Three years ago, Joaquin and Delia Veles of San Jose, Calif., figured it would be relatively easy to find a new home to rent for themselves and their five children. Hoping to escape a cramped apartment, they discovered a cozy three-bedroom house they coveted on a quiet street in San Jose and phoned the landlord.
As it turned out, the Mexican-American family was denied a chance to rent the house of their choice. But their misfortune may now carve them a place in the law books.
In a case that could result in a groundbreaking test of federal housing discrimination laws, the Veleses are embroiled in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Jose that challenges a landlord’s policy of refusing to rent to tenants who do not speak adequate English.
“We decided to go to court because I think that’s illegal discrimination,” said Joaquin Veles, a 39-year-old landscaper.
But while federal laws ban housing discrimination based on categories such as race, sex and national origin, there is virtually no legal precedent on whether those anti-bias restrictions apply to language. For places like Silicon Valley that have growing immigrant populations, the Veles case and how it deals with landlord-tenant language barriers could have broad ramifications.
In May, a federal judge allowed portions of the lawsuit to proceed to trial, although his ruling sided with the landlords’ argument that the “English-only” policy does not necessarily violate federal housing laws. Whatever the outcome, the case is expected to reach the appellate courts.
`A big risk’
“We’re taking a big risk here,” said San Francisco attorney Francisco Garcia-Rodriguez, who is working with Legal Aid of Santa Clara County in representing the Veles family.
“If we lose this case, it will send a message that landlords can discriminate on the basis of language,” he continued. “Landlords could have their own informal language test, and that’s why this case is very dangerous.”
Added Martha Jimenez, a San Francisco civil rights lawyer not involved in the case: “That is absolutely against the law. It just boggles the mind.”
The landlords in the case, a San Jose couple, Carl and Mary Lindow, take a very different view, as do local landlord organizations.
According to the Lindows, the policy is not meant to discriminate against any particular group–in fact, they say they rent to various minority groups–but instead is needed to ensure important communication links with their tenants.
From broken toilets to getting locked out of the house, the Lindows argue in court documents, communication is a must for both tenants and landlords. The language policy, they say, is a simple business necessity.
“The Lindows have had to defend themselves against these allegations when all they were trying to do is communicate with their tenants,” said the Lindows’ San Jose attorney, Bernard Lahde. “The (Veleses) are trying to expand the envelope beyond where the law was intended to go.”
Based on interviews and court records, there is little disagreement from both sides on how the Veles case originally unfolded.
In 1995, Joaquin Veles and wife Delia, 26, responded to a newspaper advertisement for a housing rental on Ella Drive in San Jose. But when Joaquin Veles inquired in a phone call about the house’s availability, the Lindows apparently concluded that his English was inadequate.
What the Lindows did not know is that Veles, a Mexican national, had been in the U.S. for more than 20 years, and in 1995 obtained his citizenship. While there is some dispute over what took place in the phone exchanges, there is no question that the Lindows applied their language policy to the Veles family.
That policy calls for at least one member of a family to be able to communicate in English with the Lindows, who have been landlords since the 1970s.
In a recent interview, Joaquin Veles said his family was so insulted by the rejection that they sought help from legal aid lawyers. Legal aid conducted an investigation that allegedly confirmed the Lindows’ language policy.
The Veles family filed suit in 1996, arguing that the policy amounts to de facto discrimination against certain ethnic groups, such as Latinos. They argue that such a language restriction would fall under the federal ban on housing discrimination based on national origin.
“Language always is an attribute of national origin, and the courts should recognize it,” said Garcia-Rodriguez, the Veleses’ attorney.
However, the Lindows, as well as other experts on landlord issues, say the policy is not discriminatory as long as it does not target a particular group. They argue that an English-only policy cuts across nationalities and can apply to Asians, Europeans or Russians as readily as Spanish-speakers.
“It will be interesting to see where this comes out,” said Terry Feinberg, executive director of the Tri-County Apartment Association, a landlord group in California. “It is important to be able to communicate with your residents. I would question whether the policy in and of itself would be discriminatory.”
The courts have had little to say about the subject. There has been a smattering of law arising from English-only policies in the context of employment and free speech cases, most notably a challenge to a controversial Arizona law making English the official state language.
Although they managed two years ago to purchase a house in east San Jose, the Veles family plans to push their crusade against the language requirement.
“We hope we win,” Joaquin Veles, said. “If we win, (landlords) in the future won’t do this to other people. We are sure what we’re doing is right.”
