Program Overview

Fair housing exposure no longer sits in one department or one policy. It can begin with an algorithm that ranks applicants, an advertising platform that limits who sees a listing, a criminal-history rule applied without jurisdiction-specific review, an income qualification formula that disadvantages voucher households, or an inadequate response to harassment and retaliation concerns. This four-session boot camp brings those risks together in one comprehensive training program for multihousing professionals.

Why This Boot Camp Matters

The federal enforcement landscape is changing, yet state and local rules continue to expand and technology is introducing new forms of risk. A policy that appears acceptable at one property may be unlawful at another. A vendor’s automated tool may quietly undermine an otherwise sound compliance program. And weak complaint-handling or post-complaint documentation can turn an operational decision into a retaliation claim. This boot camp helps teams connect the full resident lifecycle—from marketing and applicant screening through tenancy, complaints, and adverse actions—so compliance gaps are easier to recognize and correct.

Included Sessions

Boot Camp Learning Objectives

After completing the boot camp, participants will be able to:

• Audit AI-assisted screening, advertising, and leasing tools for fair housing risk.
• Reassess criminal-history policies after HUD’s rescission while accounting for remaining federal, state, and local exposure.
• Apply source-of-income and voucher rules property by property across a multi-jurisdiction portfolio.
• Respond appropriately to staff-on-resident and resident-on-resident harassment concerns.
• Evaluate retaliation risk before eviction, nonrenewal, or stricter enforcement follows a complaint.
• Create stronger documentation, escalation, vendor oversight, and internal audit practices.

Detailed Session Agenda

Session 1  AI Tenant Screening, Digital Advertising, and Leasing Automation: A Fair Housing Audit Framework

Original live date: September 30, 2026  |  Duration: 60 minutes

AI-powered screening, algorithmic advertising, chatbots, auto-response systems, and self-showing platforms can improve speed and consistency—but they can also move fair housing risk into code, data, workflows, and vendor contracts. An apparently neutral tool may produce a discriminatory outcome, mishandle an accommodation request, or narrow who sees a housing advertisement. The housing provider may still be responsible even when a third-party vendor supplied the technology.

Topics Covered

• How AI-driven screening can create disparate-impact exposure even without discriminatory intent
• How to evaluate screening criteria against applicable HUD and FTC guidance
• Fair housing risks in lookalike audiences, exclusion filters, geographic targeting, and platform delivery
• Compliance gaps in chatbots, automated responses, and self-showing technology
• How to document legitimate business necessity for screening and marketing decisions
• Vendor contract protections, compliance warranties, and audit rights
• A practical internal audit schedule for AI-assisted leasing technology

Session Learning Objectives

By the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to:

• Identify how AI-driven screening tools may produce disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act.
• Evaluate screening algorithms and criteria for areas requiring review or adjustment.
• Recognize how digital advertising tools may affect protected groups.
• Assess leasing automation for failures involving accommodations and resident communications.
• Apply a documentation framework to screening and advertising decisions.
• Develop a vendor accountability checklist for third-party technology providers.
• Build a repeatable internal audit process for leasing technology.

Session 2  HUD Rescinded Its Criminal-Screening Guidance—Now What? Arrests, Blanket Bans, Lookback Periods, and Fair Chance Laws

Original live date: October 21, 2026  |  Duration: 60 minutes

HUD’s November 25, 2025 action rescinded three influential criminal-history screening documents, including guidance addressing arrest records and blanket exclusions. The change has been widely interpreted as permission to relax screening safeguards. That conclusion is incomplete. State and local fair chance laws remain in force, disparate-impact exposure has not disappeared, and rules may differ sharply between HUD-assisted and conventional housing.

