Enforcement Guidance-National Origin Discrimination based on Limited Proficiency

MEMORANDUM FOR: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Headquarters Staff, Office of Enforcement Staff,
Regional Directors
FROM: John Gibbs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
DATE: September 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Enforcement Guidance – National Origin Discrimination based on
Limited English Proficiency under the Fair Housing Act and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon receipt
EXPIRATION DATE: This Notice will remain in effect until amended, superseded, or
rescinded
This memorandum provides guidance to Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
(FHEO) staff in processing current and future complaints of national origin discrimination based
on language proficiency under the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII) or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. In the past, FHEO premised investigations, conciliations, and voluntary compliance
agreements on the mistaken notion that the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
categorically require Respondents to provide language assistance in order to avoid discriminating
based on national origin.
This memorandum rescinds and supersedes all prior conflicting FHEO guidance involving
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and national origin discrimination under the Fair Housing Act
and Title VI.
I. LEP Enforcement Guideline
HUD is committed to vigorously enforcing the civil rights protections of the Fair Housing
Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, including with respect to discrimination based on national
origin. To achieve this mission, HUD must prioritize cases of intentional discrimination.
Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s
‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” requires all agencies to review
their enforcement activities and practices to ensure they are necessary actions to “discharge their
legal obligations, protect public safety, and advance the national interest.”
Under Executive Order No. 14224, the official language of the United States of America is
English. As the Department of Justice explained in its memorandum for implementing the

2
executive order1, the order represents “a forward-looking strategy to enhance social and economic
integration, offering all residents the opportunity to learn and embrace English as a means of
achieving the American dream.”
Relevant to the LEP-related complaints frequently processed by FHEO, Section 804 of the Fair
Housing Act prohibits:2
(1) The following acts:
(a) making unavailable or denying the rental or sale of a dwelling;
(b) discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a housing transaction;
(c) advertising or publishing preferences or limitations for the sale or rental of a
dwelling,
(d) inaccurately representing the availability of a dwelling for inspection, sale, or
rental
AND
(2) Taking one of the preceding actions “based on” or “because of” national origin.
Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color,
or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. §
2000d.
FHEO is now prioritizing cases where the Respondent acted for discriminatory reasons,
i.e. “because of” national origin. Language is not a protected trait and, by itself, does not identify
members of a suspect class.3 Thus, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, language proficiency is
not interchangeable with national origin or race.1
The same is true under the Fair Housing Act. Unlike race, color, and national origin,
English proficiency is not “an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of
birth.”4
1 See DOJ Memorandum for All Federal Agencies, 6 AG Bondi Memo: Implementation of
Executive Order No. 14224 Designating English as the Official Language of the United States of
America.
See also, Rescission and Notice of Intent to Issue the Rescission of Title VI Guidance in the Federal
Register
2 42 U.S.C. 3604(a)-(d).
3 Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir. 1975); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d
738, 739 (9th Cir. 1973).
4 See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. at 686 (1973).

3
Notably, Section 804(f) of the Fair Housing Act requires reasonable modifications and
reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals, but neither Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act
nor Title VI of the Civil Rights Act categorically require reasonable
modifications/accommodations (e.g., translation services) for individuals with limited English
proficiency.
Any attempt to determine liability and enter a conciliation agreement or issue a finding of
probable cause for national origin discrimination based on limited English proficiency under the
Fair Housing Act or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, must present evidence that the Respondent
used language as a proxy or vehicle to discriminate based on national origin.
II. Future Enforcement Prioritization
Going forward, FHEO will prioritize enforcement actions where language has been used
as a proxy for national origin or a vehicle for intentional discrimination.
Conciliations or voluntary compliance agreements with foreign language remedies should
not be entered or submitted to FHEO leadership for approval unless the evidence shows that (1)
language was used as a pretext for intentional national origin discrimination or (2) meaningful
access to the program is denied by the provider’s policy or practice. Such cases should be brought
to the attention of leadership for a case-by-case determination of the merits.
The Fair Housing Act provides that the complainant may file a civil action in an
appropriate federal district court or state court within two years after the occurrence or
termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. Nothing in this memo affects the
rights of the parties to seek redress through a private right of action.
III. Examples
Please find in the appendices below two example enforcements which illustrate the
approach outlined above.
Attachment(s):
Exhibit A: Enforcement Example #1
Exhibit B: Enforcement Example #2

