Airbnb bans racist host @#AirbnbWhileBlack

[marylander1940]

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky has come out and said that racism and discrimination is not allowed on the platform. This comes after an Airbnb host in North Carolina canceled on a black person and sent her a slew of racist insults. Chesky also said Airbnb has permanently banned the host.

 

“The incident in NC was disturbing and unacceptable,” Chesky wrote in a tweet today. “Racism and discrimination have no place on Airbnb. We have permanently banned this host.”

 

The incident Chesky is talking about is truly sickening. Basically, the host explicitly states the reason they’re canceling on the black woman is because of her race. In explaining to her that he wouldn’t let her stay at his place, he used the N-word several times. In cases like these, I would usually quote what the person said, but I refuse to post that kind of racist garbage on this site.

 

 

Meanwhile, some black people have come out and described their experiences getting rejected on Airbnb and then getting accepted when they have their white friend put in the request. If you want to read those stories, check out @#AirbnbWhileBlack. And, as it turns out, discrimination by Airbnb hosts seems to be widespread, according to a paper by three Harvard researchers.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/01/airbnb-bans-racist-host/

[seaboy4hire]

The property owner has the right to deny whom ever they want from staying at their house imo. However, if it is in Airbnb's tos saying that discrimination based on protecred class is prohibited then Airbnb has the right to boot the person(s) who listed the home. Before listing one must agree to the tos.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Bearofdistinction]

The property owner has the right to deny whom ever they want from staying at their house imo. However, if it is in Airbnb's tos saying that discrimination based on protecred class is prohibited then Airbnb has the right to boot the person(s) who listed the home. Before listing one must agree to the tos.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Hey Greg as often is the case - technology outstrips the law. There is a case to be made that by offering their home for rent to the

subscribers of AirBNB that they are holding the property out as public accommodation. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in public acommadation, based on race, religion or ethnic origin is a violation of federal law.

 

However, the fact that AirBnB is a subscription service there is an argument to be made that AirBnB is a DeFacto private club

and as such may not be subject to the Fair Housing sections of the Civil Rights Act.

 

I would subscribe to the former rather than the latter.

[AndreFuture]

There is a case to be made that by offering their home for rent to the

subscribers of AirBNB that they are holding the property out as public accommodation. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in public acommadation, based on race, religion or ethnic origin is a violation of federal law.

 

Yep, a very strong case. That whole, "it's my private property, so I can do what I want" argument was what yesteryear white supremacists relied on for a good while until the Civil Rights Act. Just because they're in the 21st century using an app doesn't mean they should get to revive their (grand) parents' Jim Crow establishments.

[LivingnLA]

All of these "sharing economy" startups want to have their cake & eat it too. They regularly ignore laws, regulations, and taxes they don't want to comply with because they're "innovative" and supposedly different when they're fundamentally the same to the end customer. All they've done is mess around with the employer/employee dynamic to transfer the risk to the "independent contractor" and more of the profit margin to the startup owners.

 

I see where you're coming from, and I agree, AirBnB isn't a public club. They're clearly providing public accommodation. Further, AirBnB is ultimately partially liable since they facilitate this discrimination and don't adequately comply with anti-discrimination protections. Sadly, since they require pics and there's no way to truly know why a property owner rejects someone--so long as they're smart enough to avoid the truth in their rejection--I don't see how AirBnB can prevent such discrimination from continuing.

[mike carey]

Hey Greg as often is the case - technology outstrips the law. There is a case to be made that by offering their home for rent to the subscribers of AirBNB that they are holding the property out as public accommodation. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in public acommadation, based on race, religion or ethnic origin is a violation of federal law.

Without a specific court case we won't know whether the host is subject to the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Airbnb may be vicariously liable if one of its hosts discriminated. My guess is that Airbnb decided it couldn't afford the reputational damage of one of its hosts discriminating, so it made compliance a condition of using its services to advertise for clients. I agree with others that identifying that discrimination had occurred can be difficult.

[rvwnsd]

Hey Greg as often is the case - technology outstrips the law. There is a case to be made that by offering their home for rent to the

subscribers of AirBNB that they are holding the property out as public accommodation. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in public accommodation, based on race, religion or ethnic origin is a violation of federal law.

 

However, the fact that AirBnB is a subscription service there is an argument to be made that AirBnB is a DeFacto private club

and as such may not be subject to the Fair Housing sections of the Civil Rights Act.

 

I would subscribe to the former rather than the latter.

 

I'm with you on subscribing to the former (public accommodation) rather than the latter. It is similar to renting one's house or condo on a longer-term basis. As a landlord or an innkeeper, you can't discriminate based on race, gender, etc.

