Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.)
On July 20, 2007, the Court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Division's brief argues that the Township's commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.
A federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages.
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. On March 22, 2000, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment for the defendants by holding that "in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm," and directed the district court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to hold a new jury trial on whether the plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 8, 2001.
Our amicus brief will oppose legal arguments made by the City of Dallas in its motion for summary judgment. The United States argue that the City violated the Fair Housing Act by improperly denying a reasonable accommodation when it refused to grant the plaintiff a variance to the City's 1000 foot spacing requirement and six person occupancy limit for group homes serving persons with disabilities.
The United States filed two amicus briefs in this case, brought by private plaintiffs. They had claimed that a condominium complex in Anne Arundel County, Maryland violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to be designed and constructed so that it is accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. In our first brief, we set forth the standard for determining whether the defendants had violated the accessibility provisions of the Act. In our second brief, we presented the court with our views as to what equitable remedies are appropriate in a case in which the defendants have been found liable for violating the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
On April 21, 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for both monetary damages and equitable relief. In its opinion, the court found that "affirmative action relief in the form of retrofitting or a retrofitting fund is an appropriate remedy in this case." Accordingly, the court ordered the establishment of a fund of approximately $333,000 to pay for the cost of retrofitting the common areas of the condominium and, with the consent of individual owners, interiors of inaccessible units. Individuals seeking to retrofit their units will be entitled to receive an incentive payment of $3,000 to do so. Although the condominium association was not found liable for the violations, the court ordered it to permit the retrofitting of the common areas. The court will also appoint a special master to oversee the retrofitting project, and retains jurisdiction until all funds have been expended or distributed. If any funds remain unspent, the court noted that "the equitable principles and the purposes" of the Fair Housing will guide the distribution of those funds.
The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (M.D. Tenn.). In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant's practice of permitting Nissan dealers to set finance charges at their discretion resulted in African-Americans paying higher finance charges, and that these higher charges could not be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In our amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, we argue that a lender has a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA, and, thus, is liable under ECOA for discriminatory pricing in loans that it approves and funds. The United States further argue that plaintiffs do not need to prove that defendant was on notice regarding the alleged discrimination, but that, in any case, plaintiffs have offered evidence that defendant was on notice.
The court subsequently denied summary judgement for the defendants, and the case is currently on appeal regarding class certification.
The United States announced an agreement reached with Domino's Pizza, Inc. under which Domino's adopted a Limited Delivery Services Policy. The United States had received a complaint that Domino's policy of providing only limited pizza delivery in certain geographical areas had a discriminatory effect on African Americans in the more than 650 corporate stores and 3,900 franchise stores throughout the country. The policy provides guidelines by which store managers can limit delivery in certain geographical areas. Under the policy, Domino's stores may limit delivery services in specific areas where there is evidence that the safety of delivery drivers is threatened by current criminal activity in the area. The policy recommends that Domino's stores consult with local law enforcement, as well as businesses and community organizations, to determine the gravity of safety concerns and the need to limit delivery services. The scope of any delivery limitations by Domino's stores must be narrowly confined to the area in which safety is a concern. Store managers also must conduct an annual review of any decision to limit delivery to determine if the threat to safety is still present or if the delivery limitation may be lifted. Domino's Director of Safety and Security will review decisions by corporate stores to limit delivery.
On February 28, 2003, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with F & K Management, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Cafes and Santa Fe Cue Clubs, to resolve a complaint brought to the attention of the Division's National Origin Working Group (NOWG) by the Sikh Coalition, a national Sikh advocacy group. The Coalition reported that on September 23, 2001, a young Indian-American Sikh was told by a manager to remove his turban or leave at its Springfield, Virginia club. The Division's investigation revealed that F & K had promulgated and posted a policy in its clubs prohibiting head coverings with the exception of cowboy hats and baseball caps. Pursuant to the agreement, F & K rescinded its head covering policy and replaced it with a dress code approved by the United States, posted nondiscrimination signs at the five (5) establishments it owns and/or operates, agreed to place periodic nondiscrimination ads in the Washington Post and local and national Sikh and Muslim publications over a 3-year period, and arranged for periodic training of its owners and employees by Sikh and Islamic organizations over the three-year term of the agreement. In addition, F & K's owner wrote a formal letter of apology to the complainant and provided free dinner and pool playing privileges for use by him, his family and friends.
The United States signed a settlement agreement with a real estate company settling our allegations that one of its former agents violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in the sale of a dwelling.
The settlement agreement obligates the real estate company, First Boston Real Estate, to implement a non-discriminatory policy, which will be displayed in its offices and distributed to any persons who inquire about the availability of any properties, as well as to all agents. There are reporting requirements and the Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will receive $3,000.00 in compensatory damages.
In June 1999, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that Jefferson Parish violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to permit the operation of a group residence for five adults with Alzheimer's Disease. The Parish zoning ordinance required the group home provider to seek an accommodation to house five persons instead of the permitted four. The court held that the Parish broke the law when it failed to act on the request because of opposition from neighborhood residents and a member of the Parish Board.
The Parish has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Fair Housing Act protections for persons with disabilities are unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Division has intervened and filed a brief arguing that Congress had power to pass the legislation under both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The United States also filed an amicus brief in the district court.
On November 20, 2000, a unanimous three-judge panel joined three other Courts of Appeal holding that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the housing market.
On November 5, 2003, the United States filed an amicus brief in Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association, et al. (E.D. Mich.), a private Fair Housing Act case alleging familial status discrimination. In its brief, the United States argues that defendants' former policy of restricting families with children to first floor units violates the Act as a matter of law. The United States had also filed an amicus brief in January 2001, taking the same position.
In February, 2002, the United States had entered into a settlement agreement with the defendants rescission of association bylaws restricting families with children to first floor units in the three story complex. The agreement also provides for rescission of condominium rules restricting the conduct of children in the common areas, fair housing training of association board members and employees and notification to the public of the association's change in policies.
The plaintiffs in the action were a young couple steered to a first floor unit because they planned to have children and a single woman in the process of obtaining custody of her minor nephew who was denied permission to live with her nephew in her third floor unit.
In this lawsuit against Capital City Mortgage Corp. and its president and Thomas Nash, private plaintiffs contend that the company targeted minorities for loans that were designed to fail, due to unfair payment terms and income levels of the borrowers that would not sustain the loan payments. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Capital City's lending practices violated several federal laws, including the Fair Housing and the Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by engaging in a pattern or practice of targeting African American communities, a practice known as "reverse redlining," for abusive or predatory lending practices. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that reverse redlining does not violate either law because they have provided credit to African Americans, and on the same terms that they would provide to whites. The United States filed an amicus brief, which supported the view that lending practices designed to induce minorities into loans destined to fail could violate the fair lending laws.
Our brief argues that by targeting minorities for predatory loans, a lender discriminates in the terms and conditions of home financing, even if it makes all or most of its loans in minority areas. The fact that a lender does business only in minority neighborhoods does not shield its business from scrutiny under federal fair lending laws. In addition, racially targeted loans that are designed to fail make housing unavailable because of race since the borrowers are likely to lose their homes through foreclosure.
The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate action charging the same defendants with violating a number of federal consumer protection laws. FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., No. 98-237 (JHG/AK) (D.D.C. filed Jan. 29, 1998). Both matters are still pending.
In consolidated cases brought by the United States and Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing and Gene Lewis, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the owner and operator of an apartment complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, intentionally discriminated on the basis of race against Gene Lewis when he refused to rent him a studio apartment. On September 15, 1998, the jury found liability against Danny LeBlanc and awarded Gene Lewis no compensatory damages, but $10,000 in punitive damages. LeBlanc appealed the judgment, arguing that Lewis' punitive damages award should be vacated because the jury awarded him neither compensatory nor nominal damages.
The Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit arguing that the Fair Housing Act permits an award of punitive damages in the absence of compensatory or nominal damages, and that the district court had properly entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict awarding punitive damages to Gene Lewis. On May 15, 2000, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the jury's punitive damages award to Gene Lewis, holding that a plaintiff suing under the Fair Housing Act may not receive punitive damages absent an award of compensatory or nominal damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 5, 2001.
On August 15, 2002, the Department of Justice entered into settlement agreement with Marriott International and the Midwest Federation of American Syrian-Lebanese Clubs to resolve allegations that the Des Moines, Iowa Marriott, which is managed by Marriott International, discriminated against the Midwest Federation on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, when it revoked its previous offer to host the 2002 annual convention of the Midwest Federation. Under the agreement, Marriott agreed to pay $100,000 to establish a scholarship fund to be administered by the Midwest Federation, to pay $15,000 to be a corporate sponsor of the Midwest Federation's 2002 annual convention, and to issue a formal written apology to the Midwest Federation for its conduct in canceling the convention.
On September 5, 2001, Marriott had faxed a signed contract to the Midwest Federation for its signature agreeing to host the Midwest Federation's 2002 convention at the Des Moines Marriott from August 8 through August 10, 2002. In addition to using at least 60 sleeping rooms during the three-day convention, the contract also stated that the Midwest Federation would use the hotel's meeting rooms, restaurants and hold two dinner-dances in the hotel ballroom. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Marriott revoked its offer to the Midwest Federation and repeatedly refused to reconsider its decision in the week following September 11th.
The Justice Department's investigation was conducted under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment. This is the first case matter resolved by the Department's Housing and Civil Enforcement Section involving post-September 11th discrimination against Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian Americans.
On February 15, 2007, a federal court in Memphis approved a consent decree resolving Memphis Center for Independent Living and United States v. Grant, et al. (W.D. Tenn.). The Department's suit, which was filed on November 6, 2001, joined a case filed on January 25, 2001, by the Memphis Center for Independent Living ("MCIL"), a disability rights organization, alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct the Wyndham Apartments in Memphis and Camden Grove Apartments in Cordova, Tennessee, with required features for people with disabilities. The consent decree requires the Richard and Milton Grant Company, its principals and affiliated entities, and their architects and engineers, to retrofit apartments and public and common use areas at the two complexes, and to provide accessible pedestrian routes from front entrances of ground floor units to public streets and on-site amenities. The defendants must establish a Community Retrofit Fund of $320,000, administered by the MCIL, to enable qualified individuals in Shelby County, Tennessee, to modify residential dwellings to increase their accessibility to persons with disabilities. The defendants also are required to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages to the MCIL and $110,000 in civil penalties to the government, and to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.
In this case, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testing evidence and to exclude expert testimony. The court ordered a hearing on the admissibility of testing evidence and the plaintiff's experts. In the order, the court noted that the defendant challenged "the methodology by which [the fair housing] tests were compiled and the lack of supporting data to show that the tests may have some scientific validity." The United States filed an amicus brief on the question of whether testing evidence is subject to any special review before they can be admitted into evidence. The United States argue that testing results are factual evidence, not opinion or expert testimony and, therefore, should be admitted.
The United States signed a modification agreement with Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) to supplement and amend a Settlement Agreement we previously entered into with Pulte in July 1998. The 1998 settlement agreement resolved the United States' allegations that Pulte had failed to design and construct certain developments in Florida, Illinois, and Virginia to be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act. The Modification Agreement covers three additional properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, and includes provisions requiring Pulte to annually notify current owners, for a period of three years, of their option to have Pulte retrofit their units at no expense to them in order to bring them in compliance with the Act, as well as to report to the United States the names and addresses of those persons who elect to have their units retrofitted.
Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown
In 1998, the United States intervened as plaintiffs in Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, a private action that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint joined the private plaintiff, a nonprofit corporation, in alleging that the City violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused them permission to operate a residential facility for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2000, the District Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, agreeing with the complainants that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard. The Second Circuit decision is reported as Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002). Private plaintiffs subsequently reached a settlement with the City. The Division agreed to dismissal of our complaint in order to facilitate the settlement. The case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's office.
The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in an action brought by four tenant associations against the District of Columbia for selective and discriminatory code enforcement in the Columbia Heights area on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The District argued that because the District is neither a "provider of housing" nor a "municipal service provider," it cannot be held liable under Sections 3604(a) and (b) of the Act. The United States' amicus brief in opposition to the District's Motion to Dismiss argued that the District's alleged actions of closing and/or threatening to close buildings in areas of the District with high concentrations of Latinos and Vietnamese makes housing unavailable. Finally, the United States argued that the tenant associations have standing to bring a claim on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of their members.
The United States and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) entered into a settlement agreement with Syringa Property Management, Inc., resolving the IFHC's allegations that Syringa had, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, required disabled tenants to pay deposits in order to keep service or support animals in apartments managed by Syringa. Under the settlement agreement, Syringa will not charge deposits or fees to disabled tenants in connection with the maintenance of service or support animals.
On April 1, 2003, the United States entered into a Settlement Agreement with the developer, architect, site engineer, and homeowners association of Spanish Gardens Condominiums (respondents) in suburban Las Vegas, Nevada. As reflected in the agreement, the respondents failed to design and construct 112 ground-level units and various public and common use areas of the Spanish Gardens Condominiums, a/k/a Desert Lion Condominiums, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Previous to the signing of the Agreement, the respondents had already retrofitted a portion of the common use and public areas at an approximate cost of $35,000. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the respondents will within 60 days of the Agreement, submit a plan for completion of the remaining required retrofits to the common areas, for approval by the Division. Additionally, the respondents will create an $11,000 fund for use by any homeowner to retrofit the interior of his or her unit. After an initial notice, owners shall receive additional notices of the opportunity to retrofit their units, at no cost to them, on an annual basis for three years. The respondents shall also report information regarding future design or construction of multi-family housing and certify to the Department that such design or construction fully complies with the Act.
This matter was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Two landlords whose religious beliefs prevented them from renting housing to unmarried couples filed a federal action asking the court to find that any enforcement against them of Alaska or Anchorage laws prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status would violate their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the statutes substantially burdened the landlords' religious beliefs and that the government had no compelling interest in prohibiting marital status discrimination in housing, and affirmed the district court's order prohibiting the State and the City from enforcing the laws against the landlords.
The United States filed an amicus brief when the court of appeals withdrew the panel opinion and decided to rehear the case en banc. The United States argued that the Alaska and Anchorage statutes are neutral and generally applicable exercises of the police power, and that the landlords in these appeals have failed to show "colorable" claims under the Takings Clause or Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The en banc court held that the landlords' claim was not ripe, and dismissed the action.
In October, 2000, the landlord-plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, arguing that they had met the standing and ripeness requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution. In February 2001, the Supreme Court denied the landlords' petition.
The United States entered into a settlement agreement with Trop-Edmond, L.P.; Trail Properties, Inc.; and Danielian Associates (respondents), thereby resolving the United States' claims that respondents discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at West Trop Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. This case was referred to the Division by HUD as a pattern or practice case. After respondents were contacted by HUD regarding a complaint of design and construction deficiencies, respondents took corrective actions at an approximate cost of $41,000. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents Trop-Edmond, L.P. and Trail Properties, Inc. will donate $5000 to an organization in Nevada that serves the housing needs of persons with disabilities. Respondent Danielian will conduct annual in-house training for a period of three years to its employees involved in the design of multi-family dwellings.
Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association, et al. (N.D. Ill.)
On September 8, 2004, the Court entered a consent order resolving Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint alleged the condominium association engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability when they established a written policy prohibiting persons in wheelchairs from using the front door to the condominium building and when they applied that policy to a ten-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair who lives in the building.
