Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. City of Jackson (S.D. Miss.)
On June 26, 2017, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Jackson (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2016, alleged that the city engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city enforced these restrictions against the operator of a group home, resulting in an order requiring the home to close and the residents to relocate. The consent decree requires the city to pay $100,000 to the owner of Urban Rehab, Inc., $35,000 to the department as a civil penalty, and $50,000 to a settlement fund that will compensate other victims. As part of the settlement, the city agreed to revise its zoning code to permit persons in recovery to reside in all residential zones and to ease other restrictions on group homes for people with disabilities. It will also adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, train city employees on the requirements of the FHA and ADA, appoint a Fair Housing Compliance Officer, and report periodically to the Justice Department.
United States v. Nistler (D. Mont) (Nistler II)
On September 30, 2016, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. Nistler (D. Mont) (Nistler II). The additional defendants in this complaint include: Gabriel Nistler, Sommer, Nistler, Ross W. Roylance, Patricia Roylance, Roylance & Nistler Properties, LLC, Werner-Nistler Properties, LLC, Derek Brown, and Derek Brown Consulting, Inc. This matter stems from our previous pattern or practice/election case (Nistler I) that alleged that defendants designed and constructed an eight-unit property in Helena, Montana without required accessible features. The complaint alleges that the defendants designed and constructed 31 additional properties in the Helena area, for a total of 64 covered units, without the required accessible features. The proposed consent order, which is subject to court approval, requires the defendants to pay $20,000 to establish a settlement fund, as well as make substantial retrofits. Those retrofits include replacing excessively sloped portions of sidewalks, installing properly sloped curb walkways to allow persons with disabilities to access units from sidewalks and parking areas, replacing cabinets in kitchens and toilets in bathrooms to provide sufficient room for wheelchair users, and reducing door threshold heights. The settlement also requires the defendants to construct 16 super-accessible units in Helena Montana.
United States v. Housing Authority of Bossier City (W.D. La.)
On September 30, 2016, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority of Bossier City (W.D. La.). The complaint alleges that the Housing Authority of Bossier City violated the Fair Housing Act by segregating elderly residents in its public housing complexes by race and segregating non-elderly residents in its public housing complexes due to disability. In the proposed consent decree, the Housing Authority agrees to injunctive relief and to pay $120,000 to compensate residents who were victims of discrimination.
United States v. Goss (M.D. Fla.)
On December 12, 2016, court entered a consent order in United States v. Goss (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case based on testing done by the Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program. The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2016, alleged that the defendants, the owner and managers of May Grove Village Mobile Home Park in Lakeland, Florida, violated the Fair Housing Act by, inter alia, falsely informing African Americans who inquired about purchasing a mobile home in the park that no or few units were available for sale, while contemporaneously showing and offering more available mobile homes to similarly-situated white persons. The complaint also alleged that the defendants quoted prospective African American purchasers higher prices and worse financial terms than similarly situated white purchasers. The consent order requires the defendants to adopt a non-discrimination policy, attend training, and pay $35,000 in civil penalties.
United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
On October 4, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on September 29, 2016, alleged that Wells Fargo repossessed over 400 motor vehicles between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2015 from protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders, in violation of SCRA Section 3952. The consent order requires Wells to provide over $4 million in compensation to the victims of illegal repossessions, remove the repossessions from their credit reports, pay a $60,000 civil penalty and institute new procedures that will prevent unlawful repossessions in the future.
United States v. Kormanik (W.D. Pa.)
On October 3, 2016, the ourt entered a consent order in United States v. Kormanik (W.D. Pa.). The pattern or practice complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2016, alleges that Robert Kormanik, the rental manager for Kinamrok Apartments, and Kinamrok Inc., the corporate entity that owns the complex, discriminated against families with children by prohibiting them from renting one- and two-bedroom units in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The department’s testing revealed that Kormanik told testers children were not allowed in one-bedroom units. He also refused to inform testers about available two-bedroom units until the testers assured him that no children would reside there. Under the terms of the consent order Kormanik and Kinamrok will establish a settlement fund of $20,000 to compensate victims of their alleged discriminatory practices. The defendants will also pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent order prohibits the defendants from engaging in further acts of discrimination and requires them to implement a non-discrimination policy and submit reports to the United States. Kormanik and any other employee involved in the management of, or the rental of units at, Kinamrok Apartments must also receive training on the Fair Housing Act. The allegations were based on evidence generated by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Unit.
