Horror! Mayhem! Terrible! Alas!

"Scam" you mean people are fighting back against housing discrimination??? I don't think these people know what the word scam means

Scams are designed to trick someone into giving up money based on lies. This is just.. asking for information then legally enforcing the law??

A Section 8 tenant is filing dozens of $100,000 lawsuits. Is it a discrimination fight or a shakedown? - Los Angeles Times

Jack Flemming

10–13 minutes

A gaggle of scorned landlords and real estate agents across L.A. have a message: If Alexys Watson messages you on Zillow asking if you accept Section 8 vouchers, choose your next words very, very carefully.

Over the last eight months, dozens of landlords and real estate agents have responded to Watson’s inquiries — and dozens have been sued for at least $100,000. The lawsuits allege discrimination for refusing a Section 8 applicant, regardless of whether they actually declined her application.

“I have to ask the owners and get back to you,” one agent wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

“The house might be too old to meet the requirements,” another wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

A review of hundreds of lawsuit exhibits show: One landlord accepted her application, but never got the house inspected by the city to qualify it for Section 8 tenancy. At least nine others never even put a decline into writing; the only exhibits in the lawsuits filed against them are screenshots of call logs (sans audio) and texts from Watson to each one claiming that they declined her over the phone.

Each time, a lawsuit.

More than 40 of them filed since summer.

Watson declined to speak for this article. Her lawyer, Alexander Robinson, claims the lawsuits are a result of rampant discrimination against a single mother genuinely looking to find housing for her and her children, but being turned away because she’s a Section 8 recipient.

Defendants claim they are being shaken down. Instead of risking a trial and the costs it would bring (a small fortune in legal fees and at least $100,000 in damages if they lose), many are choosing to settle, paying tens of thousands of dollars to avoid a legal battle.

Robinson disagrees. He said the law is being broken, and the lawsuits are a response.

“The law makes it illegal to make a discriminatory statement,” he said. “She’s not asking for discrimination. But when she finds it, should she ignore it? Should she allow that activity to continue?”

He said Watson reached out to him after a no-fault eviction, which threw her into housing instability and kicked off her current housing search. He declined to provide any information on settlement amounts — or his contingency fees — but according to multiple defendants and attorneys familiar with the payouts, they start around $5,000 and range north of $35,000.

Most of Watson’s lawsuits name multiple defendants — not only the agents or landlords with whom Watson interacted, but also the homeowners themselves and the owners of the real estate brokerages. One defendant, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of further lawsuits, said Robinson demanded individual settlements from so many people in one case that the total settlement demand neared $100,000. The defendant is still deciding whether to pay or fight.

Robinson said in these situations, state law extends liability to brokerages and homeowners, not just the front-line agent interacting with the tenant. He disputed the claim that naming multiple defendants is an arbitrary tactic to inflate settlement demands and said framing it as a punitive cash grab undermines the discrimination protections that California has created.

The string of suits is stirring up a larger conversation on what does and doesn’t qualify as discrimination in Southern California’s dog-eat-dog housing market, where sky-high housing costs push both tenants and landlords to extremes.

Watson’s lawsuits all center on the Fair Employment and Housing Act, a state law that prohibits landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on things like race, gender, ancestry, citizenship, etc. In 2020, California added source of income to the list, meaning landlords can’t turn away a tenant if they’re planning to pay rent using a Section 8 voucher.

These cases are testing the limits of the law: Does typing a Zillow message saying you don’t accept Section 8 make you liable? Does failing to order a government inspection of your property once a Section 8 tenant applies violate the law? Is misunderstanding Section 8 rules grounds for a lawsuit?

Defendants are questioning whether the punishment fits the claim. In the wake of last year’s devastating fires, landlords who price-gouged their listings to take advantage of fire victims mostly received mere warning letters; in this case, landlords and real estate agents are paying $30,000 settlements or more for sending a message on Zillow.

The Section 8 program is one of the country and state’s most powerful tools for fighting homelessness. Launched in 1974, it subsidizes rent for more than 2.3 million people nationwide, including more than 600,000 in California and 78,000 in L.A. Voucher holders typically pay around 30% of their adjusted income, and government agencies cover the rest of the rent.

Vouchers are extremely valuable, and the waiting list to get them is years-long. You can typically keep them for as long as you meet eligibility guidelines — Watson has had hers for 17 years, according to her lawsuits. They can also move with the tenant; when a lease ends, recipients generally have 180 days to secure a new place or else their voucher goes back into the lottery, though extensions are often granted.

