Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. DeRaffele (D. Mass.)
On October 27, 2017, the jury returned a verdict of $43,500 in favor of the United States in United States v. DeRaffele (D. Mass.), a pattern or practice/election Fair Housing Act case. The complaint, which was filed on May 31, 2016 and amended on October 24, 2016, alleged that the owner of a four-unit rental property in Springfield, Massachusetts violated the Fair Housing Act when he refused to rent an apartment to the HUD complainants because they had children under six years old and the units had no lead certificate. The jury found that the defendant made an apartment unavailable to the HUD complainants based in substantial part on their familial status. The jury also found that the defendant retaliated against them by filing a lawsuit against them after they filed their HUD complaint. The jury awarded the HUD complainants $8,500. The jury also found that the United States had proven a pattern or practice of discrimination and stated that the defendant should pay $35,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. 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.
U.S. v. Glenwood Management Corp (S.D.N.Y.)
On February 11, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Glenwood Management Corp. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on February 3, 2016, against Glenwood Management Corporation, Liberty Street Realty, L.L.C., and Stephen B. Jacobs Group, P.C., alleged these defendants failed to design and construct Liberty Plaza, an apartment building at 10 Liberty Street, New York, New York, and eight other residential properties in New York City in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements. The partial consent order resolves the claims against developers Glenwood Management Corporation and Liberty Street Realty, L.L.C. This decree requires the developers, Glenwood Management Corporation and Liberty Street Realty, L.L.C., to perform retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and in the dwelling units of Liberty Plaza, and conduct compliance audits and formulate proposals for any retrofits needed at eight other properties. The decree also requires the developers to pay at least $440,000, and up to $900,000, to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices, as well as a civil penalty of $50,000.
On May 18, 2016, the court entered a second consent order in this case resolving the remaining claims against architect Stephen B. Jacobs Group, P.C. In it, the architect specifically acknowledges providing design services for Liberty Plaza and that, as built, certain features did not satisfy HUD’s accessibility guidelines. This decree requires the architect to pay $15,000 to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices, as well as a civil penalty of $25,000.