Q: I manage an apartment complex, where we have many families with children. We have large parking lots where kids often ride their bikes. This is an obvious safety hazard, so I’ve posted a sign saying "Children may not ride bikes in the parking lot." The owner told me to take it down, that it discriminates against kids. Can he be right? –Jackie W.

A: Your owner is right, to a point. But he hasn’t taken the next step of showing you how to handle your legitimate safety concerns without creating legal problems, which will be easy to do. Here’s the deal.

Landlords may not make rules that are directed at federally designated "protected classes" of people, such as members of a certain religion, race, national origin, familial status, disability and sex. Policies that target children are considered instances of discrimination against families.

State laws frequently add to this list, protecting people based on their marital status, occupation, sexual orientation, and more.

Importantly, the landlord’s intent is completely irrelevant. No matter how much good sense it makes to keep kids out of the parking lot, and even though your intent is to protect kids, rather than harm them or deprive them, the fact that your rule singles them out puts you on legally shaky ground.

Happily, solving the problem is as simple as changing your sign. The sign should say, "No bike riding in the parking lot." That way, it’s directed at everybody, not just children. Adults ride bikes, too, and you certainly don’t want an adult zipping through the parking lot any more than you want a pint-sized rider doing the same.

But wait, you say: The reality is that children are by far the biggest group of parking-lot riders, so doesn’t the rewritten rule still have the effect of discriminating against them?

The law has an answer to this. A rule that has the effect of discriminating against a protected group — even if it’s not written that way — is not necessarily illegal. If the rule is necessary to accomplish a reasonable goal, it will survive a legal challenge.

In this case, you’d have an easy time convincing a fair housing inspector that your goal (avoiding serious accidents) is reasonable, and that prohibiting bikes in the parking lot, though it affects kids more than adults, is necessary to accomplish this goal.

Let’s consider another situation in which you might find yourself wondering about the fair housing implications of your policies. Suppose you have a pool rule specifying that children under the age of 14 must be supervised at all times.

You should rewrite it to specify "users" under the age of 14, but because the rule affects only children, you’ll still need to make sure that your goal is reasonable and your rule is necessary to achieve it.

As for the goal, that’s not too hard — everyone wants to avoid pool accidents among children. But what about the age you’ve chosen (the specifics of the rule)? If challenged, you’ll need to show that it’s reasonable to assume that kids under the age of 14 need the protection of your rule.

The way to do that is to look for objective evidence that will support your rule — that children all the way up to 14 years old need supervision. Talk to swimming instructors, lifeguards at your local city pool, or contact the Drowning Prevention Foundation. If these professionals can back you up, you should be able to defend your policy.

Q: I live in an apartment community that employs many people as groundskeepers and maintenance workers. I’ve become friends with one of them, and have learned that he’s being paid far less than the minimum wage, doesn’t earn overtime, and doesn’t get paid vacation or sick time.

I’m sure that at least some of these working conditions are illegal, and I don’t like living in a place that’s taking advantage of people. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do about it? A lot of these workers appear to be immigrants, and I don’t want to get them in trouble. –Nancy D.

A: You’re in a difficult position. Your desire to do something for workers whom you think are being exploited may actually backfire, a result they would rather avoid. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t exert pressure on your landlord in other ways.

First, let’s look at what you’ve observed. All employers must abide by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (and any state equivalents), which specify minimum wage and overtime requirements. And the FSLA protects employees, whether or not they are legally authorized to work in this country.

But these laws do not require employers to offer paid sick time or vacation (with a few exceptions in, for example, the city of San Francisco and Washington, D.C.).

Unless an employer has an announced policy of paying for sick days and vacation, or a union contract requires it, an employee has no legal grounds for demanding it. So chances are, the most you’re looking at here is a violation of minimum wage and overtime laws.

You could, if you chose, report the landlord to the agency in your state that regulates wages and hours, or to the federal Department of Labor. Those offices might investigate, and that investigation might turn up evidence of violations. But will this do the workers any good?

Theoretically, the workers should be awarded back pay, but that’s not the end of it. A vengeful employer might choose to retaliate by firing them. Although such retaliation is illegal, the workers might not want to pursue their rights. Their real fear is that their status will come to the attention of the immigration authorities, who could take action.

If you asked the people involved, they might tell you not to jeopardize their jobs and presence in this country.

You might want to consider going right to the landlord and asking about the circumstances of his workers’ employment. You might find the door slammed in your face, which will tell you all you need to know.

Alternatively, you could learn that the employer is in fact paying legal wages. Or, you might be told that the only way to contain costs (and keep your rent down) is to hire people for as little as possible.

If the answer you get confirms your suspicions, the best move might be to do just that: move. Your landlord will have lost a good tenant and, if others learn how their pool gets cleaned and lobbies get shined, they too might want nothing to do with it.

If you’re dealing with a stubborn landlord, perhaps only a mass exodus will convince him of the need to treat his workers fairly.

Show Comments Hide Comments


Sign up for Inman’s Morning Headlines
What you need to know to start your day with all the latest industry developments
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive marketing emails from Inman.
Thank you for subscribing to Morning Headlines.
Back to top
Log in
If you created your account with Google or Facebook
Don't have an account?
Forgot your password?
No Problem

Simply enter the email address you used to create your account and click "Reset Password". You will receive additional instructions via email.

Forgot your username? If so please contact customer support at (510) 658-9252

Password Reset Confirmation

Password Reset Instructions have been sent to

Subscribe to The Weekender
Get the week's leading headlines delivered straight to your inbox.
Top headlines from around the real estate industry. Breaking news as it happens.
15 stories covering tech, special reports, video and opinion.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
It looks like you’re already a Select Member!
To subscribe to exclusive newsletters, visit your email preferences in the account settings.
Up-to-the-minute news and interviews in your inbox, ticket discounts for Inman events and more
1-Step CheckoutPay with a credit card
By continuing, you agree to Inman’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

You will be charged . Your subscription will automatically renew for on . For more details on our payment terms and how to cancel, click here.

Interested in a group subscription?
Finish setting up your subscription