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.

214 Advertisements for housing

A newspaper violated the Wisconsin Open Housing Act when it ran an advertisement for housing which read: "Apartment for rent. 1-bedroom, electric included, mature christian handyman . . ." It is immaterial that the word "christian" was not capitalized. The ordinary reader would naturally interpret the ad to state or indicate a discriminatory preference on the basis of religion. The ad also states or indicates sex discrimination. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. Hartford Times Press (LIRC, 08/31/93).

The test to determine whether an advertisement in connection with housing indicates a preference, limitation or discrimination is whether the advertisement would suggest to an ordinary reader that a particular class is preferred or dispreferred for the housing in question. This test equates the "ordinary reader" with the law's traditional "reasonable person" who is neither the most suspicious nor the most insensitive of our citizenry. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. LIRC (Jacobson), 173 Wis. 2d 199, 496 N.W.2d 159 (Ct. App. 1992).

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).

An advertisement for housing violates the law if it would suggest to an ordinary reader that a particular class or category of persons will be preferred or dispreferred for the housing in question. In this case, the use of the phrase "retired or working couple" in an advertisement for rental housing does not indicate discrimination based on marital status. However, the advertisement does state or indicate discrimination based on lawful source of income. The description "retired or working," is not ameliorated by a qualifying phrase such as "ideal for" or "perfect for," which would have indicated that it was a mere suggestion by the landlord as to who might particularly enjoy the property. Instead, it is bluntly stated and unequivocally suggested that there is at very least a preference for retired or working persons, if not in fact an outright limitation. MMFHC v. South Side Spirit (LIRC, 08/26/92).

The prohibition on the publication of advertisements which express discriminatory distinctions is intended to prevent a harm that such publication can foreseeably cause, and it is not necessary that the harm have actually occurred before there can be a violation of the prohibition. There is no requirement that the person publishing the advertisement be found to have intended to deter persons from seeking housing. The question of liability turns simply on the substance of the advertisement and the effect it could reasonably be expected to have. MMFHC v. South Side Spirit (LIRC, 08/26/92).

The phrase "perfect for single person" used in an advertisement for rental housing does not state or indicate discrimination within the meaning of sec. 101.22(2)(d), Stats. 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), aff'd. sub nom. MMFHC v. LIRC (Weissgerber) (Waukesha Co. Cir. Ct., 08/24/92). [Ed. note: sec. 101.22(2)(d), Stats. has been renumbered sec. 106.50(2)(d), Stats.]

An advertisement indicating "prefer a Christian" indicates discrimination on the basis of religion in housing. Whether the Respondent intended the advertisement to have the effect of discouraging non-Christians from applying to rent the property is immaterial. His actions in choosing the words used and in having the advertisement published were certainly intentional. Sec. 101.22(2)(d), Stats., neither expresses nor implies the necessity for any further intent as a requirement for a finding of illegality. It simply turns on the substance of the advertisement and its effect. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. Goetsch (LIRC, 12/06/91). (Ed. Note: sec. 101.22(2)(d), Wis. Stats. has been renumbered sec. 106.50(2)(d), Wis. Stats.).