Landlords settle claim on lead paint

Two years ago, not long after an Arlington couple announced they were expecting their first child, their landlords decided not to renew their lease.

The couple filed a complaint, arguing that they were the victims of discrimination because the landlords did not want to de-lead the apartment, as required by law, once the baby was born.

The landlords argued that they were merely trying to get rid of tenants who had damaged their apartment.

Last week, as a trial was set to begin in Middlesex Superior Court, the landlords and tenants reached an agreement. William and Pamela Young, who live in Belmont and own other rental units, agreed to pay their former tenants $10,000 and participate in a training session on fair housing and lead paint laws. For three years, they must also keep a record of rental applications filed by prospective tenants who are pregnant or have young children.

The agreement, negotiated by the state attorney general's office, was one of the latest salvos in Massachusetts' war on lead paint. Three decades after the state passed its first lead paint laws, lawyers and tenants advocates say they see many cases of discrimination by landlords - fearful of the costly deleading process or liability for lead-poisoning - who don't want families with children.

"I think this is a very common problem," said Ginny Hamilton, executive director of the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. "We see it too often."

In the Arlington case, the tenants, Zachary Semke and Ann Ishimaru, argued that their landlords illegally discriminated against them after they told them in March 2006 that they were expecting a child. On April 20, 2006, William Young told the tenants that he would not renew their lease because of property damage to the apartment building and said they could move out before their lease ended, if they wished.

The child was born in early May and in late June, the tenants gave Young a month's notice that they would move out early.

The couple first filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in 2006, arguing that the Youngs discriminated against them because Ishimaru became pregnant. That year, the MCAD found probable cause that William Young had violated state anti-discrimination laws. Young requested that the case be moved to Middlesex Superior Court.

Under state law, children under age 6 cannot live in housing units that contain lead paint on some high-risk surfaces, such as windowsills and baseboards. But getting rid of lead paint, which was commonly used before 1970, is expensive - deleading an apartment can easily cost landlords $10,000.

James K. Ferraro, the Youngs' attorney, argued that the landlords decided not to renew their tenants' lease because of damage to the apartment, not because they didn't want tenants with a young child. The Youngs had already decided not to renew the lease even before they learned the couple was expecting, Ferraro said, but were waiting until a time closer to the lease expiration to inform their tenants.

"There was some concern that if they notified the tenants too early, the tenants would cause some damage to the apartment," he said.

Over the 11 months the tenants lived in the apartment, several appliances broke or needed repairs, including the dishwasher, a smoke detector, and the heating system, Ferraro said.

Also, after another tenant accidentally locked herself out of her apartment, Semke sawed a hole in her door, at her request, so she could get back in. The other tenant reimbursed the Youngs for repairs to her door, but William Young told Semke and Ishimaru that that incident was one reason their lease was not being renewed.

Once the landlords learned their tenants were expecting a child, they arranged for a town inspector to examine the apartment for lead. They deleaded the apartment after Semke and Ishimaru moved out.

"The Youngs did everything that they were required to do by law," Ferraro said. "You can't expect things to be done overnight."

The couple made a business decision to accept the consent agreement, Ferraro said, and avoid the costs of going to trial.

Hamilton said she's worked more closely with the attorney general's office in housing discrimination cases since Martha Coakley was elected nearly two years ago, though not in the Arlington case.

In that time, lawyers in the civil rights division have won 29 consent agreements in housing discrimination cases - not only families with children but also those who argue they were discriminated against because of their race or other factors - according to Coakley's office.

In a 2001 study, the center found that landlords and real estate agents treated volunteer "testers" who said they had children differently from those who said they did not.

Many of the testers who claimed they had children were told they could not rent apartments because they were not deleaded, a clear violation of the law. One was quoted a higher monthly rent than a tester who claimed to be childless.

"Landlords in Massachusetts need to understand that refusing to rent or refusing to renew a lease because tenants will have children under the age of 6 living in the apartment is illegal," Coakley said in a release.

She and other attorneys in the office declined to discuss the consent agreement.

Also last week, Coakley's office announced that it had filed a housing discrimination complaint in Middlesex Superior Court against a Malden couple who allegedly refused to show prospective tenants an apartment once they learned the couple had an infant daughter.

Kathleen Burge can be reached at kburge@globe.com.