Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Three’s Company Reboot: Married Couples Living With Roommates Roommates aren’t just for college days anymore, the number of married couples who are sharing their homes has increased significantly since the 1990s. Trulia decided to investigate this phenomenon by comparing data between 1995 and 2016 and came up with some telling numbers.In 2018, 3.28 percent of all U.S. households, or nearly 4.2 million, lived with a roommate. But among married couples, that rate was just 0.46 percent (just over 280,000 married households) which is double the rate observed in 1995. Among all married householders, 0.46 percent live with roommates, up from a historical average of 0.36 percent. This increase is mostly from married homeowners, 0.34 percent of whom live with roommates, or nearly 40 percent higher than the historical average.The increase is higher in the nation’s most expensive markets, proving high housing costs are forcing some married couples to offset the financial burden. It comes as no surprise that the share of married householders who have roommates is correlated with challenging housing market conditions. In fact, the number of married homeowners with roommates peaked in 2012 at roughly the same time as the national foreclosure crisis.There are two distinct trends among married couples who own compared those who rent. Renters are subject to fluctuating costs during their tenancy or when they move. Homeowners tend to stay in one home longer because their cost is usually stable having been determined when they bought their home. As a result, married homeowners are less likely to bring on roommates when faced with escalating housing costs than married renters. It’s probably no coincidence that the areas with the most married-with-roommate households are more pricey like the West Coast, known for its high home prices. In Honolulu, the rate almost doubled, accompanied a booming housing market with rising prices. On average every $100,000 increase in the median metro home value corresponds to a 0.25 percentage point increase in the share of married couples with roommates. There is clearly a direct link between affordability and the presence of a roommate in married couples’ homes, soon it could be the new norm. Click here to read the full report. Share Save About Author: Stephanie Bacot Print This Post 2019-02-12 Radhika Ojha February 12, 2019 1,155 Views Previous: HUD Offers Helping Hand to Displaced Earthquake Victims Next: HELOCs on the Wane? in Daily Dose, Featured, Market Studies, News Sign up for DS News Daily Stephanie Bacot is an experienced multimedia writer having created content for print, web, television, and more. She is the past producer of BIZTV, a national television network for businesses and entrepreneurs that reached more than 200,000 professionals. She has more than 15 years’ experience in healthcare marketing and was an advertising exec for Healthcare Journal of Baton Rouge, a trade publication focused on the healthcare industry, as well as the marketing director for a $5 million surgery center. Bacot is a graduate of Louisiana State University with a degree in Marketing and Communications. She resides in Dallas when she’s not pursuing her love of travel. Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Related Articles The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Home / Daily Dose / Three’s Company Reboot: Married Couples Living With Roommates Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Subscribe
Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Ourresident experts at Pinsent Curtis Biddle bring you a comprehensive update onall the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice onwhat to do about them Ventov Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Court of AppealGuidance on the appropriate level of discrimination awards** * * The applicant successfully claimed sex discrimination after suffering aserious campaign of harassment. Initially, she had coped with the abuse butultimately suffered depression. She was dismissed on performance grounds. Thetribunal awarded £165,829 for loss of future earnings, considering that had shenot been dismissed she would have had a 75 per cent chance of working untilretirement. A further award of £74,000 was made – £65,000 for injury tofeelings, £15,000 aggravated damages and £9,000 for psychiatric damages.TheEAT overturned both awards. It said statistical evidence showed only 9 per centof women police officers served for more than 18 years. The tribunal’s approachto loss of future earnings was radically out of step with these statistics. TheEAT reduced the injury to feelings awards to £39,000.Theapplicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which considered the tribunal’sassessment of a 75 per cent chance of employment until retirement to be highbut nonetheless permissible. Statistical evidence could legitimately be over ridenby the tribunal’s assessment of the