Fair Housing
In Arizona, which of the following is NOT a valid defense to a fair housing complaint?
AThe respondent had no discriminatory intent
BThe policy serves a legitimate business necessity
CThe complainant was actually unqualified on objective criteria
DThe respondent was following the client's discriminatory instructions✓ Correct
Explanation
Following discriminatory instructions from a client is NOT a valid defense. An agent who carries out discriminatory instructions is personally liable. 'I was just following orders' is not a defense to a fair housing violation.
Related Arizona Fair Housing Questions
- An Arizona apartment complex with a 'no criminal history' policy may violate fair housing if:
- Steering in real estate refers to:
- The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on which protected classes?
- The federal agency primarily responsible for enforcing the Fair Housing Act is:
- An Arizona property owner refuses to rent to a family with children under 18, claiming 'adults only.' This is:
- Under the federal Fair Housing Act, an exemption may apply when:
- A real estate agent is asked by a seller to 'only show to working couples.' The agent should:
- Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), newly constructed commercial facilities must:
Practice More Arizona Real Estate Questions
1,500+ questions covering all exam topics. Start free — no signup required.
Take the Free Arizona Quiz →