HUD's Proposed Amendment Could Pave Way for More Algorithmic Decision-Making
Opponents say HUD's move to amend the agency's interpretation of the Fair Housing Act makes it harder to fight discrimination, while advocates argue it helps limit race-based decision-making.
October 25, 2019 at 10:30 AM
3 minute read
A proposed rule change by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development might make algorithmic decision-making more prominent, despite bias concerns.
Earlier this month, HUD closed the comment period regarding its proposal to amend the agency's interpretation of the Fair Housing Act's disparate impact standard. The agency wrote the considerations were to better reflect the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.
"[This] would really make it much more difficult to bring a housing discrimination case," said Linda Morris, an ACLU Women's Rights Project attorney. (The American Civil Liberties Union also submitted comments opposing the proposed rule change.)
In addition to other updates, the housing agency added three defenses to shield an algorithm used for a practice or policy from claims of discrimination. Such algorithms can be used to determine credit scores, for example, or create targeted housing advertisements.
Defenses under the proposal include leveraging a "statistically sound" algorithm, using a third party that creates or maintains the algorithm, or using an algorithm whose inputs are not substitutes for a protected characteristic. Such defenses "provide[] a huge loophole" to defendants, Morris said. She noted credit agencies, insurers, housing companies, advertisers and other institutions leverage algorithms that can significantly impact someone's homebuying or renting abilities.
She added while the debate continues regarding the objectiveness of algorithm-powered decisions, sometimes "there is no discrimination intended but oftentimes the inputs in the algorithm are biased."
Some think the rule change could encourage more entities to use algorithms, whose usage HUD noted is "complicated, yet increasingly" common.
Chris Kieser, an attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, said, "I think this will allow housing authorities to use more algorithms without having to scrutinize the data for racial impact, which is the overall goal of the regulation."
Kieser noted that one of President Donald Trump's administration priorities is to limit "race-based decision-making. Broad disparate impact liability encourages race-based decisions and potentially quotas." Kieser added that the PLF views racial balancing as forbidden by the Constitution.
Other groups, however, expressed deep concern over the rule change. "I would say this highly problematic reading of how algorithms are used or can be used will travel across housing into employment as well," said Bertram Lee, policy counsel at Public Knowledge, which submitted a comment against the proposed changes.
While Kieser said he hopes other agencies are looking at HUD's proposed changes, opponents see a concerted effort to dismantle disparate impact and civil rights across federal agencies.
"Our concern certainly is this is part of a broader pushback of civil rights," said Bruce Mirken, media relations director of The Greenlining Institute, which also submitted a comment against HUD's proposed changes.
Mirken cited a January article in The Washington Post that reported on an internal U.S. Department of Justice memo directing senior civil rights officials to review how disparate impact regulations could be changed or removed, and their impact.
"This may be the first concrete manifestation of that and a sign of what may come," Mirken said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250