Sober houses ensconced in a grey area

Those addicted to alcohol and other drugs end up in sober houses for a variety of reasons. Some are there by court order. Others have nowhere else to go, having been kicked out of their “normal” apartments. Still others are completing their treatment, encouraged to move into the sober house after completing an inpatient treatment program, hopeful that the sober house will help them fend off a relapse.

These “sober houses,” however, are not treatment. The owners are not licensed treatment providers and do not administer any treatment. However, all impose onerous conditions on their “clients.” No boyfriends or girlfriends while in the house, multiple AA meetings per week, and giving up all remedies under state landlord-tenant law.

It’s that last one that has me–and housing advocates and legislators across the country–concerned. Although the landlord may call himself simply an owner, and may call the tenants “clients,” the arrangement really is in a grey area. And under Minnesota law, a tenant can sign away many of the rights to which they would be entitled under Minnesota landlord-tenant law. For example, clients of sober houses sign away their right to any notice to leave the house. Ordinarily a tenant would be entitled to at least some notice. But a sober house tenant may be forced to leave within minutes. And their housemates, as well as the owner, have the power to kick them out. For any reason.

The tenants also are not obviously covered by the Fair Housing Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act, because while addiction can qualify as a disability, sober houses rent only to the disabled. Further, while addiction is a disability, drug use is not, and is a valid reason to evict a tenant.

Fortunately, some legislators are considering requiring sober-house owners to be licensed. That certainly would be a step in the right direction. However, without a private right of action when an owner fails to obtain a license, even licensing may be relatively ineffective.