Skip main navigation

Outdated or Unsupported Browser Detected
DWD's website uses the latest technology. This makes our site faster and easier to use across all devices. Unfortunatley, your browser is out of date and is not supported. An update is not required, but it is strongly recommended to improve your browsing experience. To update Internet Explorer to Microsoft Edge visit their website.

212.2 Sex discrimination; marital status discrimination

A landlord did not violate the Dane County Ordinances which prohibit discrimination based on "marital status," when it refused to rent to groups of unrelated individuals seeking to live together. The landlord's motivation for denying rental to the individuals was triggered by their "conduct," not their "marital status." County of Dane v. Norman, 174 Wis. 2d 683, 497 N.W.2d 714 (1993).

The phrase "ideal for couple" used in an advertisement for rental housing does not state or indicate discrimination against single persons. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. LIRC (Jacobson), 173 Wis. 2d 199, 496 N.W.2d 159 (Ct. App. 1992).

The phrase "perfect for single person" used in an advertisement for rental housing does not state or indicate discrimination within the meaning of the Wisconsin Open Housing Act. The term "single person" can be understood to mean unmarried person or "one person." In the context in which it appears (i.e., an advertisement which suggests a small house by its use of the word "cottage"), it can be seen as an informational indication that the property is considered to be best suited for not more than one person. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. Weissgerber (LIRC, 12/06/91).

Where the Complainant was refused the right to rent an available apartment because of her intention to live in that apartment with another single female, this violated the prohibition on discrimination because of the sex or marital status of the person maintaining a household. Bentrup v. Apple Valley Dev. Corp (Waukesha Co. Cir. Ct., 06/10/85).

A desire to keep a floor in a group residence all one sex (male) because bathrooms are shared is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not allowing a female to rent a room on that floor. McKloskey v. YMCA (LIRC, 10/07/83).

It was not discrimination because of sex or marital status for an agent of a landlord to deny permission to a male renter to add a female friend to his lease. Eisenhauer v. Rinold (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 06/28/83).

An owner's refusal to rent to an unmarried woman because he did not believe women were capable of the required maintenance work was willful discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. Stroud v. Evans (LIRC, 06/25/82).