Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Riexinger (E.D. Wash.)
On April 12, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Riexinger (E.D. Wash.) a pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, which was filed on October 31, 2016, alleged that the defendants, Keith Riexinger, Tamra Riexinger and Riexenger Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Crossroads Construction violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they failed to design and construct the Ashlynn Estates, a three building dormitory style property three building dormitory style properties near Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington, in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. The settlement agreement requires defendants to retrofit the three buildings to make them accessible, pay $10,000 in damages to the complainant, the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance, adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and attend training on the Fair Housing Act. 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.
Fortune Society Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corp. et al. ( E.D.N.Y.)
On October 18, 2016, the Division filed a statement of interest in Fortune Society, Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corp. (E.D.N.Y.). The case was brought by an organization that helps formerly incarcerated individuals find housing challenging the practices of an affordable rental apartment complex with 917 units in Far Rockaway, Queens. The statement of interest aims to assist the court in evaluating whether a housing provider’s policy that considers criminal records in an application process produces unlawful discriminatory effects in violation of the FHA. Although the FHA does not forbid housing providers from considering applicants’ criminal records, the brief explains that “categorical prohibitions that do not consider when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then run a substantial risk of having a disparate impact based on race or national origin.” The brief also explains that when a housing provider has a criminal record check policy with a disparate impact, the housing provider must “prove with evidence – and not just by invoking generalized concerns about safety – that the ban is necessary.” Even then, the policy will still violate the FHA if there is a less discriminatory alternative.
United States & Poeschel v. Garden Grove, LLC (D. Minn.)
On September 12, 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States & Poeschel v. Garden Grove, LLC (D. Minn.). The complaint in this HUD election case, which was filed on October 13, 2016, alleges that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in New Brighton, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow plaintiff-intervenor Jane Poeschel to keep an emotional assistance dog. Under the settlement agreement, the defendants agree to pay Ms. Poeschel $30,000 in damages and attorney’s fees and to adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy.