Discriminatory enforcement

What it looks like in practice

The rule itself can be perfectly legal and still get an association into trouble. What matters is whether the board applies it the same way to everyone. A board that fines one owner for a parking violation but waves off the same violation from every other unit is letting something outside the rule drive the decision, whether or not anyone on the board would describe it that way. The same test applies to architectural review turnaround, how fast a violation letter goes out, and which complaints get followed up.

"In the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith."

Source: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), Cornell Legal Information Institute

That phrase is what makes this reach past the closing table. It covers how an association runs itself for owners who already live there, not only who gets to move in. A board that fines or reports one owner for something it tolerates in others, correlated with a protected class, falls inside this language directly.

A neutral rule is not a defense

A rule barring children from the pool, or cutting their hours because of their age, is high risk under familial-status protections no matter how neutral it sounds on paper. A rule addressed to an actual safety need, such as requiring an adult to accompany a non-swimmer, and applied the same way to every resident, carries less risk. That distinction comes from practitioner guidance on pool and amenity rules, not a bright legal line, so a board weighing how it enforces a pool or amenity rule should get that enforcement pattern reviewed before leaning on it.

Retaliation makes it worse

Granting a request the first time doesn't close the file. If a board starts enforcing rules harder against a resident after that resident asked for an accommodation or filed a complaint, the harsher enforcement can itself be a violation, layered on top of anything else already at issue.

"It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of," rights protected by the Fair Housing Act.

Source: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, Cornell Legal Information Institute

Selective, harsher enforcement against a resident because they exercised a fair housing right can stand as its own claim, separate from whatever happened with the original request. See retaliation for how that works.