The suits all follow the same format: Watson applies to a rental listing on Zillow, and for a variety of reasons, her application is rejected. The vast majority are based on brief exchanges on the Zillow app or over text.

Several lawsuits reviewed by The Times included specific language refusing her Section 8 voucher, including one filed after Watson attempted to rent a four-bedroom house in West Hills listed at $5,200:

Watson: Just wanted to confirm the owner is open to section 8 applicants?

Defendant: Sorry no not at this time.

Watson: thank you

Other cases are more ambiguous over the home’s Section 8 eligibility, including one filed after Watson tried to rent a commercial property listed as a “creative office space” in Mid-Wilshire for $4,700:

Watson: I’m interested in your property. Are you open to section 8 voucher holders?

Defendant: Good afternoon — this property has not been inspected/approved for Section 8.

In Yolanda Bowman’s case, she got an inquiry from Watson about a four-bedroom home in Carson. Bowman invited her to an open house in November, and she toured the property.

According to Bowman, a real estate agent, she talked with Watson over the phone on Nov. 19 and told her about a credit screening fee she’d have to pay to advance her application. She sent her a follow-up letter two days later with instructions on how to submit the payment.

Bowman said Watson never paid the fee.

In exhibits filed in her lawsuit, Watson accused Bowman of ignoring her application, with Bowman responding that “the owner of the property has decided not to accept Sec 8 and has leased the property to a private entity.”

Bowman said the stalled application was entirely due to the unpaid screening fee, not any Section 8 discrimination. But her choice of words led to a lawsuit.

“It’s the furthest thing from discrimination,” Bowman said, adding that the homeowner she was working with currently has a Section 8 tenant in another property she owns. “It was my mistake for even mentioning [Section 8], but the milk’s out of the carton now. If I hadn’t responded at all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Jeremy Alberts, an attorney familiar with Section 8 discrimination cases, said that if you don’t respond to Watson’s messages, there’s no good-faith basis for a lawsuit. But multiple defendants interviewed by The Times insisted that not responding at all feels more discriminatory than responding in good faith.

One defendant, who requested anonymity due to a confidentiality clause tied to a settlement agreement they signed, said, “I don’t think [Watson] is genuinely looking for a place to live. I think she’s phishing for people to reject her application for any number of reasons so she can sue them.”

A 2025 report from the California Civil Rights Department conducted a source-of-income discrimination test and found that 54% of households across L.A. County and Ventura County demonstrated Section 8 discrimination.

Robinson, Watson’s attorney, declined to provide any information on Watson’s current living situation but said she’s relying on temporary arrangements and earnestly trying to find a house for her and her family.

“We’re in the middle of a housing epidemic, and this law was passed by the Legislature to say that this needs to be addressed,” he said. “Ms. Watson is an example of all the various challenges that come with trying to live in L.A.”

Aaron Carr, executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit watchdog group, said people like Watson are providing a valuable service to society by exposing California’s discrimination problem.

“Being a voucher holder is a soul-crushing exercise in rejection, humiliation and human suffering,” he said. “If you don’t want people coming after you for breaking the law, stop breaking the law.”

Carr said discrimination is particularly rampant in L.A. due to two factors: lack of housing and lack of enforcement. And if California won’t commit funding to enforcing its laws, tenants will take things into their own hands.

“It’s not the most elegant thing, but ideally, it’ll make companies aware of these rules so next time a voucher holder applies, they’ll be willing to rent to them,” he said. “And it will be life-changing for the tenant.”

Watson isn’t the first person to test these cases. Another voucher holder, Mia Camillah, filed a similar string of lawsuits in 2024 and 2025. Michelle Uzeta, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a Section 8 tenant in 2022. The Times chronicled the tenant’s search, which was resolved only after Uzeta intervened pro bono.

“I’d like to believe everyone who discriminates does so without understanding, but that’s not the reality we’re in,” Uzeta said. “There’s so much stigma around Section 8, but we’re not talking about people on drugs or people who can’t work. We’re talking about students, families and working people that need extra support.”

Multiple defendants questioned whether Watson still qualifies for Section 8 eligibility after receiving so many payouts from settlements. But Robinson said settlement recoveries aren’t treated as ongoing income and don’t alter the underlying housing circumstances. He said Watson’s funds are being managed conservatively for long-term stability.