That just dosent seem fair as it is

Contagious. What about the other

That just dosent seem fair as it is

Contagious. What about the other

" That just dosent seem fair as it is Contagious. "

What you do not realize is that there are multiple sets of law that prevail, here.

One is Discrimination Lsw. YOU cannot treat this roommate any differently than any other roommate.

A second legal environment is Public Health Law. Society may have some responsibility here to keep the disease from infecting others.

You might want to contact public health authorities, but you may NOT take any action yourself.

Thank you

Wait -- are people with MRSA a Protected Class somehow? Under what category? Or is this a California-specific thing.

I'm not saying that I would evict them -- I am just curious about some of the responses saying that "YOU cannot treat this roommate any differently than any other roommate." If that is true, then they must be a Protected Class, correct? Otherwise, I could discriminate against someone that had mumps or chicken pox if I wanted to, right? In my state, at least. Unless I am missing some Protected Class status.

Please fill me in. Just curious. Thanks!

- John...

Oh, wait, if you mean after they are in and on the lease, then I agree. I meant more from a screening standpoint.

- John...

At the screening stage, an eviction is hardly appropriate.

But, even at the screening stage, discrimination on the basis of medical or disability is a federally protected class. Thus, YOU cannot treat this roommate any differently than any other roommate anywhere in the US, including CA or MI.

I'm not sure I agree with you on "discrimination on the basis of medical or disability is a federally protected class." Can you give evidence to back that up?

From what I can find, DISABILITY status is the federally protected class. And, from what I can find, this is covered by two laws:

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

BOTH of those are specific to "disabilities." I don't agree that that is the same as "discrimination on the basis of medical" as you have stated. Again, the law seems pretty clear to be intend to cover people with defined disabilities.

Therefore, if someone has a medical condition of a contagious disease such as chicken pox, then I'm not convinced that is a federally covered protected class.

Again, if there is some expansion to include all medical conditions -- which are NOT defined as disabilities -- then please point me to the federal law that you are talking about that covers this and makes something like chicken pox a protected class. I wasn't able to find it myself.

- John...

You are not likely to succeed and you may get hefty fines thrown at you for trying. Under HIPAA laws, Health records are confidential so you can only access someone else's records if you're authorized to do so. Having someone tell you they have MRSA does not mean you know for certain and you cannot get a doctor to state in court that they do because federal law prohibits.

I get that you are skeptical. I would be a little freaked out too ---BUT I don't think you can or should evict them. It would be the same as somebody who had any other communicable disease. Why would you even need to evict now? It is probably already in the unit.

Moreover, anybody could pick it up anywhere. At the grocery store, doctors office, bank- ANYWHERE. It is not a reflection of their cleanliness. It is hard battle and it is unfortunate that your tenant has to deal with it. If nothing else would cause you to evict, then I would just leave them alone. Do your research and take appropriate measures to clean and protect your workers when they leave.

MRSA stands for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. It causes a staph infection (pronounced "staff infection") that is resistant to several common antibiotics. There are two types of infection. Hospital-associated MRSA happens to people in healthcare settings. Community-associated MRSA happens to people who have close skin-to-skin contact with others, such as athletes involved in football and wrestling.

Infection control is key to stopping MRSA in hospitals. To prevent community-associated MRSA

Practice good hygiene

Keep cuts and scrapes clean and covered with a bandage until healed

Avoid contact with other people's wounds or bandages

Avoid sharing personal items, such as towels, washcloths, razors, or clothes

Wash soiled sheets, towels, and clothes in hot water with bleach and dry in a hot dryer

If a wound appears to be infected, see a health care provider. Treatments may include draining the infection and antibiotics.

I understand what you are saying John......California has an off the wall definition on what exactly a disability is.

If I am obese, I can be classified as disabled. Exactly what someone who needs to wok off the pounds needs - close parking spots. Also if I have a chronic condition of laziness and not want to wake up in the mornings.......I can be classified as disabled. It has been over a decade since I left the madness but when I left, Any mental or physical condition that significantly impacts ones ability to complete one of life's essential task - could qualify as disabled.

So someone with a condition of "DontGiveACrapitious" can be protected.

I loved the weather down in SoCal......but California is not for me - its the granola state.

Agreed -- but there is still a difference (even in California) from having something like chicken pox (or MRSA) and being CLASSIFIED as DISABLED.

Therefore, I still maintain that I know of no law (and, from my reading, he was implying that it was FEDERAL law) that would somehow make people with chicken pox or MRSA or any other medical condition (that has NOT, so far, been classified as a disability) somehow a Protected Class.

