Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Union Savings Bank and Guardian Savings Bank (S.D. Ohio)
On January 3, 2017, the court entered a consent order in the United States v. Union Savings Bank and Guardian Savings Bank (S.D. Ohio), a case alleging that two related banks engaged in redlining majority-black neighborhoods in the Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus, Ohio, as well as the Indianapolis, Indiana metropolitan statistical areas between at least 2010 and 2014 in their residential real estate lending businesses. The complaint, which was filed on December 28, 2016, alleged that the banks: located their branches to avoid serving majority-black neighborhoods; trained and incentivized their loan officers to focus their activities in predominantly white neighborhoods; failed to effectively market their mortgage products to majority-black neighborhoods; and knew of, but failed to address, the significant disparities in their lending that resulted. The consent order requires the banks to invest at least $7 million in a loan subsidy fund and open two full-service branches and a loan production office in majority-black census tracts. In addition, the settlement requires that the banks invest $2 million in advertising, outreach, financial education and community partnership efforts, increase fair lending monitoring and fair lending training for its employees.
United States v. Webster AV Management, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)
On December 13, 2018, the court entered a stipulation of settlement and dismissal resolving the allegations in United States v. Webster AV Management LLC (formerly United States v. Strulovitch) (S.D.N.Y.). Under the settlement, Webster has agreed to make retrofits to Riverdale Parc in the Bronx, NY and Bluestone Commons in Maybrook, NY, which together contain more than 120 apartments, to make the exteriors and interiors of those apartments more accessible to individuals with disabilities. In addition, Webster has agreed to pay at least $37,500 and up to $105,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, to assist the U.S. Attorney’s Office with identifying aggrieved persons, and to pay $37,500 in civil penalties. The complaint, which the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed on December 23, 2016, alleged that Webster violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the two apartment complexes so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Previously, on January 26, 2017, the United States obtained a court-ordered preliminary injunction on consent in this lawsuit that required Webster to ensure accessibility at two other rental complexes currently under development in the Bronx. It also provided that the defendant retain a Fair Housing Act (FHA) compliance reviewer to review design documents for buildings that are currently under construction by the defendant and/or entities related to the defendant, and to inspect the as-built features at the buildings under construction to ensure that the designs and as built features comply with the FHA design and construction requirements.
Press Release (12/23/16)
Press Release (12/13/18)
United States v. City of Jacksonville (M.D. Fla.)
On June 29, 2017, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Jacksonville (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed by the United States and the United States Attorney's Office on December 20, 2016, alleged that the City of Jacksonville violated the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to allow the development of housing for individuals with disabilities in its Springfield neighborhood. In 2014, Ability Housing, Inc., a non-profit affordable housing provider, was awarded a $1.35 million grant to revitalize a 12-unit apartment building and create “permanent supportive housing” for “chronically homeless” individuals in the City who, by definition, have at least one disability. The complaint alleged that the City had previously certified that this use was consistent with the City’s zoning code, but the City reversed itself in response to intense community pressure based on stereotypes about prospective residents with disabilities. The complaint alleged that as a result, Ability Housing lost the grant and the property. The complaint also alleged that the City retaliated against Ability Housing when, in response to Ability Housing’s private FHA/ADA suit against the City, the City told a local nonprofit that it was prohibited from funding Ability Housing with money the nonprofit received from the City. As part of the City’s settlement with the department, the City has amended its zoning code to better comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including removing restrictions that apply to housing for persons with disabilities and implementing a reasonable accommodation policy. The City has also agreed to rescind the written interpretation that prevented Ability Housing from providing the housing at issue, designate a fair housing compliance officer, provide Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act training for City employees, and pay a $25,000 civil penalty to the government. In a separate settlement the City agreed to pay $400,000 to Ability Housing and $25,000 to Disability Rights Florida, an advocate for people with disabilities, and to establish a $1.5 million grant to develop permanent supportive housing in the City for people with disabilities.
United States v. County of Culpeper (W.D. Va.)
On December 12, 2016, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. County of Culpeper (W.D. Va.), alleging that the county violated RLUIPA when it denied a “pump and haul” sewage permit to the Islamic Center of Culpeper (ICC), effectively preventing the ICC from building a small mosque on land that it had contracted to purchase in the county. The complaint alleged that the County’s denial of the permit imposed a “substantial burden” on the Muslim congregation’s exercise of religion that was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. The complaint further alleged that the County discriminated against the ICC based on religion. On March 29, 2017, the court issued a memorandum opinion denying Culpeper County’s first motion to dismiss. On September 1, 2017, the court dismissed the United States’ lawsuit as moot after the County, pursuant to the settlement in a private lawsuit filed by the ICC, granted the needed permit to the ICC and took other steps to prevent future violations of RLUIPA.