“While SafeRent continues to believe the SRS Scores comply with all applicable laws, litigation is time-consuming and expensive,” stated a company spokesperson. “It became increasingly clear that defending the SRS Score in this case would divert time and resources SafeRent can better use to serve its core mission of giving housing providers the tools they need to screen applicants.”
Tenant Screening $2.2M Race Bias Fine : Legal Maneuvers
An attorney for the renters declined to comment on Thursday. However, according to court filings, SafeRent retains the option to terminate the settlement if more than 50 class members opt out of the deal. In such a scenario, the case would resume from the same procedural standpoint as when the settlement was reached.
Denial of Wrongdoing
The settlement notably does not require SafeRent to admit any wrongdoing. The company maintains that it “has denied and continues to deny each of the claims and contentions alleged” by the applicants.
Legal Landscape
The lawsuit, initiated in May 2022, saw Mary Louis recounting SafeRent’s rejection of her application based on her SafeRent Score, with no avenue for appeal initially. Monica Douglas, another plaintiff, detailed a similar experience, where her application was rejected by a nonparty landlord, only to be later approved upon appeal.
Tenant Screening $2.2M Race Bias Fine : Judicial Stance
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley’s ruling in July largely rejected SafeRent’s motion to dismiss, affirming that the company falls under the purview of the Fair Housing Act. The judge emphasized SafeRent’s significant influence over rental decisions, noting that landlords are bound by the screening algorithm without full transparency on its calculations.
Legal Representation
The renters in the case are represented by a team comprising Todd S. Kaplan, Nadine Cohen of Greater Boston Legal Services, Christine E. Webber, Samantha N. Gerleman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Stuart T. Rossman, Charles M. Delbaum, and Ariel C. Nelson of the National Consumer Law Center.
