Delaware committee hears split over bill to codify disparate-impact standard in state Fair Housing Act

Senator Tizi Lachman, chair of the Senate Land Use Committee, opened extended testimony on House Bill 451, which would codify a disparate-impact framework into Delaware’s Fair Housing Act in response to recent federal changes.

The bill would adopt a burden‑shifting approach — requiring a complainant to show a discriminatory effect on a protected class, allowing a respondent to show a legitimate nondiscriminatory interest, and permitting a complainant to prevail by identifying a less discriminatory alternative. Chair Lachman emphasized the measure would not require quotas, numerical set‑asides, or invalidate lawful occupancy standards.

Alex Medias, Director of Policy and Planning at the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA), told the committee the bill “is being considered against the backdrop of significant changes at the federal level regarding fair housing enforcement,” and said codification would preserve protections if federal enforcement priorities change.

Supporters argued the bill fills a gap created by federal policy changes. Sonia Starr, policy director of Housing Alliance Delaware, testified, “Codifying disparate impact at the state level will ensure that Delawareans are protected from discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional,” and urged the committee to pass HB451.

Opponents — principally landlord and apartment‑industry representatives — said the draft, as written, could impose liability based on demographic outcomes landlords cannot measure. Deborah Burgos of the Delaware Apartment Association said the bill “risks creating liability not for discriminatory conduct but for demographic outcomes that landlords have no practical accountability to measure in advance,” arguing that landlords do not collect data on many protected characteristics and so could not predict statistical effects.

Several landlord groups asked for a right‑to‑cure or other safeguards. Jeff Sheraton, president of Greater Wilmington Housing Providers, said his organization generally supports the idea of protecting access to housing but asked the committee to “give us the right to cure it first before we have to incur attorney’s fees” in cases where an otherwise neutral policy has an unforeseen disparate outcome.

Speakers representing housing‑access and civil‑rights groups urged the committee not to delay. Becca Cotto of YWCA Delaware said the bill would help address modern sources of bias such as algorithms and automated screening and stressed that the bill does not impose quotas.

Committee members also pressed for clarity about the bill’s drafting and potential consequences for housing supply. Several members and commenters said the bill entered the legislative process quickly (two weeks on file) and asked for more stakeholder consultation. Jerome Heisler, a stakeholder who said he learned of the bill that day, described the measure as a “cobbling of case law into some statutory stuff” and asked that the committee table the matter for more thorough drafting.

On implementation, the committee discussed an amendment that would add an explicit outreach and training period for agencies charged with reviewing disparate‑impact claims. DSHA’s Medias described proposed language requiring DSHA (and related agencies) to conduct outreach, education and training during an implementation period. Chair Lachman noted the amendment would effectively extend the bill’s implementation window from 90 days to 180 days to allow for guidance and stakeholder education.

Joseph Dawson, chair of the Delaware Human and Civil Rights Commission, submitted a letter to the committee and requested a technical correction in the bill to distinguish the Division of Human and Civil Rights from the Commission; he also flagged potential personnel and cost implications for enforcement.

No final committee vote on HB451 was taken at the hearing. Committee members said they would continue discussions and circulate revised language to bill backers. The committee did not record a roll‑call vote on the bill during this meeting.