Mary Louis, et al. v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, et al

Case Background

On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff  Mary Louis and others filed a Housing discrimination lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case number:  1:22-CV-10800). Judge Angel Kelley presided over this case.

Cause

Mary Louis and Monica Douglas, both Black women residing in Massachusetts, applied for rental housing but encountered systemic housing discrimination perpetuated by SafeRent Solutions, LLC. Mary Louis sought an apartment at Granada Highlands, managed by Metropolitan Management Group, LLC, which used SafeRent’s tenant screening service. SafeRent’s algorithm, heavily reliant on credit history and non-tenancy-related debts, assigned her a low score, despite her consistent history of on-time rent payments and reliance on a federally funded housing voucher that covered 69% of her rent. Metropolitan automatically rejected her application based on the SafeRent Score without considering her strong rental references or employment stability.

Similarly, Monica Douglas applied for an apartment at Millside at Heritage Park, hoping to leave her poorly maintained and unsafe living conditions. SafeRent’s scoring system factored in a prior eviction, despite the context—the eviction occurred because her landlord sought to reassign the unit to a relative—resulting in her application being initially denied. These actions reflected systemic housing discrimination that disproportionately affected minority applicants, especially those relying on housing vouchers, violating both the Fair Housing Act and Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws.

Injuries

SafeRent’s discriminatory scoring system caused Mary Louis and Monica Douglas significant personal and emotional harm. Mary Louis was forced to settle for an apartment in a high-crime area. The apartment had fewer amenities and higher costs. Her rejection from Granada Highlands left her with limited options in the competitive rental market. She felt frustrated, anxious, and disappointed. These feelings were worsened by the financial strain of paying $200 more per month for an apartment without desired amenities, such as in-unit laundry and a pool. Monica Douglas, initially rejected at Millside at Heritage Park, had to continue living in her current apartment. This apartment had safety concerns, including an on-site shooting.

Damages

The plaintiffs suffered both quantifiable financial and emotional damages due to SafeRent’s tenant screening practices. Mary Louis faced increased rental expenses while sacrificing safety and comfort, leading to both financial hardship and personal dissatisfaction. Monica Douglas endured extended unsafe living conditions and emotional distress before securing her desired apartment. The reliance on SafeRent Scores, which disproportionately penalized housing voucher holders and minority applicants, subjected both women to unnecessary barriers in accessing quality housing. Their experiences underscore the broader impact of discriminatory tenant screening and housing discrimination on individuals relying on housing vouchers.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Mary Louis and Monica Douglas, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, and Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Christine E. Webber | Brian Corman | Todd S. Kaplan | Shennan Kavanagh | Ariel C. Nelson | Stuart Rossman
  • Defendant(s): SafeRent Solutions LLC | Metropolitan Management Group, LLC
    • Counsel for Defendants: Andrew Soukup | Rachel Ellen Grossman

 Claims

Mary Louis and Monica Douglas asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that SafeRent’s tenant screening practices disproportionately denied housing to Black and Hispanic applicants and those using housing vouchers. They argued that SafeRent’s algorithmic reliance on credit history and eviction records had no legitimate business justification, especially given the financial stability provided by housing vouchers. They further contended that Metropolitan Management Group’s and other landlords’ reliance on SafeRent Scores perpetuated systemic housing discrimination, exacerbating housing inequities. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for their financial losses and emotional harm. They also demanded injunctive relief to compel SafeRent and landlords using their services to reform their tenant screening practices, ensuring equitable treatment of all applicants, regardless of race or income source.

Defense

SafeRent Solutions, LLC and Metropolitan Management Group, LLC defended their tenant screening practices. They asserted that their practices were based on legitimate business needs, not discriminatory intent. SafeRent argued that its algorithm, which calculated the SafeRent Score, was designed to objectively predict tenant reliability and lease performance. The algorithm used factors such as credit history, public records, and payment performance. SafeRent maintained that these factors correlated with an applicant’s ability to meet rental obligations. They emphasized that the scoring system was applied uniformly to all applicants, regardless of race or income source.

Metropolitan Management Group defended its use of SafeRent Scores. They claimed that SafeRent Scores helped streamline tenant selection and reduce risks like nonpayment or property damage. Metropolitan argued that it lacked the resources to independently assess credit or tenancy risks. As a result, they considered SafeRent’s services essential.

Both defendants denied allegations of housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. They asserted that any disparate impact on minority applicants or housing voucher holders resulted from broader socioeconomic factors. The defendants emphasized that the SafeRent algorithm did not consider race or ethnicity. They presented it as a neutral tool for efficient tenant selection. Additionally, they argued they were not required to modify SafeRent’s proprietary algorithm.

The defendants also argued that housing vouchers, while beneficial, did not fully mitigate financial risks for landlords. This was particularly true when applicants had poor credit histories or prior evictions. The defendants claimed that these factors were legitimate concerns when assessing tenant reliability. They asserted that changes to the screening process would impose undue burdens on their operations.

Jury Verdict

On November 8, 2024, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for class certification and final approval of a settlement with SafeRent Solutions, LLC, addressing discriminatory practices in its tenant screening services. The settlement required SafeRent to make significant changes to its business operations, including discontinuing the use of the SafeRent Score for housing providers using the Affordable Model or any other scoring system unless approved by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) or a similar organization. SafeRent also agreed to mandate that housing providers using its other screening models certify they would not use these systems for applicants relying on housing vouchers. Additionally, SafeRent committed to providing training for housing providers on the new changes. Financially, SafeRent agreed to contribute $1,750,000 into a settlement fund for class member compensation.

The court awarded $10,000 each to named plaintiffs Mary Louis and Monica Douglas as class representatives. The court capped attorney fees and costs at $1,100,000, though plaintiffs’ counsel’s lodestar calculation exceeded this cap, totaling $1,525,744.40 in fees and $23,805.76 in costs.

On November 20, 2024, Judge Angel Kelley granted final approval of the settlement and affirmed the attorney fees and costs award. The judge found the lodestar calculation reasonable, noting the significant time dedicated to the case, and awarded $1,077,547.68 in attorney fees. The court also approved the $10,000 awards for Louis and Douglas.

Court Documents:

Documents Available for Purchase upon Request