I might be wrong, of course. That is why I'm asking him for clarification. He seems to be lumping people with MRSA or some other medical condition as automatically being under the Protected Class for "disabled" people -- and I just can't find any law supporting that.

The two FEDERAL laws that cover disabilities I mentioned specifically above -- and neither of them, from what I've read, would automatically classify someone with something like MRSA as "disabled."

- John...

Federal housing law defines disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment."

There are hundreds (if not more) of cases where courts have ruled that a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, mental retardation and other medical conditions that substantially limit one or more major life activities.

The court-accepted definition of disability is NOT based on the semantic meaning of disability vs. medical condition, but on whether or not the circumstances of the patient

cause his life activities to be limited.

I agree with everything you've just said. I still disagree that something like MRSA would necessarily be classified a disability under either of the laws that would apply to Protected Classes:

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Therefore, I also still disagree with your statement that "YOU cannot treat this roommate any differently than any other roommate anywhere in the US, including CA or MI."

I think that is a stretch, at best, to suggest that a person with MRSA is automatically a Protected Class that you can't discriminate against.

- John...

To clarify my position... I agree that someone could claim that MRSA was a disability. I simply disagree that it is that automatically that you must automatically consider someone in a Protected Class that you cannot discriminate against simply because you know they have MRSA. I don't think just KNOWLEDGE of MRSA is enough to consider the person "disabled" as far as Protected Class protection goes.

- John...

Can the tenant go to work, take a shower readily, drive his car without having to stop because of itching or pain? Can he depend on his ability to go to work every day, go up stairs, work an 8-hour day, interface with his fellow workers?

If he is impaired by this illness, then federal law protects him, and it is NOT up to your own gut feeling as to whether he is disabled or not.

Again, I'm not convinced it is my responsibility to determine or ASSUME those things. Should I have to ask a tenant about how itchy he is before I determine if he is in a Protected Class? Heck, by law, am I ALLOWED to ask him how itchy he is??

Also, would you also say that someone with, say, Chicken Pox is a Protected Class suddenly? I mean, when someone has a bad case of Chicken Pox, they also might not be able to go to work or drive their car without having to stop because of itching or pain. They likely can't work an 8-hour day and interface with their co-workers. So is someone with Chicken Pox suddenly a Protected Class too??

I absolutely agree that it isn't up to my GUT FEELING to know if he is disabled or not. That is why I am saying that I shouldn't have to treat him like he is disabled and in a Protected Class just because I heard he has MRSA! That's my point exactly!

We're both saying the same thing -- that we don't KNOW if they are disabled or not. The difference is that you seem to be assuming that if we don't KNOW, then we have to assume that they ARE and treat them as a Protected Class. I see no evidence that that is the case!

- John...

We KNOW that he is VERY likely to prevail in court with a claim of discrimination because of disability.

YOU probably won't know how itchy he is, or how his illness affects his life activities until you are served with a summons & complaint. And, it is "disability" that is a protected class, not the disease that he may claim as his disability.

You may review my advice to Tracy, which was to avoid taking any action himself (herself) to avoid a complaint that he (she) has violated the tenant's civil rights, and leave it to public health authorities to determine if the tenant should be quarantined.

John, you are so obviously trying not to recognize the obvious, so that you won't have to give in to the obvious answer. Go fight city hall if you want to insist to a judge that illness does not provide disability. You will lose.

I don't know what your educational background is, but those of us who have studied in universities, acquired a basic principle of life: The commitment to reason. Your sophomoric reasoning is a joke.

We can agree to disagree. I don't think it is "obvious" that this is a disability without something further happening. I don't think it is "obvious" that a landlord has to ASSUME that a person has a disability when they have not stated such at all just because we hear that they have a contageous disease.

And, sorry, but I'm just being logical here and your arrogant attitude about this is just annoying. We've seen many, many posts from you here where most people here disagree with you. And you just basically say that you know the law and they don't. And when asked for details, you call them "sophomoric" or something similar.

I'm not the problem here. I don't think MOST Landlords here would assume that someone with a contagious disease is automatically classified as a Protected Class due to disability. I think that is a huge leap that most here would not take. So I would be careful about assuming that people here agree with you.

In any case, I'm done arguing with you about it. It isn't worth the time and you've simply resulted to name calling.

- John...

Prevail in court.....can you look at someone and know that they are disabled because of MRSA? Maybe you have time to do weekly interviews with tenants on how their health is fairing, but I don't.

Where Moshe might be correct in knowing the law.....she is out in left field about application of the law. Why would any LL give a reason for terminating a contract?

