A Section 8 tenant is filing dozens of $100,000 lawsuits. Is it a discrimination fight or a shakedown? - Los Angeles Times
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 Watsonâs inquiries â 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.
âI have to ask the owners and get back to you,â one agent wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.
âThe house might be too old to meet the requirements,â 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.
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 sheâs 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.
âThe law makes it illegal to make a discriminatory statement,â he said. âSheâs not asking for discrimination. But when she finds it, should she ignore it? Should she allow that activity to continue?â
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 â or his contingency fees â but according to multiple defendants and attorneys familiar with the payouts, they start around $5,000 and range north of $35,000.
Most of Watsonâs lawsuits name multiple defendants â 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 doesnât qualify as discrimination in Southern Californiaâs dog-eat-dog housing market, where sky-high housing costs push both tenants and landlords to extremes.
Watsonâs 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 canât turn away a tenant if theyâre 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 donât 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 yearâs 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 stateâs 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 â 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.
Other cases are more ambiguous over the homeâs Section 8 eligibility, including one filed after Watson tried to rent a commercial property listed as a âcreative office spaceâ in Mid-Wilshire for $4,700:
Watson: Iâm interested in your property. Are you open to section 8 voucher holders?
Defendant: Good afternoon â this property has not been inspected/approved for Section 8.
In Yolanda Bowmanâs 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 sheâd 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 âthe owner of the property has decided not to accept Sec 8 and has leased the property to a private entity.â
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.
âItâs the furthest thing from discrimination,â Bowman said, adding that the homeowner she was working with currently has a Section 8 tenant in another property she owns. âIt was my mistake for even mentioning [Section 8], but the milkâs out of the carton now. If I hadnât responded at all, we wouldnât be having this conversation.â
Jeremy Alberts, an attorney familiar with Section 8 discrimination cases, said that if you donât respond to Watsonâs messages, thereâs 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, âI donât think [Watson] is genuinely looking for a place to live. I think sheâs phishing for people to reject her application for any number of reasons so she can sue them.â
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, Watsonâs attorney, declined to provide any information on Watsonâs current living situation but said sheâs relying on temporary arrangements and earnestly trying to find a house for her and her family.
âWeâre in the middle of a housing epidemic, and this law was passed by the Legislature to say that this needs to be addressed,â he said. âMs. Watson is an example of all the various challenges that come with trying to live in L.A.â
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 Californiaâs discrimination problem.
âBeing a voucher holder is a soul-crushing exercise in rejection, humiliation and human suffering,â he said. âIf you donât want people coming after you for breaking the law, stop breaking the law.â
Carr said discrimination is particularly rampant in L.A. due to two factors: lack of housing and lack of enforcement. And if California wonât commit funding to enforcing its laws, tenants will take things into their own hands.
âItâs not the most elegant thing, but ideally, itâll make companies aware of these rules so next time a voucher holder applies, theyâll be willing to rent to them,â he said. âAnd it will be life-changing for the tenant.â
Watson isnât 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 tenantâs search, which was resolved only after Uzeta intervened pro bono.
âIâd like to believe everyone who discriminates does so without understanding, but thatâs not the reality weâre in,â Uzeta said. âThereâs so much stigma around Section 8, but weâre not talking about people on drugs or people who canât work. Weâre talking about students, families and working people that need extra support.â
Multiple defendants questioned whether Watson still qualifies for Section 8 eligibility after receiving so many payouts from settlements. But Robinson said settlement recoveries arenât treated as ongoing income and donât alter the underlying housing circumstances. He said Watsonâs funds are being managed conservatively for long-term stability.
In the meantime, the lawsuits are stacking up. One defendant contacted by The Times didnât even know heâd been sued because it had been filed so recently. One lawyer told The Times he was chatting with several attorneys at a courthouse for an unrelated matter when the subject of Watsonâs lawsuits came up. Each one happened to be representing one of the defendants in her cases.
discoholicmusic
areudirty
gummygunk
annaxmalina
romaincrisis
janainaart
izzy806
