Perceptions of Access to Justice Among Unrepresented Tenants: An Examination of Procedural Justice and Deservingness in New York City Housing Court

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn Turner v. Rogers, the U.S. Supreme Court charged judges with ensuring due process for unrepresented litigants in civil proceedings. We argue that engaged judging overlaps with the group value theory (GVT) criterion of trustworthiness, which along with respect and neutrality typically exert a direct effect on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. However, numerous scholars have claimed that justice judgments stem from deservingness—a theory that poses a considerable contrast to GVT . In a study of New York City Housing Court tenants, most of whom were unrepresented, we examined whether deservingness moderates the impact of perceived treatment on justice judgments such that tenants who do not believe they deserve positive treatment will view such treatment as unfair. Results indicated that, with one exception, perceived treatment exerted a direct effect on various justice judgments as predicted by GVT, but in contrast to deservingness. Tenants were overwhelmingly positive about their housing court experience despite the documented inequalities that exist for most unrepresented litigants in housing court. These findings suggest a discrepancy between tenants’ perceptions and the realities of housing court.