applicant. Ofmore general application was the Court of Appeal’s view of the injury tofeelings awards. It considered the tribunal’s award of £74,000 to be”patently extravagant”, particularly when compared with JudicialStudies Board guidelines on general damages for personal injuries. Theappropriate award was £18,000 injury to feelings, with £5,000 aggravateddamages and £9,000 for psychiatric damage.KeypointsTheCourt of Appeal’s guidance on the level of injury to feelings awards was:–The top band is £15,000 to £25,000, to be awarded in the most serious cases, suchas lengthy campaigns of discriminatory harassment –Between £5,000 and £15,000 should be awarded for other serious cases–The lowest level of award is between £500 and £5,000, appropriate for cases ofisolated or one-off acts of discrimination–Where additional awards are made for aggravated damages or psychiatric damage,the total of these awards should be assessed to ensure proportionality and ajust outcomeWhatyou should do–Train managers to recognise signs of harassment and provide guidance on howthey should respond–Tackle harassment early – if problems persists for a long time and no action istaken, the level of award will be greater–Be prepared to apologise in appropriate cases. In this case, the high-handedmanner in which the complaints were addressed led to the award of aggravateddamagesSainsbury’sSupermarkets v Hitt,Court of AppealThe ‘band of reasonable responses’ test restored for consideringadequacy of disciplinary investigations** * * Hitt was dismissed for misconduct after missing stock was discovered inhis locker. He claimed the stock had been planted, naming other employees whoselocker keys fitted his own. Only one of these was in the store at the time andhe denied leaving his work area. Theemployer’s investigation showed that Hitt had had the opportunity to take thestock and had left his work area twice that day. Hitt’s explanation wasrejected at the disciplinary hearing.Anemployment tribunal found the dismissal unfair as the allegation that the stockwas planted in the locker was not adequately investigated – all employees withkeys fitting Hitt’s locker should have been discounted and his manager shouldhave been eliminated from suspicion. TheEAT rejected the employer’s appeal, ruling that the “range of reasonableresponses” test did not apply to the issue of whether the employer’sinvestigation was adequate. This suggested tribunals could find a conductdismissal unfair on the grounds that they would have carried out furtherinvestigations.TheCourt of Appeal overturned this approach and declared Hitt’s dismissal fair.Employment tribunals cannot impose their own opinion of what was a reasonableand adequate investigation. KeypointsTherange of reasonable responses test is a fundamental part of unfair dismissallaw. It gives employers broad discretion in how they approach disciplinary andother dismissals. Any reduction in the scope of this test introduces a lesspredictable, more subjective standard of fairness. This ruling re-emphasisesthat an employer acts fairly if his actions were among those open to areasonable employer on the facts of the case. Whatyou should do–It is still important to ensure disciplinary investigations are thorough–Investigate what employees have to say and allow them time to produce anyrelevant evidence–Train managers on how to deal with investigations and hearings. Encourage themto take advice from HR during the processFoxv Betesh Fox Solicitors, EAT A timely reminder that refusing requests for part-time workcould be discrimination** * Fox worked as a full-time legal secretary. After maternity leave, however, sheasked to come back part time. Her request was refused – full-time secretarieswere required to support full-time lawyers and working part-time would place anundue burden on other staff and the business as a whole. The applicantsuggested shorter hours, or job sharing, but these were also found to be unacceptable.Therewas no argument that Fox had suffered indirect sex discrimination. The onlyissue being argued was whether the treatment was justified. The tribunal saidit was – the requirement for full time work corresponded to a real need of thebusiness and was consistent with its size, type of work performed and how thework was organised.TheEAT overturned this finding. The employment tribunal had failed to balance theeffect of the discrimination (both in terms of how many women were likely to bedisadvantaged and the impact of that disadvantage) against the allegedjustification. Onlyif the alleged justification was sufficient to outweigh the discriminatoryeffect could the treatment be lawful. KeypointsFlexibleworking is a hot issue. From this April, employees with children aged six orunder or disabled children up to 18 have a new statutory right to requestflexible working. Thestatutory scheme includes a procedure which the employer must follow anddetails the grounds for refusal of requests (see page 14). Thisnew right does not replace