The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $70,000 to the Trujillo family; admit that their actions violated the Fair Housing Act; issue a letter of apology; pay $10,000 to the widow of a Triumvera resident who used a wheelchair during the last years of his life, and pay a $3,500 civil penalty. The consent order also requires the president of the association's board of directors to resign, issue new by-laws, and require training of its members on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
The Trujillos' filed a lawsuit in this matter in March, 2004. The United States filed a Complaint-in-Intervention May 19, 2004.
5/16/08On May 13, 2008, District Judge Alan H. Nevas denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.). This is a Fair Housing Act disability discrimination case filed by the owners of two recovery houses for people with addictions, who allege that the city of New Haven failed to make a reasonable accommodation by allowing more than eight to ten persons to reside in the houses. The Division had filed a brief as amicus curiae to address legal issues raised by defendants, without taking a position on the merits of the summary judgment motion. The court's opinion found that there are material issues of fact in dispute, without addressing any of the contested legal issues.
United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.)
10/3/07
On September 28, 2007, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.). The complaint alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons on the basis of familial status by the owners and management of Phoenix Village Apartments, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Under the terms of the consent order, which was entered by the court on October 1, 2007, the defendants will pay up to $165,000 to compensate victims and $20,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The consent order also calls for injunctive relief, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for four years.
This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.
On July 2, 2003, the Court entered the Consent Decree in United States v. ADI Management, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.). The United States Attorney's Office brought this action on behalf of the estate of Hillary Smith, who lived at the subject property until she died from metastatic breast cancer at the age of 34. The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property management company of an apartment complex in Jamaica Estates, Queens, violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation to their no-pets rule to allow Ms. Smith to keep an emotional support dog in her unit, and instead served her with eviction notices. The Division alleged that Ms. Smith was suffering from anxiety and depression, caused by being mobility-impaired due to the cancer. The Consent Decree requires defendants to pay $11,000 in damages to the estate of Ms. Smith. The Decree also enjoins the defendants from: violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability in the future; requires them to adopt specific guidelines for assessing requests for reasonable accommodations; and requires the president of the property management company to attend a fair housing training program. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for three years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 24, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Henry Billingsley, et al. (E.D. Tex.), a Fair Housing Act referral from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the members of the zoning committee and property owners of Air Park Estates, in Collin County, Texas, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow the complainant to keep a footbridge in front of her house. The complainant, who has a mobility disability, needs to use the bridge to reach the street without risk of injury.
In this case, the United States claimed that the bank refused to take mortgage loan applications from areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York with significant minority populations. The bank could provide no reason for carving out areas with large concentrations of minority individuals from its lending areas. The United States resolved this matter on August 13, 1997, with a consent decree, which required the bank to provide $55 million in loans at below market rates to the areas that it refused to service previously and to implement a non-discriminatory lending policy.
The United States' complaint, filed on January 19, 2001, alleges that a developer and an architect failed to design and construct a 226-unit apartment complex in Greenville, North Carolina, with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include steps into the individual units, an insufficient number of curb cuts, doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and an inaccessible rental office.
The terms of the consent decree, filed on January 25, 2001, include the following: Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc., the builder and developer, must: (1) retrofit the common use areas of the apartment complex; (2) ensure that at least one fully retrofitted one-bedroom unit and two-bedroom unit remain vacant and available at all times for viewing and rental by a prospective tenant who requests such a unit; (3) give notice to every prospective tenant of the availability of the fully accessible units; (4) compensate aggrieved persons up to $5,000 over any out of pocket costs suffered by such persons; and (5) include enhanced accessibility features in a portion of the units in the next two multi-family projects which they construct. Rivers & Associates, Inc., the architectural firm that designed the complex, must: (1) pay a $5,000 civil penalty; (2) donate 100-hours of technical assistance to non-profit organizations that serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities in the Greenville community; and (3) contribute to any amount paid to compensate aggrieved persons by Aldridge & Southerland.
On January 18, 2005, the court entered a Consent Decree in United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint, filed on March 2, 2005, alleged that Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his next door neighbors, Elie and Silvia Bitton and their two minor children, on the basis of their religion (Jewish) and national origins (Israeli and Mexican). The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $15,000 to the complainants, enjoins the defendant from discriminating based on religion or national origin, prohibits him from violating 42 §: 3617 with regard to the Bittons, and requires him to attend fair housing training. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years. This case was handled primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
This case was the Department's first challenge, under the Fair Housing Act, to racial discrimination in the provision of homeowner's insurance. In our complaint,filed on March 30, 1995, we charged the company with engaging in a pattern of illegal discrimination by using race as a factor in determining whether to issue homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area.
On July 17, 1995, the United States resolved this case with a consent decree, which required the company to pay $14.5 million in damages to compensate the victims of the company's discriminatory policies. Over nine million dollars was directed toward community-based relief, such as a home purchase and home improvement loan subsidy; financing cost assistance; home ownership counseling; and a emergency home repairs fund. The agreement also provided that the company issue a non-discrimination statement, recruit qualified prospective customers from the state's insurance plan, conduct random testing, no longer exclude homes solely on the basis of the age or sales price of the home, and provide a new custom value policy so that quality insurance coverage will be more widely available. The decree also established a five million dollar fund to compensate individual victims; over 1,600 households in the community received damages.
United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.)
On August 30, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Decree in United States v. Andrian-Zemenides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 14, 2005, alleged that the defendants failed to design River's Edge condominiums, a five building complex located in Chicago, Illinois in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Consent Decree requires the defendant to contribute $37,500 to an established fund to compensate persons who have been injured by the lack of accessible features and pay $10,000 in damages to Access Living, a non-profit corporation that serves and advocates on behalf of persons with disabilities throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
In this case, the United States claimed that a housing referral agency in New Orleans, Louisiana, had honored the requests of several housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on their race and/or familial status. Based upon a referral from the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, we investigated the matter and filed a complaint. The matter settled before trial and the consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, advertising targeting the minority community, and a ban on the use of an occupancy standard more restrictive than two persons per bedroom. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $180,000 in damages, including a $50,000 victim compensation fund, a $10,000 civil penalty, $30,000 to a victim, and $90,000 to the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center.
On March 1, 2007, the Court entered a consent decree (PDF version) resolving all claims in United States, et al. v. Arlington Park Racecourse (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed September 30, 2005, alleged the that the defendant owners and operators of the Arlington Park Racecourse in Arlington Heights, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers who live at the racetrack. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants will construct 48 new units of housing with private bathrooms and air conditioning by the beginning of the 2007 racing season. This new housing will be made available to the seasonal workers with families. Defendants will also install air conditioning in 127 units of housing that will continue to be available for seasonal workers with families. The consent decree also allows Defendants to restrict six existing buildings to licensed workers only, provided that they do so on a nondiscriminatory basis. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants have also agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States, and damages and other relief to resolve HOPE's claims.
On September 18, 2007, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) a Fair Housing Act election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant from his apartment.The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $45,000 in compensation to three aggrieved persons. In addition, the consent decree includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of discrimination; fair housing training and reporting requirements; and provisions requiring the establishment of non-discrimination, complaint, and reasonable accommodation policies. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
The United States filed a lawsuit against Associates National Bank of Delaware [ANB], a leading issuer of Visa and MasterCard bank cards, claiming that the bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ECOA] by discriminating on the basis of national origin, specifically, against persons of Hispanic origin. Our complaint asserted that individuals applying for an ANB/UNOCAL MasterCard through the bank's Spanish-language application were processed through a separate approval system, which utilized a credit scoring system that required higher scores than those required for English-language applicants. As a consequence, some Spanish-language applicants were denied credit on a discriminatory basis. The United States also claimed that approved Spanish-language UNOCAL applicants were given lower credit line assignments than applicants processed through the English-language decision system. Finally, we contended that the bank offered different promotional credit services to those who applied through the Spanish-language system from those commonly offered to other customers. The United States estimate that as a result of ANB's actions, approximately 1,800 Hispanic applicants and customers who utilized ANB's Spanish-language applications were adversely affected. The matter is still in litigation.
