Press Release: 6/17/2025
MCAD Secures Settlement for Commission Initiated Complaint Against Public Assistance Discrimination in Housing
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
6/16/2025
MEDIA CONTACT
Justine LaVoye, Press Secretary, Director of Communications, & Legislative Liaison
Phone
Online
BOSTON — The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD or Commission) has reached a final order by consent in a housing discrimination complaint brought by the MCAD’s Investigating Commissioner and Chairwoman, Sunila Thomas George, against Coldwell Banker and listing agent Marta Malina (Respondents). The complaint alleged that the Respondents engaged in unlawful housing discrimination to prospective tenants based on t their receipt of public assistance in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B.
“Massachusetts makes it clear: discrimination against renters because they use a housing subsidy is illegal.” Stated Chairwoman George. “These protections are critical to safeguarding equal access to housing and upholding our anti-discrimination laws.”
The MCAD initiated complaint stemmed from data collected by the Suffolk University Law School’s Housing Discrimination Testing Program (HDTP) which conducted multiple tests on properties listed by the Respondent between 2023 and 2024. The testing revealed consistent patterns of discriminatory treatment against applicants using housing vouchers, including being denied property tours, receiving misleading information, and being subjected to different application processes. At site one in Waltham, the HDTP tester with the housing voucher was precluded from touring the apartment or applying to rent the apartment due to their utilization of a housing voucher. Despite this tester informing Malina that their housing voucher exceeded the monthly rent, Malina responded that the apartment building had reached its allotment of low-income designated apartments as justification for denying the tester a tour and application.
At site two in Natick, despite Malina accommodating the tester without a voucher cancelling their in-person visit to the apartment by sending virtual tour links and the application process information for a November 1, 2024 availability, she provided the tester with a housing voucher with vague details on when the apartment would be available and mentioned they would need to go directly to the property manager for an inquiry on the apartment after stating they utilized a housing voucher. The tester with a voucher contacted the property manager explaining that due to their utilization of a voucher, they were told to seek this direct avenue by Malina. The Acting Property Manager told the tester that the information Malina shared was incorrect, stating that there are no stipulations in the condo documents about housing vouchers. In this test case, Malina demonstrated disparate treatment when informing the tester with a housing voucher that there was a different process for people who utilize a housing voucher to tour and apply to rent as opposed to applicants who do not use a housing voucher to subsidize their rent.
At site three in Wayland, Malina made multiple discouraging comments to the HDTP tester regarding the voucher inspection and approval process and did not offer the tester the ability to tour or submit an application for the rental, despite providing another tester a tour and application without being asked.
At site four in Wayland, the HDTP tester asked Malina for confirmation that the rent would be $3,000 as they would be using a housing voucher. Malina responded that they would actually be asking for $3,200 even though the current rent was at $3,000. The tester explained that their voucher was for $3,200 but they wanted to use the additional portion for utilities, to which Malina responded with different anticipated costs for utilities that she estimated between $200-250. When the tester asked to schedule a tour, Malina informed them that there were no upcoming appointments available and then inquired about if the tester had previously used a housing voucher and understood the need for an inspection “and that the process could take months.” The tester acknowledged their awareness, saying they would take up the concerns with their case manager. Malina then inquired more about where the voucher was obtained and where the individual was moving from, reiterating how long the housing authority process would take, stating that the house was built in the 1800’s and had only received minor renovations. Five days later, Malina provided the requested information on the property through email to the tester.
At the final testing site in Natick, the HDTP tester explained that she would be using a voucher from Boston Housing Authority and could only pay $2,300. Malina next asked who would occupy the unit and the tester explained that her and her daughter would live on the property. Malina then explained the approval process of the Boston Housing Authority and that the property must be inspected. Malina further explained that the condominium association sets aside 25% of their units for renters with housing vouchers, and that they would be unlikely to accommodate her with the long approval process. Malina suggested that the tester go on the Boston Housing Authority website and join a waitlist for available apartments.
“Blanket policies that limit low-income tenants to arbitrary quotas, like a 25% cap, and deny voucher holders the chance to tour or apply for housing violate fair housing laws,” said MCAD General Counsel Deirdre Hosler. “Such practices disproportionately harm renters with lawful subsidies and are unlawful under Chapter 151B.”
Under the settlement, Coldwell Banker agreed to complete the MCAD’s fair housing training which includes Malina and all office management, strengthen their anti-discrimination policies and submit those policies to MCAD for approval. They must provide copies to all agents and brokers affiliated with Coldwell Banker’s Wellesley office and maintain compliance records for seven years. Coldwell Banker will also pay $10,000 to Suffolk University to offset their testing costs.
“The MCAD is committed to taking proactive action against discriminatory housing practices that are not only unjust, but unlawful. We will continue to vigorously enforce Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination laws to make clear that public assistance discrimination has no place in our state’s already competitive housing market,” noted Chairwoman George, reinforcing the MCAD’s civil rights protections.
This MCAD initiated complaint was overseen by MCAD Senior Commission Counsel Supervisor Wendy Cassidy with Chairwoman George serving as the Investigating Commissioner.