Can the LL be held responsible for causing harm to a tenant if they were found to have withheld info that could have prevented a mishap?

Ray-n-Pa,

You might want to look at the procedure by which discrimination cases are handled. In this case, the landlord can give the tenant notice to vacate. If the tenant says, "Please don't, I have MRSA", then he (the tenant) is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for his disability (he won't have any difficulty to establish that his illness disables him) and the landlord can be sued for discrimination if he fails to rescind his notice to vacate. To add insult to injury, the landlord will fail in an eviction suit, if the tenant fails to vacate.

Your comments about knowing that the tenant is ill are not relevant. Neither is the comment about the tenant withholding information. Also, your comment about getting medical histories from tenants. Landlord is not home free if he gets his notice to vacate served before tenant objects. This is a matter for which there is no issue of preparation. The landlord has to deal with the situation as it arises, and you are correct that the landlord's best move is to keep out of it. If the issue really is one of contagion, let other authorities deal with it.

I don't know what it means for anyone to have an obligation to "mitigate" a hazard.

Doesn't the "disability" have to be declared by a physician? I mean ANYONE can say anything these days. OTOH, doesnt sound like the tenant is claiming special treatment because they have MRSA.

The ll just wants to get rid of them. It isn't any of our business their health issues as long as they pay the rent. Sure, it would be nice to know, but also think of it from the tenants perspective. Perhaps they had tried to tell other lls the situation, but just as Tracy does and many other landlords would, (not necessarily excluding me)they do not want to rent to them because of the stigma.

So, would the inability to rent be hindering the tenant? ( And therefore a "disability" in itself?)Would govt consider siding with somebody who was discriminated against even without a doctor's signoff on the basis of a private health condition? Absolutely. I would not want to take that risk of being sued. Therefore, do just as RaynPa suggested and stay out of it. You already know they have it. It's probably in your place already.

It is curable. I had a tenant with MRSA too. She worked in a hospital and was probably exposed there. The hospital rep came over to tell them how to keep the rest of the family from getting it. (Avoid skin contact by wearing long clothing, etc) She cleaned very well, and overcame it. Trust me, your tenant doesn't want it as much as you don't want it either. We just took extra precautions when she moved out. You can get it from anywhere, but it is more likely to occur when you have an uncovered cut or scrape.

Also, are we talking about evicting them because of them not being completely transparent with personal health issues OR are we talking about giving them notice because the ll simply chose not to renew( but secretly just did not want MRSA in the place) Two completely different things, and states differ as to whether or not you have to give a reason.

I still go back to my original question (which I've asked multiple times, but Moshe has ignored): What if instead of MRSA the tenant replied to your notice to vacate with "Please don't, I have Chicken Pox."?

Would you still have to assume that they are disabled because they have a contagious disease that likely prevents them from working and otherwise leading a normal life right now?

I still think that we need something more than just a statement of "I have MRSA" from a tenant to ASSUME that they are now a Protected Class due to a disability.

Moshe may call that logic "sophomoric reasoning" all he wants, but I still maintain that MOST landlords would agree with me on that. It's a leap in logic to go from "I have MRSA" to "They must have a legal disability and are now in a Protected Class!"

- John...

If the tenant says, "Please don't, I have a cold", then he MAY have a case that he could plead in court (or a lawyer could plead for him) that he was discriminated against because of being disabled.

For the last time, I must point out that he is NOT disabled because he has a cold. His claim to disability discrimination would be based on the fact that the cold caused disability because it causes his life activities to be limited. His lawyer will know that.

My own opinion is that he would prevail in court. He would have sympathy on his side because of his "disability", he would have additional sympathy because of the record of so many landlords who have gone before, he would have even more sympathy because the heartless landlord is not only trying to put a poor sick man out on the street, but Holy Moses ((Mussa, in Arabic), at Christmastime to boot, he would have enough facts to satisfy the disability law, and a lawyer who knows what he is doing will recognize the chance to earn a fee.

Anyone but a sophomore will recognize the potential here, and realize that a win-win approach is available by leaving the medical hazard to public health authorities.

I note that John promised "In any case, I'm done arguing with you about it ". It seems that his word is as good as his logic.

Actually, if you read properly, you would see that I very clearly said that I was done arguing with YOU about it.

I responded mainly to the posts of Amy and Ray-N-Pa. I have no problem DISCUSSING the issue at hand. I simply said that I was done arguing with YOU about it.

My word is still good; sorry to disappoint. But nice of you to throw out yet another personal jab. Sheesh.

- John...