASSUMING they know what a client wants. That is the problem.

So using olecapt's example...In my opinion, if a client said I don't want to live in an area that is more than 10% black, then I would ask them to give me the street boundaries of that neighborhood. I, quite frankly, would have no idea where that is at. I don't go door to door finding out the ethnic details of each homeowner. What if there were 3 blacks on one street and 2 on the next street, but the neighborhood demographics still show up as less than 10% black? Does that qualify?

Buyers can absolutely set limits and segregate themselves. They just have to DEFINE for me, what they ___________ (insert race, religion, etc) is for me. So if they say, I want to live within 1 mile of the Synagogue, they can do that. I can set that parameter in the MLS and search within one mile.

Socioeconomic status and crime are not protected classes. If I know that someone is looking in an area I would consider high crime, I would pull the crime stats online for them, and show them to them. I would do that for ANY client though. That is the issue at play with fair housing. If I had a purple client, I would still pull the crime stats for them. Agents are allowed to have opinions, we just can't have different opinions depending on protected classes.

This is an issue that many people get worked up over. Agents can have opinions, and provide excellent service to their buyers without steering. As long as it is the client's choice, then you are fine. If an agent is making choices for the client, therein lies the problem.

[austin-steve]

Buyers can absolutely set limits and segregate themselves. They just have to DEFINE for me, what they ___________ (insert race, religion, etc) is for me.

You're treading on very thin ice. I don't know any good Realtors in my area who would touch that client with a ten foot pole.

What your saying is, with a wink and a nod, a buyer working with you can make it perfectly clear that they need your help avoiding neighborhoods with certain races or religions, and that you're happy to condone that behavior and assist, so long as they do a bit of the homework for you so you can stay just a hair on what you think is the right side of the technical line.

I think you might want to call your local HUD office and run that hypothetical past them. You might not like what you hear.

In the broader sense, our nation has worked long and hard to overcome racial and religious discrimination. And here in a public forum we have licensed real estate agents willing and happy to creatively work around the spirit and intent of the Fair Housing laws.

I'm disappointed.

[walidm]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

You're treading on very thin ice. I don't know any good Realtors in my area who would touch that client with a ten foot pole.

What your saying is, with a wink and a nod, a buyer working with you can make it perfectly clear that they need your help avoiding neighborhoods with certain races or religions, and that you're happy to condone that behavior and assist, so long as they do a bit of the homework for you so you can stay just a hair on what you think is the right side of the technical line.

I think you might want to call your local HUD office and run that hypothetical past them. You might not like what you hear.

In the broader sense, our nation has worked long and hard to overcome racial and religious discrimination. And here in a public forum we have licensed real estate agents willing and happy to creatively work around the spirit and intent of the Fair Housing laws.

I'm disappointed.

As am I.

If you're treading the line you're probably breaking the Law.

[walidm]

Originally Posted by garth

Of course that's inappropriate. It's no different than putting a shirt out for sale. The seller is placing his home on the market, just like a shirt is hung on the store rack, and it's available to everyone with the ability to buy it.

However, I wasn't writing about a seller in my post. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I wrote about a buyer and their need for help from the "professional" they hire and the requirements that the "professional" follow the buyer's direction. There's a difference.

Here's the bottom line for a buyer. Although a request may be distasteful depending on an agent's leanings, I still see legitmate reasons for someone saying, "Don't show me _________ neighborhoods. Just fill in the blank with whatever group or quality you wish.

I can also include other requests such as, "Don't show me neighborhoods near the Indian reservation," Don't show me neighborhoods in sight of the new Buddhist Temple," and/or "Don't show me anything near the State Prison." Although questionable in one way or another, people can have reasons for making these directions. Avoidance of issues like poverty and crime, the sight of architecture elements they find ugly, or problems associated with relatives of felons entering their community on the way to visit their incarcerated family are legitmate reasons for giving certain directions to a real estate agent that the agent might find themselves unable to follow.

As a benign example, someone may not want to live in a neighborhood with strong Norwegian connections. They may not want to deal with the inconvenience of a May 17th Norwegian Independance Day. They may not like the look of the viking statue in the town square, they may find Scandavian architecture and their vibrant colors not to their liking since they prefer a CC&R community where everything has to be some shade of tan, and they may feel isolated because of a lack of activites related to their cultural heritage. These are all reasons to direct an agent to avoid a particular suburb or nearby town by saying, "Don't show me a house in a Scandanavian community.

