TLDR
M. Fishman & Company used a corporate “neutrality” policy to evict a first-generation Palestinian American tenant from her home. Manal Farhan displayed a handmade Palestinian flag in her window to express pride in her heritage and solidarity with her people. The property manager responded by calling her cultural expression “unacceptable” and demanding she remove the flag to maintain a neutral building environment.
When she refused to abandon her identity, the genocide loving company terminated her tenancy.
Corporate Misconduct
The core misconduct involves the tactical use of a “neutrality” policy to target a specific protected group.
The landlord accepted rent payments while the flag was visible, then suddenly shifted to enforcement following a single complaint. While the company cited a lease provision against hanging objects outside windows, evidence suggests this was a pretext.
The property manager explicitly told Farhan she couldn’t fly the flag even if it remained entirely inside her unit. This imo reveals a corporate intent to suppress a specific viewpoint rather than a genuine concern for building aesthetics or safety.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
| 2021 | Manal Farhan begins her lease with 2715 NMA LLC and M. Fishman & Company. |
| October 2023 | Farhan displays a handmade Palestinian flag to show solidarity and heritage. |
| November 2023 | The landlord accepts Farhan’s rent payment despite knowing about the flag. |
| Early November 2023 | The property manager orders flag removal, citing a “neutrality” policy on the Gaza conflict. |
| Early November 2023 | The manager tells Farhan her pride in her heritage is “unacceptable.” |
| Nine Days Later | The company issues a 10-day notice of termination for a lease violation. |
| December 2023 | Farhan files a lawsuit for national origin discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. |
| December 4, 2025 | The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of the federal claims. |
Legal Minimalism
Our American legal system rewards evil corporations that wrap discriminatory actions in the language of “neutral” policies. M. Fishman & Company exploited a massive loophole in the Fair Housing Act by framing the eviction as a response to “conduct” rather than “identity.” Because current law requires plaintiffs to prove a specific discriminatory intent, companies can shield themselves by claiming they are merely enforcing “neutrality.”
This technocratic approach allows landlords to target the symbols most important to a tenant’s heritage while maintaining a facade of legal compliance.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs
The incentive structure of neoliberal housing prioritizes a frictionless, “neutral” tenant base to protect property values and shareholder interests. M. Fishman & Company treated Farhan’s heritage as a liability to be managed rather than a human right to be respected. By choosing to evict a tenant over a symbol of solidarity, the corporation sent a clear message: political comfort and corporate brand management take precedence over the stability of a person’s home. This profit-driven logic treats housing as a mere commodity where “neutrality” is a marketable feature, even if it requires the displacement of marginalized residents.
Housing as a Weapon
Eviction causes profound economic and social destabilization. Forced displacement disrupts lives, destroys community ties, and imposes significant financial burdens on tenants.
When a large landlord like M. Fishman & Company uses its power to terminate a lease, it is effectively exercising a form of economic violence.
The legal system’s failure to hold the landlord accountable increases the risk of housing instability for all tenants who belong to protected classes.
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public
The dismissal of this case highlights a systemic failure in corporate accountability.
The legal courts unfortunately ruled that the Fair Housing Act doesn’t protect “political expression,” even when that expression is inextricably linked to a person’s national origin. This narrow interpretation of the law allows companies to engage in “viewpoint discrimination” that effectively erases the cultural presence of certain groups from the rental market.
The legal standard currently protects the landlord’s right to enforce arbitrary rules over the tenant’s right to exist in their home without harassment. Poggers :/
Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy
Preventing similar harm requires a fundamental shift in housing law and corporate transparency. Regulatory bodies must strengthen the Fair Housing Act to recognize that symbols of heritage are not merely “political” but are essential components of a person’s protected identity.
- Regulatory Strengthening: Laws should prohibit “neutrality” policies that disproportionately target specific national or ethnic groups.
- Corporate Transparency: Landlords must be required to provide clear, consistent data on how they enforce lease provisions across different demographics.
- Collective Action: Tenant unions can provide the necessary leverage to challenge arbitrary corporate policies that threaten housing security.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
This lawsuit represents a serious and meaningful legal grievance. While the courts dismissed the claims on narrow technical grounds, the documented facts reveal a clear instance of corporate overreach & abusive.
The property manager’s direct statement that an expression of heritage was “unacceptable” provides a factual foundation for a claim of discriminatory animus. This case is not a frivolous pursuit but a critical challenge to the systemic imbalances that allow corporate landlords to prioritize “neutrality” over the lives of the people they house.
FREE PALESTINE!!! 🍉
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