Topics Covered

• Which HUD criminal-screening documents were rescinded and the practical effect of the rescission
• Differences between HUD-assisted housing obligations and conventional property practices
• Why rescission does not eliminate Fair Housing Act, state, or local exposure
• Arrest records, conviction records, blanket bans, and lookback periods
• Fair chance requirements in jurisdictions such as New York City and Seattle
• An updated decision framework for criminal-history screening
• How to create a documented, defensible rationale for revised screening criteria

Session Learning Objectives

By the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to:

• Identify the rescinded HUD documents and explain what the rescission does and does not change.
• Distinguish federal HUD-assisted screening obligations from conventional housing practices.
• Recognize continuing disparate-impact and jurisdiction-specific exposure.
• Evaluate blanket bans and lookback periods against current risk.
• Map relevant state and local fair chance restrictions.
• Apply an updated framework to arrest and conviction records.
• Document the business and compliance rationale behind revised criteria.

Session 3  Housing Choice Vouchers and Source-of-Income Laws: Navigating the Latest Federal, State, and Local Compliance Patchwork

Original live date: November 24, 2026  |  Duration: 60 minutes

Source-of-income requirements vary dramatically by jurisdiction. More than 23 states, Washington, DC, and numerous cities and counties have adopted protections, while other locations rely on local ordinances or have no comparable rule. Federal guidance has shifted, but state and local obligations remain independently enforceable. Portfolio operators therefore need property-specific controls rather than a single nationwide assumption.

Topics Covered

• The current federal, state, and local source-of-income compliance landscape
• What shifting HUD guidance changes—and what it leaves untouched
• Why ‘No Section 8’ and similar advertising language can create immediate exposure
• How to apply income multipliers to a voucher household’s tenant-paid portion where required
• How screening, advertising, fair chance, and source-of-income rules can overlap
• What developing litigation may mean for enforcement
• A property-by-property checklist for multi-jurisdiction portfolios

Session Learning Objectives

By the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to:

• Identify the different types of source-of-income protection across jurisdictions.
• Explain the practical limits of changes in federal guidance.
• Recognize unlawful or high-risk voucher-related advertising language.
• Evaluate income-qualification practices for voucher households.
• Track developing litigation without abandoning current compliance duties.
• Distinguish company-wide policy from property-specific legal requirements.
• Build a portfolio-wide source-of-income compliance checklist.

Session 4  Sexual Harassment, Resident-on-Resident Harassment, and Retaliation: When Property Managers Become Liable

Original live date: December 9, 2026  |  Duration: 60 minutes

Sexual harassment and retaliation remain costly, highly visible fair housing risks. Liability can extend beyond a staff member’s own conduct: an owner or manager may face exposure for resident-on-resident harassment when the organization knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to respond appropriately. Risk rises further when a complainant later faces eviction, nonrenewal, or stricter lease enforcement without a well-supported, non-retaliatory explanation.

Topics Covered

• Quid pro quo and hostile-environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act
• When owners and managers may be liable for staff, contractor, or resident conduct
• The meaning of ‘knew or should have known’ and the duty to respond
• The four-part retaliation analysis, including the critical causation element
• Complaint intake, escalation, investigation, and response protocols
• Defensible documentation for nonrenewal, eviction, and lease enforcement
• The interaction between Fair Housing Act and VAWA retaliation protections in federally assisted housing

Session Learning Objectives

By the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to:

• Identify the legal standards for quid pro quo and hostile-environment claims.
• Recognize when liability may attach for staff, contractor, or resident conduct.
• Evaluate response obligations after receiving a harassment complaint.
• Apply the four-part retaliation analysis and assess causation.
• Develop a complaint intake and escalation protocol.
• Build contemporaneous documentation for adverse housing actions.
• Recognize additional retaliation protections applicable in federally assisted housing.

Key Benefits of Attending

• Translate fast-changing fair housing developments into practical policies and frontline procedures.
• Spot gaps in screening, advertising, leasing, complaint handling, and documentation before they become claims.
• Separate federal developments from independently enforceable state and local requirements.
• Strengthen vendor oversight and internal accountability instead of assuming a third party carries the risk.
• Leave with repeatable review frameworks and checklists that can be adapted across a property portfolio.
• Train compliance, operations, leasing, marketing, HR, and technology teams around one consistent risk framework.

Important Note

This program is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and agency positions may vary by jurisdiction and may change. Participants should consult qualified counsel regarding specific policies, properties, and circumstances.