There is no law whatsoever that dictates someone has to spend their money with a blind eye towards such factors. Buyers are allowed to discriminate because the health and welfare of their family and investments trumps the interests of anything and anyone else, including sellers. Just like people have a right to live where they want, they have the same right to not live where they want. An agent has the obligation to service those decisions, otherwise they are providing a substandard or lower level of service.

For example, I live in a town where the town blows a siren each night at 6:00. It's on top of the Fire Department building. Why do they do that? It's history. A hundred years ago, the siren was sounded 1 hour before sunset as notification to the local Indians. They had to be out of town before the sun set and had an hour to head out.

Is such a thing something that someone of Indian heritage might need to know about? Do you think they might want to request to not live somewhere in earshot of the daily siren or to not see houses in the community that exercises such a historical event on a daily basis, even if it no longer has the same meaning? Of course they do. I don't see anything wrong with their direction and that the real estate agent follow the direction.

A buyer new to the area or who doesn't live their life day in and day out in the real estate section of the local newspaper, needs the help of the industry "professional" to fulfill their requirements. An industry "professional" will know about things like the siren and the historical connection, the cultural leanings in local town, the high poverty/high crime area, the areas affected by the prison traffic, and other such things. To fail to follow the client's directions to avoid such areas does them a disservice.

That's why I don't see compliance with such requests as inappropriate, even if some requests may be individually distasteful to some. If the agents remain unable to comply with such directions from their client, through their own personal beliefs or because of current regulatory requirements, they are providing a restricted level of service. Yet, their rate of pay fails to reflect the fact that they are withholding service, for whatever reason the service level was withheld.

Because you're looking at it the wrong way. The Realtor is not withholding service. In fact compliance with the request would be a disservice - to the profession and to a society that has worked hard to move beyond the discriminatory practice that you are working very hard to covertly practice on a case by case basis.

[garth]

Originally Posted by walidm

Because you're looking at it the wrong way. The Realtor is not withholding service. In fact compliance with the request would be a disservice - to the profession and to a society that has worked hard to move beyond the discriminatory practice that you are working very hard to covertly practice on a case by case basis.

Steve,

I don't know where you get the idea that discrimination is forbidden in society, or that a person is not allowed to self-segregate in real estate. For example, I worked for a large entity and, for part of that time, in a personnel position. They had codified hiring rules, some of which required me to disqualify someone if they were unable to speak English or who had used certain drugs in the past. I also disqualified people who had certain legal but entity-forbidden past professions. Such jobs included being a Stripper. Each of these standards could be shown to adversely affect one or another ethnic group over all others. However, the standards were legal.

Furthermore, I was also legally forced to discriminate against Caucasians. I hired other ethnic groups who were less qualified based on equally applied testing criteria before I was able to hire the Caucasians. Once their lists were exhausted, I could then entertain applicants from the Caucasian list.

I bring up the hiring subject because it is one subject that is at least as equally regulated as the real estate sector. In it, as well as in real estate transactions, discrimination is practiced, sometimes condoned, and not always equally applicable to all aspects of the subject.

I have to strongly disagree with you on another statement. An agent is not providing a "disservice" to the "profession." He is also not providing a "disservice" to "society." They are not a clients to which he would be providing a disservice. An agent's client used to always be the seller, but now it's the seller or the buyer depending on the contractual relationship. By failing to allow a client/buyer to set the standards for their purchase and to follow their directions in pursuit of those standards, particularly on the purchase side where they are allowed to discriminate for a variety of reasons, an agent is not serving the buyer's interests and is failing to representing them either fully or in part.

Furthermore, an individual real estate agent does not have the authority or right to establish themselves as the defining and motivating source of societal change. They have to follow the rules established in society, such as not being the initiating entity of a "steering" issue in a real estate transaction that was so well pointed out by Silverfall, but they do not have the authority to establish their own personal standards or beliefs as the format to be followed by their client. That is not their job in any manner whatsoever.

In the end, if a client wants to be the "steering" entity for themselves, which is not illegal for that person to do, they have a right to do so. If the real estate agent does not wish to comply with their directions, their only option is to not work for that person. Otherwise, they are not serving the interests of their client. I would even say that they're violating ethical standards of the profession by failing to follow the buyer's legal directions, especially since they're not discriminating against anyone.