Under the settlement agreement ANB will establish a $1.5 million Compensation Fund to provide damages to hundreds of Hispanic applicants who faced stricter underwriting standards and less favorable credit terms and conditions than those who applied in English between late February 1996 and April 1997. Any funds remaining after all claims have been paid will be used for consumer education in Hispanic communities. This is the first fair lending case brought by the Department of Justice alleging discrimination in connection with credit cards.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency referred this matter to us.
United States v. B & S Properties of St. Bernard L.L.C. (E.D. La.)
On April 1, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. B&S Properties of St. Bernard, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. La.). The complaint, filed on April 15, 2004, alleged a pattern or practice of race discrimination by the owners of apartments in Chalmette, Louisiana. Specifically, the complaint alleged the owners and managers of the Foster Apartments, either turned away black testers or steered them to an apartment building in a black neighborhood while encouraging whites to rent their other properties. Under the terms of the Consent Order, the defendants will pay a $100,000 civil penalty, $60,000 in damages to victims, and $10,000 to fund community-wide training for tenants and landlords regarding the Fair Housing Act. The four-year decree also provides for monitoring of the defendants' operation of their business, requires them to undergo training, and imposes restrictions on any subsequent buyer of the rental properties.
This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.
On March 8, 2002, the United States filed a consent order along with the complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of Joe's nightclub, one of the largest night clubs in Wichita, Kansas which was formerly known as Acapulco Joe's, discriminated against Latino and African American patrons and potential patrons.
In the consent order, the defendants admit that African American and Latino individuals were wrongly excluded from the club. In addition to prohibiting future discrimination, the consent order requires the defendants to modify its admission and ID checking policies, train employees, advertise its new procedures and nondiscrimination policies in English and Spanish, and document its compliance efforts.
This case was originally referred to the Division by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The Equal Opportunity Office and Office of Special Investigations at McConnell Air Force Base and KHRC assisted with the Division's investigation.
United States v. Ballis (D. Or.)
4/17/07
On April 10, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Ballis (D. Or.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on February 1, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a nine-unit apartment building in Portland, Oregon refused to rent to a couple on the basis of one of the individual's race and sex (African American male). The complaint also alleged that the defendants discriminated against the Fair Housing Council of Oregon by engaging in disparate treatment against an African American male tester. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $36,500 in damages, to attend fair housing training and to comply with injunctive relief and reporting provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.
The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Bank United discriminated against a loan applicant and her children on the basis of disability. The complaint contended that the bank requested information from the applicant concerning the nature and severity of their disabilities when she sought a mortgage loan.
The bank agreed to resolve this matter without a trial and entered into a consent decree, which provided $25,000 in monetary compensation to the complaints, established procedures for processing mortgage applications where the applicant relies on disability income to qualify, and required bank employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act.
The United States filed a fair housing election complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant and her son on the basis of their familial status, by refusing to rent an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. Defendants own a single-family home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as well as a number of other small rental properties in that area.
In the consent order, filed on June 20, 2001, the Defendants agreed to pay $5,000 in damages to the complainant and her son. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting discriminatory housing practices by the defendants in the future; mandatory fair housing training for Mr. Barone and his employees; and an agreement that Ms. Barone will withdraw from the management of rental properties.
On October 22, 2002, the court (Lawson, J.) entered the consent decree in United States v. Barrett, (M.D. Ga.). The Division's complaint , filed October 9, 2002, alleged that John Barrett, an Athens, Georgia apartment-complex owner and developer, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to construct accessible housing in seven apartment complexes which he owns and operates. In addition to Mr. Barrett, the complaint named several companies with which he is associated as defendants in the lawsuit. Three of the apartment complexes are located in Athens, Georgia; two are located in Statesboro, Georgia; and one is located in Greenville, North Carolina. By signing the decree, the defendants admitted their failure to design and construct the subject properties in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires Mr. Barrett and his companies over the next 15 months over the next 15 months to retrofit the public and common use areas of the seven complexes and of the individual apartments units to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Among the features which will be retrofitted are bedroom and bathroom doors which are too narrow to accommodate persons who use wheelchairs; clear floor space in bathrooms that is inadequate for use by persons in wheelchairs; and excessive sloping of the pavement leading up to dwelling unit entrances as well as the thresholds to those entrances which makes it difficult for persons who use wheelchairs to enter units. The estimated cost of the retrofits is approximately $800,000. In the event that any current residents have to be relocated during the term of their tenancy or that any prospective residents have their move-in dates delayed because of the retrofits, the decree provides for the payment of reasonable relocation or housing expenses and $750 in the event of any such relocation or delay. The decree also requires the defendants to pay $15,000 in civil penalties and contributions to a fund to further housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.
United States v. Ronald J. Bathrick (D. Minn.)
8/27/07
On August 23, 2007, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Bathrick (D. Minn.), a pattern or practice sexual harassment case brought under the Fair Housing Act. The United States' complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2005, alleged that Ronald Bathrick engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment in rental units he owned and managed in Hastings and St. Paul, Minnesota. The consent decree will require Bathrick to pay $360,000 to twelve aggrieved persons and $40,000 to the United States as a civil penalty, enjoin Bathrick from discriminating on the basis of sex, and require him to retain an independent management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.
The complaint was originally brought to the Division's attention through a private local attorney.
On December 2, 2004, the court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. David Beaudet (D. Minn.) The Defendant, David R. Beaudet, has owned and managed numerous single-family rental homes throughout St. Paul since 1990. The complaint, filed February 19, 2003, alleged that Beaudet subjected female tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. Specifically, the complaint alleged that he subjected female tenants to unwanted sexual touching and advances, conditioned the terms of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors, and entered the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice. Under the consent decree, the defendant is required to pay $400,000 to the alleged victims, plus a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. He has also agreed to hire a management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.
United States v. Bedford (D. Kan.)6/12/07
On June 11, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Bedford (D. Mont.). The complaint alleges the defendants, the owners of an eight-unit complex in Big Fork Montana, discriminated on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants told the complainant, who has a teenage daughter, that they did not want teenage children. When the complainant asked to see the unit, she was told to look elsewhere, and the defendants rented to someone without a child. The Montana Fair Housing, Inc. conducted telephone testing in which a single parent of a teenaged boy was also discouraged from renting.The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
In April 1998, a jury found Big D Enterprises, Inc. and its owner, Edwin Dooley, had discriminated against prospective African American tenants at three Fort Smith, Arkansas apartment complexes. The United States had filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants refused to rent to an African American household. Our complaint, filed on March 13, 1997, added a claim that this refusal to rent to black persons was part of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in rentals. The jury also awarded a total of $101,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the two households affected by the defendants' practices. The defendants appealed the jury verdict and the district court's injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in future acts of discrimination. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and its opinion is reported at 184 F.3d. 924 (8th Cir. 1999).
In this case we claimed that the Bigelow Group, the developer of a 286-unit housing development, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the development so that they are accessible and useable by persons with disabilities. Our complaint, filed on April 13, 2000, which is based on information obtained through our testing program, alleges that there are excessive slopes in the public areas, as well as steps leading to some of the units, some doors are too narrow for the passage of wheelchairs, and the kitchens and bathrooms are not readily usable by persons who use wheelchairs.
The consent decree, filed on February 14, 2001, requires the defendant to offer current residents the opportunity to have their units retrofitted at no expense to them and to make a similar offer annually to each resident for the next three years. In addition, the decree requires the defendant and its employees to make future housing accessible to persons with disabilities, to receive fair housing training, to advertise to the public that their units are accessible to persons with disabilities, and to notify the Civil Rights Division of other covered multi-family dwellings it designs and constructs and provide a certification by the architect that it complies with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
United States v. Billigsley et al. (E.D. Tex.)
