Question 20

A complainant in a discrimination case under the federal Fair Housing Act must prove only that discrimination occurred.

To achieve a favorable judgment in a discrimination case under the federal Fair Housing Act, it is sufficient for the complainant to demonstrate that discrimination took place, without the need to prove intent or provocation.

A) that damages occurred.

This option is incorrect as it suggests that the complainant must show that damages occurred to succeed in their claim. Under the Fair Housing Act, the focus is on proving discriminatory actions rather than the financial consequences of those actions.

B) only that discrimination occurred.

This option is correct because the Fair Housing Act only requires the complainant to establish that discrimination happened. The law is designed to protect individuals from unfair treatment, regardless of any intent or provocation.

C) that the accused party intended to discriminate.

This option is incorrect because the Fair Housing Act does not require proof of intent to discriminate. The act is concerned with the occurrence of discriminatory practices themselves, rather than the motivations behind them.

D) that discrimination occurred and was not provoked.

This option is also incorrect as it imposes an additional requirement that the discrimination must not have been provoked. The Fair Housing Act does not consider provocation; it only necessitates evidence of discriminatory behavior.

Conclusion

In summary, the correct answer is that a complainant must prove only that discrimination occurred, aligning with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. All other options fail because they introduce unnecessary criteria, such as damages, intent, or provocation, which are not required for establishing a case under this legislation.