existing liabilities. Employees will still be ableto rely on arguments of indirect sex discrimination if a request to changeworking hours is refused. As this case shows, the key issue in such claims willbe justification. The outcome of the balancing exercise described above isdifficult to predict. Whatyou should do–Issue a procedure governing flexible working requests, in line with thestatutory scheme. Train managers on how to follow it–Audit your working practices. Where does flexibility exist? If a job cannot bedone part-time, from home or on varied hours, why not? This audit will promotea consistent and well considered approach to requests –Flexibility is an attractive selling point when recruiting and retaining staff.Keep an open mind, be creative and even consult your staff on how flexibleworking might be achievedCaseof the month by Christopher Mordue Extended limits for discrimination claims will prolong tribunalprocessHendricksv Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Court of AppealA liberal approach to time limits for discrimination claims threatensgreat expense and practical difficulties for employers** * * * Hendricks claimed sex and race discrimination against the commissioner.She alleged some 100 acts of discrimination by 50 police officers over a periodof 11 years. If her claim was allowed to proceed she would need to call some100 witnesses in a hearing that would last up to three months. But had shebrought her claim in time?TheEAT ruled the claim was out of time. There was no alleged discriminatory act in the three-month period priorto her complaint being filed. Hendricksargued there was a “continuing act” of discrimination, a policy orregime of discrimination against women and members of ethnic minorities. Ifthere was such a continuing act, time limits would not be activated until thatact came to an end.However,the EAT ruled there was no prima facie evidence of such discrimination. A”continuing act” had to consist of a “policy, rule, practice orregime” of discriminatory treatment. All of Hendricks’ allegationsconcerned her own treatment and so could not be evidence of a generalisedpolicy of discrimination against all women and members of ethnic minorities.There was no evidence of any link between the incidents of allegeddiscrimination, which involved many individuals. Without that, no practice orpolicy could be inferred. Hendrickssuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. It said the EAT’s approach toidentifying a “continuing act” was wrong. “Policies, rules,practices or regimes” were only examples of continuing acts, notexhaustive categories. Thequestion was whether the commissioner was responsible for an ongoing state ofaffairs in which female ethnic minority officers were treated less favourably.If so, that could be an act of discrimination “extending over aperiod”. The burden would be on Hendricks to prove that continuing stateof affairs, especially a link between the incidents she complained of. However,it was wrong to determine the time limit issue at the preliminary stage, withouthearing all of the evidence.KeypointsAmore liberal approach to the concept of continuing acts of discrimination willnot necessarily make it easier to succeed with this type of claim. However, itwill make it harder for employers to have claims dismissed at a preliminarystage. Tribunals will have to consider all the evidence before they can judgewhether the claim was made in time. Thepractical difficulties of this sort of claim are not just longer hearings andthe consequent impact on legal fees and management time. If those involved havemoved on or cannot recollect the incidents or reasons for their actions, theemployer’s case will undoubtedly be weakened.Changesto the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases already mean that once aprima facie case of discrimination is shown – that is less favourable treatmentand a difference in sex – it is for the employer to show that the treatment wason non-discriminatory grounds (this approach will be adopted in cases of racediscrimination later this year). Without solid and reliable evidence, employersmay struggle to mount a cogent defence.Whatyou should do–Adopt effective equal opportunities policies and practices. This means goingbeyond paper documents. What practical steps or initiatives do you take topromote diversity and equality?–Carry out equal opportunities monitoring, especially in recruitment, careerprogression, appraisals, pay, discipline and grievances. Identify discrepanciesand investigate why these exist–Make sure managers keep records of all key decisions they take – promotion, payreviews, transfers, appraisals and disciplinary action, for example. These mayprovide vital evidence in proceedings–Make sure employees know how to challenge discriminatory treatment throughgrievance or harassment procedures and know their complaints will be treatedseriously Case round upOn 1 Feb 2003 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.