The United States resolved claims, set forth in our complaint, that the bank charged Native Americans higher interest rates than other equally qualified applicants and refused to make loans when the collateral was located on reservations. In the consent decree, the bank agreed to expand its services to reservations, market its products to Native Americans, reduce interest rates and finance charges on existing discriminatory loans, and create a $125,000 fund for past rejected applicants.
On November 20, 2003, the Court entered a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Black Wolf, Inc. (The Mounty) (N.D. W.Va.). The public accommodations complaint alleges The Mounty, a bar and restaurant located in Chester, West Virginia, discriminated on the basis race and color when it refused to serve African-Americans, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The complaint alleges The Mounty required African-Americans to display a "membership card" before being served while not demanding the same from non-African-American persons. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, The Mounty agrees to: train its employees in the requirements of Title II; post a sign at all entrances stating that it does not discriminate against customers on the basis of race or color; include similar announcements in all advertisements; and file periodic reports with the Division regarding its compliance with the agreement. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.
The complaint was initially referred to the Division by a citizen and investigated by the Division's testing program .
On January 6, 2003, the United States submitted a consent decree to the Magistrate Judge in United States v. Bleakley, et al. (D. Kan.), a case alleging that the developer, architect and the civil engineer involved in building two apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas had violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to make the complex accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the consent decree, the defendants will spend more than $350,000 to retrofit the complexes in order to make them accessible, establish a $214,443 fund that will be available to make accessibility modifications to other housing in the community, pay $130,000 to a fund for the compensation of persons with disabilities who experienced difficulty living at or visiting the inaccessible apartment complexes, and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. The total payment of the settlement will therefore exceed $715,000. The architect and the civil engineer defendants are also defendants in United States v. LNL Associates/Architects, et al., which involves similar issues at two other apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas, and is still pending.
In its complaint, filed on May 10, 2001, the Division alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct 340 covered units at the Homestead Apartment Homes, and 160 covered units at the Wyncroft Apartments, so that they would be accessible and usable by people with disabilities in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act. The Division alleged the violations of the accessibility provisions included: doors that are not wide enough for wheelchairs to pass through; kitchens and bathrooms with insufficient space to allow those in wheelchairs to maneuver and use the appliances, sinks, toilets, and bathtubs; failure to provide accessible routes that allow people using wheelchairs to get into and move around apartments and public and common use areas that required persons to go up with steps or travel steeply-sloped sidewalks. The Division also alleged that the rental offices in both offices were inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The consent decree was entered by the Court on January 29, 2003, and will remain in effect for five years and nine months.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Legal Aid of Western Missouri, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On February 18, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., et al. (W.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination of the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on October 23, 2002, alleged that the defendants, Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., Costich Engineering, and Passero Associates, P.C., failed to design and construct Blueberry Hill Apartments in Rochester, New York, in accordance with the accessibility guidelines provisions of the Act. Under the Consent Order, the defendants will retrofit the complex, including the interiors of all 168 ground-floor units as well as sidewalks, entryways, and other public exterior spaces to bring it into compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The defendants will also pay $300,000 to compensate individuals who experienced difficulties living at the complex, or who were unable to live in the complex, due to its non-compliance and a $3,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.The case was referred to the Division by HUD after it received a complaint from a tenant with a disability, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On September 27, 2002, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Blue Meadows Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on August 31, 2001, alleged the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by enforcing a pool rule that prohibited children under seventeen years old from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent. Current state law permits children thirteen years old or older to use public swimming pools without adult supervision. Under the terms of the Decree, the Defendants agreed to; delete the current restriction on persons under seventeen from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent; limit any future age restrictions governing unaccompanied children using the pool to those under age thirteen; and refrain from instituting any other rules that restrict the use of common areas at by persons under 18, except those that apply to all persons, regardless of age.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On August 6, 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered a Consent Decree in the case of United States v. Board of County Commissioners of Montezuma County. The complaint, filed on December 21, 2000, alleged that Montezuma County violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the bases of disability, race, color, and national origin when it refused to permit the establishment of a group home for adolescents recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse. The complainant who sought to open and operate the home on a site located in the southwestern corner of the state near three different Reservations, was a teacher and counselor with over 25 years of experience working with Native American students. Most of the residents in the home were expected to be Native American. The County denied the complainant's application for a land use permit after local residents spoke out against the siting of the home on the ground that the residents would be people with a history of drug and alcohol problems, and made disparaging comments about Native Americans.
The Consent Order requires the County to comply with the Fair Housing Act, issue written findings of fact when it declines requests for land use or zoning permits, participate in training on the Fair Housing Act, and advise the United States when it receives applications for permits for specified land uses. It also requires the County to pay $30,000 to the individual who was prevented from establishing the proposed group home and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to create a $30,000 fund to provide financial assistance in paying costs and fees associated with providing treatment for youths in Montezuma and Dolores counties to overcome alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years.
United States v. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.)
2/1/06
On December 14, 2005, the court entered the Consent Order resolving United States, Andrew and South Suburban Housing Center v. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on August 10, 2005, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of a four-unit rental building in Bourbonnais, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to the complainants because he and his wife had children. The complainant, South Suburban Housing Center, a non-profit fair housing organization, conducted two tests which allegedly provided additional evidence that the defendants discriminated against families with children. The Consent Order contains various injunctive provisions and requires the defendants to pay a total of $24,000 in monetary relief. The consent order will remain in effect for two years. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
On July 11, 2002, the court (Holderman, J.) entered a consent order resolving United States v. Boleslav (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on October 4, 2001, alleged that the defendants, owners of a six-unit building, had made statements to testers from a local fair housing organization that expressed opposition to renting both to African-Americans and to households with children. The consent order includes a non-discrimination injunction; standard training, record keeping and reporting requirements; and bars one of the three defendants from involvement with management of the property for the 30-month duration of the order. It also requires the defendants to pay $25,000 to the fair housing organization.The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
10/3/07On September 27, 2007 the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree in United States v. Bolt (Hickory Plantation Apartments) (S.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which was developed through the Division’s testing program, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment at Hickory Plantation to a visually impaired individual who used a guide dog. Under the consent decree the defendants will pay $35,000 to compensate any aggrieved victims at Hickory Plantation and Willow Way Apartments, pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government. The Court entered the consent decree on October 31, 2007.
On March 20, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bonanza Springs Apartments, LLC et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act case against the owners and operators of Bonanza Springs Apartments, a multi-family apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada. The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based upon race, disability, and familial status. Specifically, the complaint, alleged that the defendants steered African American apartment seekers to the least desirable apartments or represented that there were no apartments available at Bonanza Springs Apartments while at the same time telling white applicants that apartments were available for rent. In addition, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, refused to rent to families with children, and intimidated and interfered with the rights of those persons who complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding their fair housing rights. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants must pay $285,000 to identified victims of discrimination and $165,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The Department of Housing and Urban Development originally referred the case to the Division as a potential pattern or practice of discrimination.
On March 12, 2004, the Court entered a Complaint and Consent Decree resolving United States v. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D.N.J.). The Complaint alleges that the Borough engaged in a ten-year pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin, race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act by adopting and enforcing a housing code and redevelopment plan for the purpose of making housing opportunities unavailable to Hispanic residents of the Borough.The Consent Decree will require the Borough to 1) revise its property maintenance code and adopt nondiscriminatory complaint and inspection procedures for code violations; 2) hire a Bilingual Coordinator to provide information to and assist Spanish-speaking Borough residents with housing related Borough services and to assist the Borough's code enforcement officials with inspections where the residents are Spanish-speaking; 3) contract with an independent consultant to create a revised redevelopment plan that will incorporate procedures for replacement housing, a relocation plan, and compliance with the Fair Housing Act; 4) provide fair housing training to Borough employees and officials; 5) pay a maximum of $425,000 to compensate persons who have been injured by the Borough's discriminatory practices; and 6) pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States.
