Skip to Content
Updated New Jersey DCR Rules
By November 26, 2024 Posted in Landlord/Tenant Law Share
On November 18, 2024, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced a proposed set of changes to rules related to “disparate impact discrimination.” The proposed legislation, 56 N.J.R. 2218 (a), attempts to resolve potential issues in housing related to disparate discrimination involving protected classes by the DCR.
Among the recent substantiative changes from November 18 regarding the rule updates was the removal of the term “equally effective” alternatives and its resulting impact on the proposal. This term’s purpose in the previously proposed changes set to allow for housing provider parties operating under the DCR’s rules to be able to uphold alleged “disparate discrimination” policies if there are found to be no “equally effective” alternatives that seek to prevent this alleged discrimination from occurring.
The removal of the term may have an impact on how these rules are interpreted. Essentially, the removal of this term in the updated changes provides Complainants of alleged housing discrimination with the ability to more effectively call attention to believed disparate policies in housing practices. With these proposed changes to the rules, if Complainants are able to prove that “equally effective” alternative policies are available to supposed outwardly neutral housing policies that create disparate discrimination to a protected class under the DCR, they will be more likely to succeed in their claims of this type of discrimination.
The DCR intends to remove the term “equally effective” in their proposed rule changes to ultimately align more consistently with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and its current judicial precedents and subsequent interpretations in New Jersey law. The DCR also believes that this updated rule change would more accurately fit New Jersey case law in this area and would more fruitfully meet the standards of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
According to the DCR, the “equally effective” standard would not align with the outcomes commonplace in case law related to the LAD. The DCR describes in their proposal that New Jersey courts have not used the originally proposed “equally effective” precedent in their standard for seeking less discriminatory alternatives in housing in the past. As a result, according to the DCR, this removal of the term would fundamentally better apply to New Jersey case law regarding allegations of discrimination in similar circumstances. Additionally, due to HUD’s lack of incorporation of an “equally effective” standard in its most recent rules regarding less discriminatory alternatives to claims of disparate discrimination, the DCR has further asserted its superfluousness to its inclusion in the updated proposal of rule changes.
Furthermore, the updated proposal for rule changes will attempt to correct the definition of “complainants” in disparate discrimination claims. The updated proposal sets out to remove the requirement of a complainant needing to be considered “verified” following the assertion of certain DCR procedures in these matters. The new proposed rule changes will further the scope of the rules to allow for “complainants” in these matters to be considered any individual who files a complaint against a party alleging LAD violations.
While the proposed changes by the DCR to the language of the rules may be considered more effective and beneficial for the success of complainants of disparate discrimination, property owners may have a different view of the updated proposal. The updated rules can be described as limiting toward the ability of property owners to defend their policies alleged to include disparate discrimination by complainants. Although the business policies of property owners may relate to admissible practices in housing, the potential allegations from complainants of unintentionally disparate effects may challenge their necessity and ability to be upheld.
The information in this Client Alert is provided solely for information purposes. It should not be construed as legal advice on any specific matter and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular circumstances. Each legal matter is unique, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.