 

Regarding the comment "technology outstrips the law," I'll offer this: technology did not outstrip the law. End users are using the technology in a way it was not intended to be used. airbnb started out as a platform for people to rent out their spare bedrooms and to rent their homes out when they were away. Many people decided it was a great way to make a living by renting apartments and houses out as if they were hotels. That practice has angered neighborhood groups, homeowners' associations, and housing advocates.

[marylander1940]

All of these "sharing economy" startups want to have their cake & eat it too. They regularly ignore laws, regulations, and taxes they don't want to comply with because they're "innovative" and supposedly different when they're fundamentally the same to the end customer. All they've done is mess around with the employer/employee dynamic to transfer the risk to the "independent contractor" and more of the profit margin to the startup owners.

 

I see where you're coming from, and I agree, AirBnB isn't a public club. They're clearly providing public accommodation. Further, AirBnB is ultimately partially liable since they facilitate this discrimination and don't adequately comply with anti-discrimination protections. Sadly, since they require pics and there's no way to truly know why a property owner rejects someone--so long as they're smart enough to avoid truth in their rejection--I don't see how AirBnB can prevent such discrimination from continuing.

 

Exactly, how do you prove someone denied his property on X dates, for X amount of money, to 1 person because he's black? Maybe after having that property denied he could "catfish" the owner into renting it to a friend of him during those dates and for the same amount of money.

[Kenny]

However, the fact that AirBnB is a subscription service there is an argument to be made that AirBnB is a DeFacto private club

Not really, any more than booking through Priceline would. You are correct that public accommodation is the issue, and the " libertarian" position is just sad.

[Irtwo]

The Fair Housing Act usually doesn't apply when the owner has less than five apartments or where a single-family house is rented out by the owner.

[mike carey]

The Fair Housing Act usually doesn't apply when the owner has less than five apartments or where a single-family house is rented out by the owner.

Could that be because a low-scale landlord is considered as an individual and larger scale is considered a business? I don't condone individual discrimination, but I could understand that having the law applied to businesses targets systematic racism or other discrimination by realtors or, say, cake shops or florists. In the case of a property owner privately leasing one property, it would likely be a decision made on a variety of factors (including personal rapport that may transcend race, gender and sexuality) and unpacking the reasons to it being discrimination, would be difficult to prove.

 

I would hope that even if an owner has fewer than five appartments, that the exemption would not apply if they leased it through a realtor, as the realtor has the capacity to do an objective assessment of the suitability of a potential tenant.

[Kenny]

The Fair Housing Act usually doesn't apply when the owner has less than five apartments or where a single-family house is rented out by the owner.

True, but the FHA regulates renting, buying, or securing financing for housing, which probably would not apply to AirBnB.

 

"Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations-government-enforcement.html

[marylander1940]

More issues about the untruthful advertisement of some properties...

 

An associate at a Manhattan law firm thought he’d scored a great deal on an Airbnb for the summer that was listed as a “Comfortable Spacial Island Retreat” — albeit on Roosevelt Island.

 

But he was “horrified” to find that he’d agreed to pay $9,000 for a dilapidated apartment in a drug-ridden, low-income building, according to his new lawsuit against Airbnb and the host, a former Victoria’s Secret model named Lyndsey Scott.

 

Shearman & Sterling associate Christian Pugaczewski, 38, who splits his time between New York and California, booked the rental for June, July and August.

 

The listing described the one-bedroom apartment as “comfy yet modern” with “plenty of necessary amenities.”

 

Airbnb didn’t publish the address, but based on the description, Pugaczewski believed the unit was located in the luxury Riverwalk condominium.

 

When he received the 540 Main St. address just before his move-in date he learned that the apartment was actually at the nearby Eastwood complex, a rundown development recently converted from federally-subsidized housing.

 

“I stayed there one night and left immediately,” Pugaczewski said. “There was paint pealing, there was grime and dirt on the window sill and on the air conditioner, a hole in the floor was covered up by strategically-placed bar stools,” he said.

 

Pugaczewski is suing the lease holder, Lyndsey Scott and Airbnb, for tricking him into renting “a property materially different from the property portrayed.”

 

Scott, 31, who also modeled for Calvin Klein and Guicci, told “W” magazine in 2009 that she lives on Roosevelt Island instead of a hipper neighborhood like Williamsburg or lower Manhattan because “my apartment’s bigger for less money.”

 

http://nypost.com/2016/08/30/airbnb-renter-duped-into-paying-9k-for-dingy-apartment-suit/

[bimbosavant]

I must digress for my own sanity today.