The term of the Consent Decree is 5 years except for the provisions related to redevelopment activities which have a term of 10 years.
The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the Boston Housing Authority [BHA] discriminated by failing to respond adequately to complaints of racial harassment in several of its public housing developments. In particular, we contended, in our complaint, that the BHA failed to take adequate corrective actions to protect a number of black and Hispanic families who were subjected to racial and ethnic harassment, including racial and ethnic epithets, threats, graffiti, vandalism, and assaults.
The consent decree provides $1 million in monetary relief to the class in a pending private lawsuit, the hiring of two new civil rights investigators and one new BHA police officer, a plan for increasing the number, frequency, and responsiveness of police patrols at the developments, revisions to the BHA's procedures for responding to complaints of racial harassment, employee training and performance evaluations, tenant outreach and training, and community outreach.
United States v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.)
On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, filed a complaint in United States v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners of town homes in Rochester, Minnesota, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to rent a unit to the HUD complainant because she had an emotional assistance animal.The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States and Prach, et al. v. Bowen Property Management, et al. (E.D. Wash.)
On September 22, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States and Prach, et al. v. Bowen Property Management, et al. (E.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) pattern or practice/election case referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by charging applicants who were of Russian national origin a fee to rent apartments that was not charged to applicants who were not of Russian national origin. The second claim alleged that the defendants fired a Westfall Village Apartments employee when she reported the discriminatory conduct to executives of Bowen Property Management, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. In addition to the claims based on HUD's charge, the complaint also alleged that Bowen Property Management and Kerry Lemons engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-Russians by denying them the opportunity to rent apartments at Westfall Village Apartments. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to the Russian HUD complainants who were not represented by private counsel; $10,000 for unidentified aggrieved persons who may have been the victims of the defendants' discriminatory housing practices at the subject property, and $7,000 in a civil penalty, for a total of $22,000. The defendants also have advertisement, fair housing training, record keeping, and reporting obligations. The total monetary settlement obtained by the Division through this settlement and the prior settlement totals $112,000. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On October 13, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Boyers' Personal Care Homes, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of Boyers' Personal Care Home in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to house an applicant with AIDS based on that disability. The Consent Order requires the defendants to pay $7,000 to the estate of the applicant and $2,000 to an AIDS service organization that assisted him in his search for alternate housing. The Consent Order also contains provisions that prohibit future discrimination, requires the defendants to adopt and notify others of its new nondiscrimination policy and requires reporting. The consent order will remain in effect for 3 years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On October 6, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bray, et al. (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on December 18, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the developer/owner/manager and the architect of the John Randolph Atrium Apartments in Champaign, Illinois, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct nine ground-floor units and the public and common use areas in the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act.The consent decree requires the defendants to: undertake substantial retrofits; estimated to cost over $175,000; pay $10,000 to the complainant in compensatory damages, and to establish a $10,000 victim fund. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On November 20, 2000, the Unites States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants, the owners of several multi-family rental properties in Texas, fired the complainant from her job as a site manager in retaliation for her participation in a fair housing investigation. The United States alleges that the firing constitutes a violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, which prohibits threatening or interfering with any person on account of their having aided another in enforcing their rights under the Act.
The consent order, filed on June 15, 2001, provides for $15,000 in compensatory damages to the complainant, in addition to the dismissal of a related unemployment compensation claim Defendant had filed against her. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of retaliation against the complainant, and also prohibiting additional discriminatory housing practices; mandatory Fair Housing Training of all Defendants and their employees for the next four (4) years; and the establishment of a Fair Housing complaint policy for Defendants' tenants.
The Brazoria Manor consent order is the first settlement filed by the Department that incorporates the Memorandum of Understanding among the Department of Treasury, HUD and the Department of Justice concerning low-income housing tax credit properties. That Memorandum requires the Department to notify state housing finance agencies of the filing and ultimate resolution of Fair Housing Act complaints filed against owners of low-income housing tax credit properties. The Consent Order provides that, in the event that Defendants fail to comply with its terms, the United States may notify the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs of the noncompliance. This provision serves to encourage the Defendants to adhere to the terms of the Consent Order or to risk losing the tax credits they receive through the state-administered Federal program.
United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.)
4/20/07
On April 16, 2007, the Court approved and entered the Consent Order resolving United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which alleged sexual harassment discrimination. The Consent Order requires the Defendants to pay $110,000 in monetary damages to nine women, and a $15,000 civil penalty. The Consent Order also requires the Defendants to transfer all managerial responsibilities to an independent manager. The complaint, which was filed on December 22, 2005, alleged that from at least 2004 through the present, Defendant Mr. Brewer had subjected females tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, entering the dwellings of female tenants without permission or notice, and threatening to evict female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The Division commenced its investigation of the defendants in late 2004 based on a referral from the City of Knoxville.
On November 20, 2003, the Court issued a ruling (PDF version 458KB) in the United States' favor in the case of United States v. Brosh (S.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 26, 2002, alleged that the defendant, Kenneth Brosh, refused to rent a single family residence located in Belleview, Illinois to Air Force Captain Dale Van Dyke, his wife, Jennifer Van Dyke and their three minor children a family in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged that when Jennifer Van Dyke called Kenneth Brosh to inquire about the availability of a rental property he had advertised, Mr. Brosh stated that he did not rent to families with children under the age of three and refused to rent to the Van Dykes once he learned that one of the Van Dyke's children was age two.
A bench trial was held on September 22, 2003, in East St. Louis., Illinois. The Court found that the defendant's conduct violated both § 3604(c) and § 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act. The Court ordered the defendant to pay $15,000 in emotional distress damages to the Van Dykes, as well as $445 dollars for costs they incurred as a result of the discrimination.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On November 23, 2004, the Court entered a stipulated order voluntarily dismissing the complaint in United States v. Briggs of San Antonio, Inc., d/b/a Fat Tuesday (W.D. Tex.), a Title II pattern or practice case that alleged discrimination on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 19, 2004. Because defendant has closed the San Antonio Fat Tuesday and has no plans to re-open it, the parties agreed to file the stipulation of dismissal of this case. As a condition of the dismissal, the defendant withdrew its motion to dismiss and also stipulated in the dismissal that he has no intention of reopening the restaurant.The complaint alleged the San Antonio restaurant/bar known as Fat Tuesday, violated Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Filipinos on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The complaint alleged that the discriminatory conduct included, among other things: requiring prepayment for services not required of white persons
.
On September 18, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois and the Division submitted to the Court a Consent Decree. The complaint, filed on December 5, 2001, alleged the defendants; the John Buck Company, JBC Evanston Limited Partnership, Church & Chicago Limited Partnership, Harry Weese Associates, and Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning Worldwide P.C., discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the Park Evanston Apartments, a 283 unit hi-rise building in Evanston, Illinois accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court entered the Consent Decree on September 25, 2002. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for five years. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will retrofit the 283 units and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, pay damages of $30,000 to Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, pay $50,000 to compensate tenants who have been harmed by the lack of the accessible features at the complex, and pay a $13,600 civil penalty to the United States. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. The United States Attorney's Office and the Division filed the complaint in this matter on December 5, 2001.
This case originated with a complaint filed by Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD conducted an investigation, issued a charge of discrimination, and referred the case to the Division.
4/16/08On April 8, 2008, the United States filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree settling the United States' claims against Calvert Properties, Inc. for $250,000. The complaint, filed on August 8, 2006, alleged that Harold Calvert, the president of Calvert Properties, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Harold Calvert subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted physical sexual advances, forcible physical contact with the sexual parts of his body, inappropriate statements, and threats of eviction when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The consent decree requires Calvert Properties to pay $165,000 to six women whom the United States alleges were sexually harassed by Harold Calvert, and to two children of one of the women who witnessed their mother being harassed. Calvert Properties must also pay a $25,000 civil penalty. $60,000 has been set aside for an unidentified victim fund.The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
The complaint in this case alleged that two developers and an architect failed to design and construct several apartment complexes in Las Vegas, Nevada with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, inter alia, steps into the individual units, inaccessible kitchens and bathrooms, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and inaccessible public and common use areas.
Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants are required to pay nearly $2 million to make retrofits to the apartment complexes, compensate aggrieved persons, and establish a retrofit fund. Specifically the defendants must: (1) pay approximately $1.7 million to make retrofits to the public and common use areas and individual units at the apartment complexes; (2) pay $25,000 to compensate aggrieved individuals; (3) pay $247,500 to establish an accessibility fund which will be used to provide grants to persons with disabilities who live in Las Vegas to assist them in making retrofits to their homes. The architect who designed the apartment complexes is paying $175,000 of the $247,500 accessibility fund. Additionally, over the next five years, the architect is required to provide technical assistance to non-profit groups in the Las Vegas area which provide assistance in housing to persons with disabilities.
On March 9, 2004, the Court entered a Settlement Agreement and Order in United States v. Camp Riverview (W.D. Tex.), a Title II case, filed on October 21, 2002, alleging discrimination against Hispanic campers based on national origin and color at the campground in Concan, Texas. The Division's investigation revealed that the campground and its owners, Jimmy Meyer and Suzanne Meyer, engaged in a pattern of evicting Hispanic campers and charging them double for the use of campground sites. The order contains injunctive relief prohibiting future discrimination and requiring the campground to adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures, maintain records on campers who are evicted, and maintain signage in public areas notifying campers of procedures to follow if they believe they are the victims of discrimination. The order will remain in effect for two years.
The case was initially referred to the Division by the Corpus Christi Human Relations Department.
On September 12, 2002, the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho filed a consent decree resolving United States v. Canal Street Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on March 16, 2001, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of handicap in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the 24 ground floor units and the public and common use areas in the Canal Street Apartments in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires the defendants to: retrofit the ground floor units and public and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, submit to periodic inspections and record-keeping, pay $3,300.00 in monetary damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, $5,000.00 to the Accessibility Improvement Program ("AIP") of the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to promote handicap accessible housing construction and Fair Housing in the Boise, Idaho and Ada County area and a $6,500.00 civil penalty. The five-year consent order also requires the defendants to notify the Division if they again design or construct multifamily dwellings and to provide a written statement from any architect involved with the project that the plans include design specifications that comply with the requirements of the Act and the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines.The complaint was originally filed by the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigated a complaint filed by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council and issued a charge of discrimination.
On October 17, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Candlelight Manor Condominium Association, No. 1:03-CV-248 (W.D. Mich.). The complaint alleged that the condominium association discriminated on the basis of familial status against a family with a child by forcing them to move out of a three-bedroom manufactured home pursuant to a condominium rule that permitted no more than three persons to occupy a unit. After the family moved into a new mobile home in the development, the Association board members told them that if they had a second child, they would be required to move out of that unit within one year. The Consent Decree enjoins the Association from discriminating on the basis of familial status and requires it to follow revised occupancy standards which shall not be more restrictive than those imposed by the City of Holland, the County of Allegan or the State of Michigan. The Decree also provides for notification to the public of the Association's nondiscrimination policy, record-keeping and reporting. Damages for the family have been resolved as part of a settlement of a state court lawsuit they filed. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.
The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
The case was litigated primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
United States v. Candy II, d/b/a Eve (E.D. Wis.)
1/5/07
On December 29, 2006, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Candy II, dba Eve (E.D. Wis.) a Title II case. The complaint, which was filed on December 29, 2005, alleged that the defendant told African-Americans, but not similarly-situated whites, that the nightclub was full or was being used for a private party, when that was not the case. Pursuant to the consent decree, Eve, a nightclub in Milwaukee, will adopt new entry procedures designed to prevent racial discrimination, and will pay for periodic testing to assure that discrimination does not continue and requires Eve to post a prominent sign at the entries advising that Eve does not discriminate on the basis of race or color. In addition, Eve is required to train its managers, to send periodic reports to the Division and to adopt an objective dress code approved by the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.
On April 5, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Carter (M.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status. The defendants own and operate several apartment properties in and around Sylvester, Georgia. The consent decree requires the defendants to: adopt uniform, non-discriminatory standards, policies and procedures; provide training for employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; maintain records and submit bi-annual reports to the Division, and pay a $9,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and three months.
This case was developed through the Division's testing program.
On August 17, 2004, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Carteret Terrace LLC (D.N.J.). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct 60 covered units and the public and common use areas at the Meridian Square apartment complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged that this failure constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination.
The Consent Decree requires the Defendant, Carteret Terrace, to retrofit the apartment complex so that the interiors of each ground floor unit and the common and public areas will be accessible to people using wheelchairs and establish a fund in the amount of $45,000 to be used to compensate other possible victims who may later be identified. The Defendant architect, Feinberg & Associates, will pay $5,000 in damages to Alliance for the Disabled, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3½ years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Cedar Builders, Inc., et al. (E.D. Wash.)
On September 14, 2005, the United States filed a Complaint and the parties' Consent Decree in United States v. Cedar Builders, Inc., et al. (E.D. Wash.), Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging that the defendant developers and architect failed to build multifamily housing in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendant developers failed to build the public accommodations portions of the properties in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the agreement, the defendants will pay up to $500,000 to individuals who were harmed by the lack of accessible features at the properties. The balance of the fund, if any, will be used to provide accessible housing in the community. The agreement also provides for the retrofitting of more than 700 ground floor units at 10 properties, a $25,000 civil penalty, and a $15,000 fund for accessibility training for local designers and developers of multifamily housing. In addition, the agreement enjoins the defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act, enjoins the developer defendants from violating the ADA, and provides for fair housing training for supervisory employees with design and construction responsibilities.
United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.)10/13/06
On October 13, 2006, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act/Fair Housing Act case which alleges discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The Bank is one of the largest residential and small business lenders in the Gary, Indiana, metropolitan area, one of the most racially segregated areas of the country. The complaint alleges Centier Bank has engaged avoided serving the lending and credit needs of majority minority neighborhoods, most of which are located in the cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond.The proposed consent order requires the Bank to: invest a minimum of $3.5 million in special financing program for residential and CRA small business loans; commit at least $375,000 in targeted advertising; invest $500,00 to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, business planning, and other related educational programs targeted at the residents and small businesses of African-American and Hispanic areas and sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work; open or acquire at least two full service offices within designated African - American neighborhoods; expand an existing supermarket branch in a majority Hispanic neighborhood to provide full lending services; provide the same services offered at its majority white suburban locations to all branches regardless of their location; train employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opporunity Act; and require record-keeping and reports to United States as well as other remedial relief. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.
On March 16, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants made statements to a tenant indicating a preference or discrimination because of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This election case was referred to us by HUD after the complainant, elected to proceed in federal court.
The evidence shows that the defendant landlords harassed and ultimately evicted the complainant, who is white, from her apartment because African American friends assisted her in her move into the unit.
The victim received $8,000 as part of the consent order, which also included injunctive relief and a note of apology from the defendants.
On May 11, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a consent order in United States v. Chandler Gardens Realty, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.) The complaint, which was filed January 21, 2003, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of four four-unit rental properties in Worcester, Massachusetts, refused to rent an apartment to a woman and her four-year old son because children "did not get on well at the complex." The Housing Discrimination Project, a fair housing group in Holyoke, Massachusetts conducted several tests at the property. The property manager allegedly stated that she could not rent to families with children because the property had not been deleaded.
The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $18,000 in damages to the complainant, be enjoined from discriminating against families with children; display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in future advertising, and pay for their property manager to attend fair housing training. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Chateau Village Apartments, et al. (N.D. Ill.)