Again, they're continuing with a lower standard of service than they apply to other clients when they fail to help the buyer and expect the client to do the work the agent would otherwise provide. Then, they're still receiving the same compensation. That's theft in my book.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by garth

Steve,

I don't know where you get the idea that discrimination is forbidden in society, or that a person is not allowed to self-segregate in real estate. For example, I worked for a large entity and, for part of that time, in a personnel position. They had codified hiring rules, some of which required me to disqualify someone if they were unable to speak English or who had used certain drugs in the past. I also disqualified people who had certain legal but entity-forbidden past professions. Such jobs included being a Stripper. Each of these standards could be shown to adversely affect one or another ethnic group over all others. However, the standards were legal.

Such limitations are legal until tested. Where upon they may well become illegal. A great deal of this area lacks detailed case law...without that the judgement should be that it has not yet been found illegal...legal is too strong.

Furthermore, I was also legally forced to discriminate against Caucasians. I hired other ethnic groups who were less qualified based on equally applied testing criteria before I was able to hire the Caucasians. Once their lists were exhausted, I could then entertain applicants from the Caucasian list.

I bring up the hiring subject because it is one subject that is at least as equally regulated as the real estate sector. In it, as well as in real estate transactions, discrimination is practiced, sometimes condoned, and not always equally applicable to all aspects of the subject.

And that is allowed only to correct past inequities...

I have to strongly disagree with you on another statement. An agent is not providing a "disservice" to the "profession." He is also not providing a "disservice" to "society." They are not a clients to which he would be providing a disservice. An agent's client used to always be the seller, but now it's the seller or the buyer depending on the contractual relationship. By failing to allow a client/buyer to set the standards for their purchase and to follow their directions in pursuit of those standards, particularly on the purchase side where they are allowed to discriminate for a variety of reasons, an agent is not serving the buyer's interests and is failing to representing them either fully or in part.

You are of course perfectly correct in that the buyer (and in fact the seller) can discriminate in any way they see fit. Actually the only thing not allowed the individual is to advertise the discrimination.

However the services sold by the RE Agent are subject to regulation and are not generically free to discriminate. Thus the services sold to the client come with limitations. Don't like them don't hire the service. And the service is not available without the limitation.

The exact limits placed on the agent are not real clear. This discussion tends to show the problem. I think an agent can in fact respond to a request to show areas meeting certain criteria. If the orthodox Jew wants to see areas where they can walk to the synagogue I would fulfill the request. If the buyer wanted an area where only a small part of the population spoke Spanish I would also fulfill the request...though I would get that one in writing. I would not have much trouble with a request to stay away from black majority areas...given that I don't think I know any. I would positively assert that such areas don't exist.

As a digression I disagree with your view that self segration exists in all communities. Only by the use of wealth criteria could I differentiate Hispanics and Blacks from the Caucasian population. As soon as you rise to middle income and above I have no knowledge of black or hispanic or norwegian areas. I would know of those being a Son of Norway.

Furthermore, an individual real estate agent does not have the authority or right to establish themselves as the defining and motivating source of societal change. They have to follow the rules established in society, such as not being the initiating entity of a "steering" issue in a real estate transaction that was so well pointed out by Silverfall, but they do not have the authority to establish their own personal standards or beliefs as the format to be followed by their client. That is not their job in any manner whatsoever.

But those who do establish the conduct standards may view it differently than you. This is applied art. Note that the biggest offenders are the Brokers. They are merely avoiding liablity. You deny their right to do so?

In the end, if a client wants to be the "steering" entity for themselves, which is not illegal for that person to do, they have a right to do so. If the real estate agent does not wish to comply with their directions, their only option is to not work for that person. Otherwise, they are not serving the interests of their client. I would even say that they're violating ethical standards of the profession by failing to follow the buyer's legal directions, especially since they're not discriminating against anyone.

Actually again you got it backwards. The RE Agent is bound by laws that do not apply to his client. If the client does not like those laws he should not hire the RE Agent.

Again, they're continuing with a lower standard of service than they apply to other clients when they fail to help the buyer and expect him to do the work the agent would otherwise provide, and are still receiving the same compensation. That's theft in my book.

And again you are, I think, confusing Broker CYA with what is required of the RE Agent.

The compensation is for service to the legally required standard. You may have a ***** that you don't like the standard...but that is not a legit complaint about the compensation.

