Ypsilanti commission seeks legal definitions for conviction-based exceptions, weighs adding family/relationship structure to nondiscrimination protections

The Ypsilanti Human Relations Commission voted Thursday to ask the city attorney to provide written definitions of two phrases in the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance — "direct relationship" (linking a criminal conviction to a housing or employment decision) and "unreasonable risk" (the ordinance’s stated exception) — after commissioners said the terms are currently too vague to ensure consistent enforcement.

The commission also discussed an emailed request from a resident to add "family and relationship structure" as a protected class, citing one applicant’s experience where their non-traditional, multi-partner family said they had been denied rental opportunities. Commissioners committed to follow up: staff will draft a discrimination-complaint form for commission review, and the commission plans to consult counsel on how the city code and local zoning interact with claims of relationship-based housing exclusions.

Why it matters: The nondiscrimination ordinance — adopted by the city in 2018 and cited repeatedly during the meeting — prohibits discrimination based on several protected characteristics and includes a clause that allows consideration of a conviction only if there is a direct relationship between the offense and the job or housing or if hiring or accepting the person would create an unreasonable risk to property or safety. Commissioners said the lack of precise definitions allows overly broad interpretation by landlords or employers and undermines enforcement.

What the commission decided and next steps: Vice Chair Harper moved that the commission request a legal memo from the city attorney defining "direct relationship" and "unreasonable risk." The motion passed with two commissioners abstaining. Commissioners also agreed to a separate, informal step: the chair will reach back to the resident who emailed the commission and offer the current ordinance language for review and to solicit suggested phrasing; staff will place a draft discrimination-complaint form on the next meeting packet for review.

Discussion highlights: Commissioners discussed whether some housing denials stem from zoning limits (for example, unit-occupancy or single-family definitions) rather than bias, and they noted prior work on a tracking sheet to identify discrimination patterns. Several commissioners said that if residents filed formal complaints using a standard form, the commission could better identify repeat problems (for example, source-of-income discrimination or application-fee barriers) and present clearer evidence to council.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to prepare the formal legal questions for counsel and to add the discrimination-complaint form and the resident’s suggested language to the next meeting packet so the commission can vote on any recommended amendments after receiving counsel’s guidance.