4
Exhibit A
LEP Enforcement Example
Case #1
The information included in this case example was extracted from HUD Enforcement
Management System (HEMS) and illustrates the importance of utilizing HEMS to document
investigations.5
1. Jurisdiction
The complainant alleges that the Respondent Housing Authority did not provide
translation services for its services.
The complaint and investigative file lack any allegation or evidence to suggest that the
complainant is disabled and thus there is no jurisdiction under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act.
2. Complainant Representative’s Allegations (As taken from HEMS)
“[Complainant] stated that she believes [Respondent] has systemic issues involving
Limited English Access (LEP) persons. [Complainant] pointed out the following issues: 1. Lack
of staff members to specifically assist LEP persons with program access such as MyHousing
portal. RESPONDENT’s failure to translate all vital documents into additional languages.
RESPONDENT’s use of machine translation without human translator review.”
3. Respondent’s Defenses
“[Respondents] stated the following relevant facts:
 On or around January 18, 2022, RESPONDENT mailed Complainant an Eligibility
Determination in order to obtain documentation from Complainant to determine
eligibility in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. This notice included many
forms that Complainant was required to fill out and return via mail to RESPONDENT.
 On or around January 26, 2022, Complainant executed the required forms; this included
the following:
o Complainant executed RESPONDENT’s WAIVER OF USE OF RESPONDENT
PROVIDED ORAL INTERPRETATION, stating that she was declining the free
oral interpretation offered by RESPONDENT and choose to utilize my own. The
document itself has information translated into Korean, among other languages.
5 Case Numbers: 09-24-4216-8 (Title VIII); 09-24-4216-4 (Section 504); 09-24-4216-D (ADA)

5
o Complainant executed RESPONDENT’s LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
NOTICE SECTION 8, where she indicated her preference for Oral
communication in Korean. The document itself has information translated into
Korean, among other languages.
o Complainant appears to have completed and executed a certified statement in
English.
 On or around February 7, 2022, RESPONDENT sent Complainant a First Notice
identifying documents needed to continue processing Complainant’s voucher application.
 On February 18, 2022, Complainant appears to have completed and executed a certified
statement in English
 On or around March 31, 2022, RESPONDENT sent Complainant a Voucher, with an
expiration date of September 27, 2022.
 On or around August 1, 2023, RESPONDENT sent Complainant with a Notice of
Withdrawal of Participation, given that the voucher expired on September 27, 2022
 On August 14, 2023, RESPONDENT received an email communication from [Third
Party] translating a message on behalf of Complainant.
 On October 26, 2023, a Korean speaking staff from RESPONDENT, contacted
Complainant and explained in Korean that her application was withdrawn from Section 8,
due to her inability to find a place by the voucher expiration date in September 2022.
Complainant stated that she wants another opportunity for section 8 voucher.
 In November 2023, Respondent contacted Complainant to translate and explain the basis
for RESPONDENT’s withdrawal notice. On or around November 7, 2023, Respondent
called Complainant again to inform her that RESPONDENT cannot provide her with a
new voucher because her voucher expired and that she must apply in the future when
RESPONDENT’s waitlist reopens. Complainant understood clearly on phone the reason
her application was withdrawn and has no objection at all.
As noted above, Complainant did not initially request oral translation of RESPONDENT
documents. While Complainant did state a preference to have oral communication be in Korean,
at no point prior to her voucher expiration does RESPONDENT have any record that there was a
specific request or attempt to communicate over the phone or in person. There was a significant
amount of correspondence between RESPONDENT staff and Complainant prior to voucher
issuance on March 31, 2022, and there did not appear to be any issue with language proficiency
or any specific request for translation. Accordingly, RESPONDENT complied with its LEP
policy.”
RESPONDENT has an existing LEP policy and applied it to the complainant.
“Undated RESPONDENT Waiver of Use of RESPONDENT Provided Oral
Interpretation: Complainant signed a waiver document stating, “I decline the free oral