[walidm]

Originally Posted by garth

Steve,

I don't know where you get the idea that discrimination is forbidden in society, or that a person is not allowed to self-segregate in real estate. For example, I worked for a large entity and, for part of that time, in a personnel position. They had codified hiring rules, some of which required me to disqualify someone if they were unable to speak English or who had used certain drugs in the past. I also disqualified people who had certain legal but entity-forbidden past professions. Such jobs included being a Stripper. Each of these standards could be shown to adversely affect one or another ethnic group over all others. However, the standards were legal.

Furthermore, I was also legally forced to discriminate against Caucasians. I hired other ethnic groups who were less qualified based on equally applied testing criteria before I was able to hire the Caucasians. Once their lists were exhausted, I could then entertain applicants from the Caucasian list.

I bring up the hiring subject because it is one subject that is at least as equally regulated as the real estate sector. In it, as well as in real estate transactions, discrimination is practiced, sometimes condoned, and not always equally applicable to all aspects of the subject.

I have to strongly disagree with you on another statement. An agent is not providing a "disservice" to the "profession." He is also not providing a "disservice" to "society." They are not a clients to which he would be providing a disservice. An agent's client used to always be the seller, but now it's the seller or the buyer depending on the contractual relationship. By failing to allow a client/buyer to set the standards for their purchase and to follow their directions in pursuit of those standards, particularly on the purchase side where they are allowed to discriminate for a variety of reasons, an agent is not serving the buyer's interests and is failing to representing them either fully or in part.

Furthermore, an individual real estate agent does not have the authority or right to establish themselves as the defining and motivating source of societal change. (Yes we do - REALTORS® should recognize that the interests of the nation and its citizens require the highest and best use of the land and the widest distribution of land ownership. They require the creation of adequate housing, the building of functioning cities, the development of productive industries and farms, and the preservation of a healthful environment.

Such interests impose obligations beyond those of ordinary commerce. They impose grave social responsibility and a patriotic duty to which REALTORS® should dedicate themselves, and for which they should be diligent in preparing themselves. REALTORS®, therefore, are zealous to maintain and improve the standards of their calling and share with their fellow REALTORS® a common responsibility for its integrity and honor.) They have to follow the rules established in society, such as not being the initiating entity of a "steering" issue in a real estate transaction that was so well pointed out by Silverfall, but they do not have the authority to establish their own personal standards or beliefs as the format to be followed by their client. That is not their job in any manner whatsoever.

In the end, if a client wants to be the "steering" entity for themselves, which is not illegal for that person to do, they have a right to do so. If the real estate agent does not wish to comply with their directions, their only option is to not work for that person. Otherwise, they are not serving the interests of their client. I would even say that they're violating ethical standards of the profession by failing to follow the buyer's legal directions, especially since they're not discriminating against anyone.

Again, they're continuing with a lower standard of service than they apply to other clients when they fail to help the buyer and expect the client to do the work the agent would otherwise provide. Then, they're still receiving the same compensation. That's theft in my book.

Interesting how you believe you're providing a legitimate basis for discrimination. You're not.
Ethics does not allow one to condone or practice discrimination on a case by case basis.

An agent is adhering to a high standard of service by refusing to discriminate against a protected class. He is in fact showing "class" by refusing to practice discrimination.

Don't confuse prejudice with discrimination. We can all (and we do) act with prejudice.

We do not have to discriminate against a protected class.

A Realtor is not stealing from a client by refusing to practice discrimination.
An agent is to follow the LAWFUL instructions of the client.

[Greatday]

I have read a number of the posts with great interest - and, in some cases, dismay. Let me try to provide some guidance:

First, a seller, IF they do not utilize the services of a real estate licensee CAN discriminate except for the issue of race. There is a requirement that they do not utilize any discriminatory advertising. Once they list their residential property with a broker however, a seller falls under the requirements and obligations of the Federal Fair Housing Act

If a buyer were to approach an agent with "don't show me properties in a Black neighborhood", the agents obligation is to inform that buyer that they, the agent, will be happy to show the buyer houses in the specific area(s) (geographically) but, it would be unlawful to limit the neighborhoods simply because of race. That all neighborhoods are available to all persons, regardless of their race or ethnic background.

Steering AWAY from a neighborhood (based on the protected classes) is as much of a violation as steering TO a neighborhood.

If a buyer were to continue to press the issue, then, the best course of action is to tell the buyer that you would be unable to assist them. That to do what they ask may be in violation of law.

