[1] The most straightforward form of housing discrimination involves a landlord who rejects offers from potential tenants based on factors such as race, age, gender, marital status, source of funding,[2] and others.
Sociologists Vincent J. Roscigno, Diana L. Karafin, and Griff Tester have determined that the variety of actions that constitute housing discrimination can be classified as either exclusionary or nonexclusionary.
This includes explicit refusals (which may also include harassment and verbal abuse), proactive requests for or against specific minorities in advertising,[4] as well as implicit tactics such as like lying about standards for rental qualification to disqualify certain individuals, unfair financing or loan qualifications or terms, steering or restricting the choices of people seeking homes, and refusing to provide insurance, which would prevent the individual or family from acquiring a home.
[5] The majority of discriminatory actors in exclusionary discrimination are landlords and landowners, as they have the positional power and direct access to the individual or family and the housing being sought.
These cases are often seen as unfairly raising the rent of a select group or allowing certain tenants privileges, like using a facility after hours or being lenient on pet policies.
[3] Many nonexclusionary discrimination cases involve the failure to provide equal access to services and facilities, such as purposely delaying or completely forgoing fixing a broken pipe.
If an individual holding a position of an authority, such as the landlord, is responsible for the nonexclusionary discrimination, the victim is left with a feeling of powerlessness and lack of ability to get help.