My girlfriend was offered a flat ahead of two other people who also wanted it. When she went to sign the lease, the landlord implied that the sexual orientation of the other people was a factor in his decision. My girlfriend is loathe to benefit from bigotry, but it the flat was possibly awarded on her merits, such as credit-rating and references. Is she ethically obliged to turn it down?
Your girlfriend’s sensitivity is commendable, but the landlord’s comments seem too ambiguous to prove discrimination or to compel her to forsake this flat. Here in New York, with housing scarce, many of us would rent from the devil himself, and some think we have.
If your girlfriend knew that the landlord engaged in a continuing pattern of discrimination — if, for example, he managed many large buildings and displayed a sign in his office,“No Pakistanis” — then she’d have to refuse the flat and notify the authorities. But in her actual situation, she was right to take it. Once she has the protection of a signed lease, she can go further and raise the matter with the landlord himself. If he confirms a biased policy, she should inform those would-be renters, if she has a way to contact them. It is they who, as the injured parties, can bring legal action and, if they win, get restitution from the landlord, which would not result in your girlfriend being evicted.
Happy Ending Follow-Up: The couple in question moved in next door to the girlfriend in a building owned and newly renovated by the very same landlord. She did indeed have the guy wrong. My answer stands to what is now, happily, a hypothetical question about housing discrimination, and a testament to the girlfriend’s not rushing to judgment.
Advertisement
RANDY COHEN
Can you suggest solutions to this ethical dilemma? Or do you have dilemmas of your own? Write to: The Ethicist, Times Features, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1TT. E-mail: ethicist@thetimes.co.uk. Readers’ solutions will be published tomorrow.
The Ethicist originates from The New York Times Magazine.