4.1 Pennsylvania Fair Housing Laws

How Pennsylvania Layers Over Federal Law

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. Section 951 et seq., is the state fair housing statute. It does not replace the federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) — it adds to it. The exam tests the overlap and, more importantly, the two classes Pennsylvania protects that federal law does not: ancestry and age. When a question asks "which class is protected in Pennsylvania but not under federal law," the answer is almost always ancestry or age.

The federal law protects seven classes. The PHRA carries all seven and stacks ancestry and age on top. Disability protection includes the right to use a guide, signal, or support animal and to make reasonable modifications.

Trap: Federal law alone does not protect ancestry or age in housing. Many local ordinances (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh) add sexual orientation, gender identity, and source of income, but those are local — do not credit them as statewide PHRA classes on the state exam.

Enforcement: The PHRC and HUD

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) investigates, conciliates, and adjudicates housing complaints. It is a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency, meaning HUD can refer dual-filed complaints to it. The filing deadlines are the single most tested logistical fact in this section:

Worked example: A landlord refuses to rent to a family with three children on March 1. The tenant realizes it is familial-status discrimination in September. If she files with the PHRC, she has until roughly the end of August (180 days) — she may be too late and must instead use HUD's one-year window, which runs to the following March 1. Always pick the agency whose clock has not expired.

Prohibited Acts

The PHRA mirrors the federal prohibitions. Memorize these eight; the exam loves the made-up vocabulary terms steering and blockbusting:

1. Refusing to sell, rent, or negotiate based on a protected class.
2. Discriminating in terms or conditions (different rent, deposits, or rules).
3. Discriminatory advertising — any statement indicating a preference, e.g., "adults preferred," "perfect for a Christian family."
4. Misrepresenting availability (telling a protected applicant a unit is rented when it is not).
5. Blockbusting — inducing owners to sell by suggesting a protected group is moving in ("panic peddling").
6. Steering — channeling buyers toward or away from neighborhoods by protected class.
7. Discriminatory financing / redlining — denying loans or using unequal terms.
8. Denying access to MLS, brokerage services, or facilities.

Advertising compliance

• Use the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan.
• Describe the property, never the desired occupant.
• Avoid words signaling family size, religion, or ethnicity ("master suite" is fine; "no kids" is not).

Reasonable Accommodations and Assistance Animals

Disability protection is the most heavily litigated PHRA area. Distinguish the two duties:

Key rules tested repeatedly: an assistance animal is not a pet, so a provider may not charge a pet deposit or pet rent for it; the provider may request reliable documentation of disability-related need only when the disability or need is not obvious.

Penalties and the Licensee's Exposure

When the PHRC adjudicates or a dual-filed case goes before a HUD administrative law judge, civil penalties follow a tiered schedule (HUD amounts are inflation-adjusted; current first-offense maximum exceeds $16,000):

Remedies also include actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Limited exemptions exist for owner-occupied buildings of four units or fewer (the "Mrs. Murphy" exemption) and FSBO single-family sales — but the exemption evaporates the moment a licensee is involved or discriminatory advertising appears.

Exam takeaway: A licensee can never hide behind a client's exemption. Participating in a discriminatory FSBO is itself a RELRA violation subject to SREC discipline (see 4.2).

Putting It Together: A Compliance Checklist

The exam frequently presents a fact pattern and asks what the licensee should have done. Run every scenario through this checklist:

• Describe the property, never the buyer or tenant. Advertising that profiles the ideal occupant — by family size, faith, or background — is per se discriminatory advertising.
• Treat every prospect identically. Offer the same units, terms, financing referrals, and showing access regardless of protected status. Differential treatment, even when well-intentioned ("I steered them to a quieter block for the kids"), is steering.
• Honor accommodation and modification requests promptly. A delay or a demand for excessive documentation can itself be a violation.
• Refuse to take a discriminatory instruction from a principal. "The owner only wants to rent to people like us" is a directive a licensee must reject — and the licensee should withdraw from the engagement rather than comply.
• Watch the clock. If a consumer reports possible discrimination, the licensee should note that the PHRC window is 180 days and the HUD window is one year, because timeliness governs which forum is available.

Scenario: A salesperson tells an older couple a ground-floor unit "would suit your age better" and shows them only ground-floor stock. Even framed as helpful, limiting options by age is steering and implicates ancestry/age protections unique to the PHRA — a textbook violation.