Fair Housing Law and EEOC laws are not the same - it is a common misunderstanding - people often think that all laws, regarding discrimination, are the same.

Use some common sense - if someone is asking you to do something that does not pass the "smell test", it might be best to avoid any potential problems.

Fair Housing is good for business. Fair Housing is the Law

[garth]

Walidm,

But where is the illegal discrimination that prohibits an agent from following the buyer's instruction for his home search? The buyer wants certain qualities and doesn't want other qualities in the property they want to buy. These qualities can involve the predominate race in the neighborhood. They are allowed to establish that standard for themselves. There is no law that prohibits it to make it illegal discrimination, therefore it is legal.

I even remember reading an article, perhaps about 4-5 years ago, that adressed this issue in California. I wish I had a copy, which I don't, but I'd like to find a link if anyone has it. Anyway, it discussed a legal opinion that confirmed restrictions on real estate agents from steering and discriminating based on race. However, it also acknowledged that buyers are allowed to initiate a racial qualification for their purchase and instruct their agent accordingly. The article added that the real estate agent could comply with the buyer's directions. Again, I wish I had the source, and it has been a few years, but I can't imagine things having changed that much.

There is also no discrimination against a particular protected class at all when the buyer establishes their standards. The protected class isn't involved in the discussion or decision-making process, they don't have a right to be involved, and the agent is not initiating the steering of anyone, since the buyer established their own standards. Additionally, no protected person can be identified as being harmed by an illegal act or decision on the part of the buyer.

Finally, nobody can force someone to buy anything if the buyer doesn't want it, even if their reason is the predominant race of the neighborhood. I just don't see the illegal discrimination.

What I do see is that some agents may be taking this whole issue too far. The laws protect people from being kept from buying something that they want and can afford. That's well understood.

Conversely, no law can force people to buy something they don't want, regardless of the reason. The laws are silent on that issue as far as I know.

If a real estate agent is unwilling to do their job as defined by the buyer, which includes only showing houses not in __________ neighborhoods (fill in the blank), they aren't doing their job since it is not an illegal instruction. That to me is an ethical violation. By refusing to follow their client's legal instructions, or to lable it in some derrogatory way, they are attempting to be a social engineer, which isn't their job, and failing to represent the interests of their client.

In the end it appears to me that real estate agents are running scared, but the harm is being done to the customers. They aren't receiving the service that they deserve for the price that they are effectively paying. That's how I see it.

[walidm]

Originally Posted by garth

Walidm,

But where is the illegal discrimination that prohibits an agent from following the buyer's instruction for his home search? The buyer wants certain qualities and doesn't want other qualities in the property they want to buy. These qualities can involve the predominate race in the neighborhood. (No they Cannot, if you wish the agent to assist in the search) They are allowed to establish that standard for themselves.(This they can do) There is no law that prohibits it to make it illegal discrimination, therefore it is legal. (So long as the agent does not participate and is not in collusion, so yes you can silently discriminate in your head if you wish)

There is also no discrimination against a particular protected class at all when the buyer establishes their standards. (So long as they do not violate the professionals standard of practice - and this is where you are attempting to toe the line) The protected class isn't involved in the discussion or decision-making process, they don't have a right to be involved, and the agent is not initiating the steering of anyone, since the buyer established their own standards. Additionally, no protected person can be identified as being harmed by an illegal act or decision on the part of the buyer.

Finally, nobody can force someone to buy anything if the buyer doesn't want it, even if their reason is the predominant race of the neighborhood. I just don't see the illegal discrimination.

What I do see is that some agents may be taking this whole issue too far. The laws protect people from being kept from buying something that they want and can afford. That's well understood.

Conversely, no law can force people to buy something they don't want, regardless of the reason. The laws are silent on that issue as far as I know.

If a real estate agent is unwilling to do their job as defined by the buyer, which includes only showing houses not in __________ neighborhoods (fill in the blank), they aren't doing their job since it is not an illegal instruction. That to me is an ethical violation. By refusing to follow their client's legal instructions, or to lable it in some derrogatory way, they are attempting to be a social engineer, which isn't their job, and failing to represent the interests of their client.

In the end it appears to me that real estate agents are running scared, but the harm is being done to the customers. They aren't receiving the service that they deserve for the price that they are effectively paying. That's how I see it.

It is an illegal instruction to ask an agent to perform a search for a home when one of a set of measurable factors is a protected class.