6
interpretation offered by the RESPONDENT and choose to utilize my own.” The waiver
document included the aforementioned statement in Korean.”
“RESPONDENT Limited English Proficiency Notice – Section 8: The notice states the
following ‘The Housing Authority of the Subject City is sensitive to the needs of individuals
with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and is committed to ensure equal access to its services.
If you are an individual with limited English skills and would like to communicate either orally
or in writing in a language other than English, please indicate your language preference on the
form on the back of this notice and submit it to your RESPONDENT worker.’ Complainant
signed a notice dated January 26, 2022, stating that she prefers oral and written communication
in Korean.”
4. Findings and Conclusions
FHEO Case Summary: “Evidence showed that Complainant is LEP and primarily speaks
Korean. Evidence showed that on March 31, 2022, RESPONDENT issued Complainant a HCV
with an expiration date of September 27, 2022. Complainant did not locate housing or utilize the
HCV prior to the expiration date. Evidence showed that on August 1, 2023, RESPONDENT sent
Complainant with a Notice of Withdrawal of Participation (“Notice”) informing her that the
HCV expired. Evidence showed that in November 2023, a RESPONDENT staff member that
speaks Korean contacted Complainant and explained RESPONDENT’s reasoning for issuing the
Notice. Thereafter, on April 18, 2024, RESPONDENT re-issued Complainant’s HCV and
Complainant utilized the HCV at her new residence.”
Far from using language as a proxy to discriminate against an individual of Korean
national origin, RESPONDENT attempted in good faith to provide services despite the language
barrier. RESPONDENT has a LEP policy to accommodate LEP individuals despite no federal
law requiring such a detailed policy. Thus, there is no cause to believe the housing authority
discriminated on the basis of national origin. The same applies for the Title VI claim.
Though a separate “meaningful access” analysis is unnecessary, it would result in the
same outcome. The “meaningful access” factors are: (1) the number or proportion of LEP
persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the
frequency with which LEP individuals come into contact with the program; (3) the nature and
importance of the program, activity or service provided by the recipient to its beneficiaries; and
(4) the resources available to the grantee/recipient and the costs of interpretation/translation
services.
Less than 5% of the population of the Subject City is of Korean national origin, and there
is no indication that voucher recipients within that small subset of the population
overwhelmingly lack English proficiency. RESPONDENT appears to be absorbing substantial
costs to accommodate a variety of languages. Thus, the “meaningful access” factors would

7
counsel in favor of a finding of no cause on these facts. A finding that meaningful access was not
denied is warranted by the fact that the complainant received actual access.
The available evidence indicates no reasonable cause exists. A conciliation cannot be
entered on this factual record. The Subject City is free to procure and acquire translation services
for every non-English speaker of every language, but neither the Fair Housing Act nor Title VI
categorically require provision of those services for LEP persons when providing public housing-
related services.
5. Additional Information
Notwithstanding this determination by HUD, the Fair Housing Act provides that the complainant
may file a civil action in an appropriate federal district court or state court within two years after
the occurrence or termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. The computation
of this two-year period does not include the time during which this administrative proceeding
was pending. In addition, upon the application of either party to such civil action, the court may
appoint an attorney, or may authorize the commencement of or continuation of the civil action
without the payment of fees, costs, or security, if the court determines that such party is
financially unable to bear the costs of the lawsuit.
The Department's regulations implementing the Act require that a dismissal, if any, be publicly
disclosed, unless the Respondent requests that no such release be made. Such request must be
made by the Respondent within thirty (30) days of receipt of the determination to the Field
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the address contained in the enclosed summary.

8
Exhibit B
LEP Enforcement Example
Case #2: (abbreviated)
Complainant6 alleged that she visited Respondent’s office in-person for assistance with
filing a habitability and rent increase complaint. Complainant alleged she requested assistance in
Korean and Respondent’s staff told her Korean interpretation was not available. Complainant
alleged Respondent’s staff provided her with an English copy of the complaint form and told to
call their hotline. Complainant alleged she called the hotline and it was in English. Complainant
alleged that Respondent violated subsections 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended. The complaint also alleged noncompliance with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”).
Defense: Respondent asserts that their staffs are trained to use LanguageLine Solutions
when assisting with a person with limited English proficiency (LEP) in-person and to conference
in an interpreter if assisting an LEP persons over the phone.
Facts: Because the parties pursued conciliation during the investigative process, this matter was
not fully investigated. The investigation that did occur involved reviewing and analyzing
documents provided by Complainant and by Respondent. The preliminary investigation revealed
that Respondent does not have some vital documents professionally translated on its website, and
that there is support to Complainant’s claim that oral translation was not provided.
Determination: The investigation that continues should focus on evidence indicating
Respondent acted with a discriminatory intent. For the same reasons outlined in the first case
example, a determination of no cause is likely appropriate.
6 HEMS Case Number(s): 09-24-5209-8; 09-24-5209-6