Question 62

A complainant in a discrimination case under the federal Fair Housing Act must prove that discrimination occurred and was not justified.

To obtain a favorable judgment in a discrimination case under the federal Fair Housing Act, a complainant must demonstrate that discrimination took place and that there was no valid justification for such discrimination.

A) that damages occurred.

While proving damages can be a part of a discrimination case, it is not the primary requirement for establishing a violation under the Fair Housing Act. The focus is on the occurrence of discrimination and its justification, rather than solely on the damages incurred.

B) only that discrimination occurred.

Simply proving that discrimination occurred is insufficient for a favorable judgment under the Fair Housing Act. The complainant must also demonstrate that the discrimination was not justified, which is a critical component of the legal standard.

C) that the accused party intended to discriminate.

The requirement to prove intent is not necessary under the Fair Housing Act. The law focuses on the discriminatory effect of actions rather than the intent behind them, making this option incorrect in the context of the legal standards applied.

D) that discrimination occurred and was not justified.

This option accurately reflects the legal requirement for a complainant under the Fair Housing Act, as it encompasses both the occurrence of discrimination and the necessity for it to be unjustified for a successful claim.

Conclusion

The correct answer is D because it encapsulates the essential legal requirement that a complainant must meet to succeed in a discrimination case under the Fair Housing Act. Options A, B, and C fail to address the complete criteria needed, as they either omit critical components or misinterpret the legal standards related to justification and intent.