On April 19, 2005, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Chateau Village Apartments, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that the owners of an apartment building in Carol Stream, Illinois refused to make a reasonable accommodation to allow the HUD complainant to move from a one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit (which had fewer steps and had more room for her therapeutic equipment), even though she had obtained a Section 8 voucher for a two-bedroom unit. Because of this refusal, the complainant allegedly was forced to move out. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay $33,000 to the Wendy Walsh Special Needs Trust and $4,500 to HOPE Fair Housing Center; adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and to obtain fair housing training. The decree will remain in effect for three years.
On May 24, 2002, the United States filed a consent agreement with the Court resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. Cherrywood Associates, LP, et al., CIV-00-0724-S-BLW (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on December 15, 2000, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they refused to permit a family of four to apply for an available, two bedroom unit because the family was expecting a third child. The family had a two year old boy and a one year old girl and the management prohibited children of different genders from sharing bedrooms, regardless of their ages. The defendants will pay the family $6,250 in damages, will modify their occupancy policy to be non-discriminatory, and comply with the Fair Housing Act. The Court entered the consent order on June 24, 2002.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
In our complaint we alleged that the bank refused to market loans in predominantly African American neighborhoods because of the racial identity of those neighborhoods. Under the agreement we reached with the bank, it agreed to pay $11 million to the neglected areas through a special loan program and through efforts to service those neighborhoods.
On September 13, 2004, the Court entered the consent order in United States & Wardiani v. Chlypniacz, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on May 7, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owners of a six-unit rental property in Chicago, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status by stating that they would not rent an apartment to complainants Phyllis and Belal Wardiani because they had three children. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $30,000 to the Wardianis, attend fair housing training and submit to standard advertising, record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.
The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois.
On November 18, 1997, the United States filed this complaint after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Choice Property Consultants, a private rental agency and its president, limited prospective applicants of rental properties based on the race, national origin, and familial status preferences of a landlord. The United States also added a claim that the defendants conduct, such as vacancy reports provided to the defendants' employees were coded to reflect those landlords who would not rent to African Americans, Hispanics, or to families with children was a pattern or practice of housing discrimination.
On May 7, 1999, the defendants agreed to a consent decree, which required them to provide fair housing training to their employees and agents; undertake affirmative marketing measures; and comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements. In addition, the complainant, a private fair housing organization, received $30,000 in compensatory damages.
This is a fair housing case referred to us from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of race. The United States alleged, in our complaint that the defendant refused to rent a house to the complainant and her five children because two of the children were bi-racial (black/white). The terms of the consent order include the payment of $9,000.00 to the complainant and her children as well as training and reporting requirements for the defendant.
On January 11, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States, et al. v. City of Agawam, et al. (D. Mass.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint, filed on August 13, 2002, alleged that the City of Agawam, Massachusetts discriminated against a group of Black and Hispanic migrant farm workers when it rejected a plan to build a residence for twenty-seven farm workers in the City. The consent order requires the City to pay $250,000 in damages to the farm workers and their employer, in addition to a $10,000 civil penalty. The City will also issue a building permit for the housing, conduct fair housing training for city employees, and modify its zoning code to allow farm worker housing on agricultural property.
United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.)
3/13/08
On March 13, 2008, the Court issued a ruling and injunction in United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act case in which the Division alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed in 2006, alleged that a zoning ordinance passed by the City in 2002 and amended in 2003 excluded housing for persons recovering from alcohol or drug dependency from residential zones and unreasonably restricted their operation in commercial zones, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Court enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance against licensed "substance abuse treatment facilities" operating separate group homes in residential areas. The Court ruled that the ordinance did not violate the FHA by restricting "intensive inpatient facilities" and declined to award damages.
On March 21, 2005, the the Court approved and entered a consent order in United States v. City of Blakely Housing Authority, et al. (M.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on June 10, 2002, alleged that the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by maintaining racially segregated public housing and harassing African-American tenants. The complaint alleged that the Housing Authority advanced white applicants for public housing over black applicants on the waiting list, and placed and maintained single white tenants without children in two-bedroom apartments in Cedar Hill Homes II, a public housing complex, even though single tenants with no children were entitled under Housing Authority regulations to no more than a one bedroom or studio apartment. As a result several two-bedroom apartments were made unavailable to African-American families with children. The complaint also alleged that in its four other complexes, the Housing Authority rented to African-American tenants on less favorable terms than white tenants; failed to protect African-American tenants from racial harassment; and retaliated against those African-American tenants who exercised their rights under the Fair Housing Act.
The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $252,500 in compensatory damages, train employees on fair housing law, and establish new admissions policies and procedures to ensure that applicants are treated in a non-discriminatory manner. Additionally, the executive director of the Blakely Housing Authority shall resign under the terms of the decree.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) referred this matter to the Division after the Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity determined after an investigation that the Authority had engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination and notified HUD of its findings.
The consent order will remain in effect for four years.
In this case, the United States allege that the city's decision not to issue a permit to a mental health services provider to operate a residence for persons with mental illness was based on the disability of the prospective residents. The complaint also claims the city's action constitutes a failure to make a reasonable accommodation as required by the Fair Housing Act.
On March 21, 2001, the court granted partial summary judgment for the United States holding that the city failed to reasonably accommodate the providers request for a waiver of the spacing requirement, which the city had invoked to deny the provider a building permit, and the court, and the court enjoined the city from stopping construction of the group home. The court also held that portions of a newly enacted zoning code regulating group homes contained facially discriminatory provisions and enjoined the city from enforcing those provisions.
On January 16, 1990, we reached a settlement agreement in which the City of Chicago Heights paid Thresholds Inc. $122,878.00 in resolution of the government's remaining claim of damages on behalf of Thresholds. And, the city amended its 1998 zoning ordinance to remove the provisions regarding group homes and reverted back to the group home provisions of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance, thereby making moot the government's other remaining claim that it had intentionally made it more difficult for group homes to locate in Chicago Heights.
2/7/07On January 23, 2007, the United States filed a proposed settlement agreement in United States v. City & County of Honolulu, et al. (D. Haw.), resolving the individual claims of Chester Kobylanski, who filed a complaint with HUD after he fell and broke his hip while walking over a curb without a ramp in West Loch Village. The original complaint, filed on February 22, 2005, alleged the City and County of Honolulu and three private design and construction firms discriminated on the basis of disability when they failed to build 75 ground floor units at West Loch Village, an apartment complex in Honolulu, Hawaii in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. The defendants will pay Mr. Kobylanski $150,000 in damages.
On January 24, 2007, the Division filed a proposed partial consent order resolving the pattern or practice design and construction portion of this case. Under the terms of the partial consent order, which must still be approved by the Court, the defendants – the City and County of Honolulu; Mecon Hawaii Limited; Yamasato, Fujiwara, Higa & Associates, Inc.; Hawaii Affordable Properties, Inc; and R.M. Towill Corp. – will pay for the retrofitting of the apartment complex. The defendants must also establish a $75,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The settlement also requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.
On April 28, 2000, the United States filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act against the City of Fairview Heights. Fairview Heights, a small city in southern Illinois near St. Louis, Missouri had denied a permit to build an apartment complex. The developer, who is African American, filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) who referred the matter to the Division. The United States alleges that the city acted out of fear that the complex would bring African American tenants into the city and/or to appease local residents who opposed the project based on such fears at a series of public hearings.
On October 14, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. City of Hanford (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2004, alleges the denial of a reasonable accommodation to the residents of a group home for persons with disabilities. The Consent Decree requires the city to allow the continued operation of the home in a single-family residential district; enjoins the city from further discrimination; incorporates a city ordinance setting forth procedures by which persons with disabilities may apply for reasonable accommodations and provides for a total of $55,000 in compensatory damages for current and former residents of the home. The consent decree will remain in effect for 5 years.
The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).