By admin 
Greystar, a housing giant that owns or manages over 30 properties in the Sacramento area, systemically turned down prospective tenants who asked to pay with housing vouchers, according to a civil rights complaint.
Read more Red flag warning, Park Fire arson conviction. Top Sacramento stories July 24
The alleged findings — that at least 53 times this year, representatives at Greystar properties in California said they could not accept housing vouchers — show a pattern of pervasive discrimination, according to Aaron Carr, the founder and executive director of the nonprofit that filed the complaint with the California Civil Rights Department last week.
Housing Rights Initiative, a national watchdog group that seeks to combat real estate fraud and discrimination, investigated Greystar properties around the country. But the majority of violations took place in California, Carr told The Sacramento Bee.
The state “is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis and a homelessness crisis, and there is no tool that does more to reduce poverty, unaffordability and human suffering than a voucher,” he said.
“You’re talking about a $350 billion real estate Goliath screwing over countless people who have hardly anything. It’s quite a sad story.”
California law prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s source of income, meaning that landlords cannot refuse to rent to an applicant just because they would pay their rent with a housing voucher. That protection makes finding housing easier for voucher-holders, who are often low-income families with children, disabled people and veterans.
Greystar, Carr says, didn’t follow that law. To document violations, the Housing Rights Initiative trained a team to adopt fictional personas and contact Greystar properties that offered units most people with housing vouchers could afford.
This method, called testing, is common in fair housing investigations because it helps watchdog groups methodically identify discriminatory practices.
The cases are filed against a backdrop of sweeping rollbacks of federal fair housing policy.
In a statement, Greystar, which manages over 1.1 million housing units worldwide, said it “remains committed to fair housing practices.” The company “provides training and expects our team members to comply with all applicable laws,” according to the statement.
Federal, state laws prohibit housing discrimination
The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on seven protected characteristics, including race, sex and religion. California’s fair housing law adds additional protections against discrimination based on immigration status, sexual orientation and source of income, among others.
Twenty-one states and a host of cities have laws against source of income discrimination, according to the
But President Donald Trump’s administration is trying to impede those protections. In September 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development threatened to cut off funding to state and local agencies that enforce any statewide fair housing protections that aren’t included in federal law, including source of income discrimination.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined a coalition of state attorneys general in
But companies like Greystar could take the administration’s actions as license to violate fair housing laws, according to Carole Conn, the executive director of a fair housing nonprofit.
“They’re going to do what they’re going to do and see how much they can get away with. And if there’s no watchdog, well, it’s going to be on their terms and their terms alone,” said Conn. Her organization, Project Sentinel, serves Sacramento County and other counties in northern California.
Income discrimination is often cited as an issue
Around 20% of Project Sentinel’s cases involve source of income discrimination, according to Elizabeth Sanchez, the organization’s director of fair housing. That’s the second-largest category after disability discrimination, which makes up 54% of their casework. Since 2020, Sanchez said, the nonprofit has received about 140 complaints of discrimination.
Read more Life sentence for man who murdered mother at Sacramento senior living facility
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, which administers the fair housing voucher program for Sacramento city and county residents,
More than 80% of voucher holders who participated in a 2024 survey sponsored by the agency reported difficulty using their vouchers. Among those respondents, over half said they struggled to find housing because landlords do not accept rental assistance.
Based on that data and additional interviews, the agency concluded that using a voucher in the city or county was “extremely challenging.”
The reported discrimination included “property owners outright refusing to rent due to income source,” the agency said, alongside other illegal practices. Landlords found other ways to circumvent the law, such as pressuring residents into making side payments and stalling paperwork. They also violated laws that prevent landlords from discriminating against voucher-holders with low credit scores, the report said.
While the Housing Rights Initiative conducted fair-housing testing in and around Sacramento, it didn’t find definitive proof of discrimination at Greystar properties.
Allegations from California
But Project Sentinel and the Fair Housing Council of Greater Sacramento, both housing rights organizations that operate in the region, have received complaints of fair housing discrimination at properties managed or owned by the company.
Cherie Dimmerling, the executive director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Sacramento, said it took months of negotiating to secure a Greystar-managed apartment for a severely disabled client with a housing voucher. The property’s representative said the prospective tenant didn’t meet the property’s income requirement — ignoring a state law that requires housing providers to factor the applicant’s voucher into their total income.
If the representative had done that, Dimmerling said, her client would have qualified.
Greystar has previously faced accusations of discrimination in California. In January, the company settled a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department after it allegedly denied housing to a prospective tenant who was convicted of a misdemeanor. State law requires housing providers to justify such denials by identifying a connection between the crime and the applicant’s suitability as a tenant. Convictions for crimes that do not relate to housing, the law says, should not be factored into a landlord’s decision.
In November, Greystar reached a $7 million settlement with a coalition of state attorneys general, including Bonta, who accused the company of participating in a price-fixing scheme.
What happens next?
Now that the Housing Rights Initiative has filed with the California Civil Rights Department, the agency will investigate the claims further and try to help the parties reach a settlement agreement. If they aren’t successful, the department will decide whether to close the case or file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the Housing Rights Initiative.
By filing cases against the housing provider, Carr said, the Housing Rights Initiative hopes to expand housing opportunities for people with vouchers.
“We need Greystar to abandon their discriminatory practices and, quite frankly, follow the damn law,” he said.
The Housing Rights Initiative also wants the government to assign a monitor to routinely test the company’s properties for compliance with the law, Carr said. He said he also hopes Greystar will be required to report the number of applications its properties receive from voucher holders and how many are actually accepted.
“For every dollar a family doesn’t have to spend on rent, that’s another dollar that they can spend on life,” said Carr. “Rental assistance is more than just housing. It’s food, it’s healthcare, it’s education, the ability to live.”
Read more What will Warriors do now that LeBron James has signed with Philadelphia 76ers?
“Greystar is getting in the way of that,” he said. “And that’s reprehensible.”