United States v. Charter Bank (S.D. Tex.)
On September 28, 2016, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Charter Bank (S.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that from 2009 to 2014, the bank discriminated on the basis of national origin in the pricing of vehicle-secured consumer loans to Hispanic consumers, in violation of the Equal Credit and Opportunity Act (ECOA). A vehicle-secured loan allows a customer to borrow from the bank by tapping the equity in a car the customer already owns. The consent order requires the bank to maintain uniform pricing policies and procedures, monitor its loans for potential disparities based on national origin, and provide fair lending training to its employees. The bank will also pay $165,820 to affected borrowers. This matter was referred by the FDIC. The court entered the consent order on October 12, 2016.
United States v. Jarrah; aka Yurman (S.D. Tex.)
On February 1, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Jarrah (S.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2016, alleged that the owner and operator of the Houston-based sports bar 360 Midtown (formerly d/b/a Gaslamp) implemented discriminatory admission practices to discourage and/or deny African American, Hispanic and Asian-American prospective patrons entrance. The complaint further alleged that Defendant Jarrah used racial slurs when explicitly instructing employees to exclude African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American patrons from the bar. Under the settlement agreement, defendants are required to comply with Title II; implement a system for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; and conduct monitoring to ensure that 360 Midtown’s employees act in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.
United States v. NALS Apartment Homes (D. Utah)
On September 28, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. NALS Apartment Homes, LLC (D. Utah). The Fair Housing Act election complaint, which was filed on September 26, 2016, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by denying the reasonable accommodation requests of certain tenants with disabilities who sought to live with their assistance animals. The defendants, located in the Salt Lake City area, include the property management company NALS Apartment Homes; the owners of Pinnacle Highland Apartments, Cobble Creek Apartments and Sky Harbor Apartments; and the former owners of Thornhill Park Apartments. The United States’ complaint alleges that the defendants required certain tenants with disabilities who sought to live with an assistance animal to have a healthcare provider complete a “prescription form” suggesting that the healthcare provider may be held responsible for any property damage or physical injury that the assistance animal may cause. The defendants did not require tenants without disabilities who had pets to have a third party assume liability for their animals. Under the terms of the consent order the defendants are required to pay $20,000 to a former tenant and her seven-year-old son with autism who were denied permission to keep the child’s assistance animal after the child’s doctor refused to sign a form suggesting he could be liable for damages caused by the animal. The defendants are also required to pay $25,000 to establish a settlement fund to compensate any additional individuals who were harmed by their conduct. The settlement also prohibits the defendants from engaging in future discrimination and requires them to establish a non-discriminatory reasonable accommodation policy, use non-discriminatory reasonable accommodation application forms and have the relevant employees participate in fair-housing training. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints from both former tenants and Utah’s Disability Law Center (DLC), conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Ginsburg Development, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)
On April 12, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Ginsburg Development, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2016, by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to design and construct two properties in Rockland County so that they were accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, Ginsburg Development agreed to make retrofits to two apartment complexes in Haverstraw, New York, the Riverside and the Parkside, which together contain more than 200 rental units, in order to make them more accessible to individuals with disabilities. Ginsburg Development also committed to establish procedures to ensure that its future residential development projects will comply with the accessibility requirements of the FHA. Additionally, the settlement required Ginsburg Development to provide up to $125,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, and to pay a civil penalty of $50,000. Previously, on September 28, 2016, the United States obtained in this lawsuit a court-ordered preliminary injunction on consent that required Ginsburg Development to ensure accessibility at four Westchester rental complexes then under development – Saw Mill Lofts in Hastings-on-Hudson, Harbor Square Crossings in Ossining, and River Tides and 1177 Warburton Avenue in Yonkers.
United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
On September 9, 2016, the United States Attorneys Office for the Middle District of Florida filed a complaint in United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act election referral. The complaint alleges that the bank discriminated on the basis of sex and familial status by requiring two women on maternity leave to return to work before closing on a loan, which caused them to shorten their maternity leave. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination
United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
On October 12, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act election referral. The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2016, alleged that the bank discriminated on the basis of familial status by requiring two women on maternity leave each to return to work before closing on a loan, which caused each of them to shorten their respective maternity leave. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendant shall pay the HUD complainants a total of $45,000, implement non-discriminatory policies and practices and obtain fair lending training for officials and employees. The defendant shall not require that an applicant on maternity or paternity leave have to physically returned to work before a loan can close and comply with monitoring of the policy. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.