Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill.)
On December 5, 2023, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois entered a permanent injunction against the City of Springfield, Illinois, prohibiting it from enforcing a local spacing ordinance that bans people with disabilities from living in homes within 600 feet of one another if the home has five or fewer residents. The court also awarded the United States $61,982.50 in civil penalties against the city for violating the Fair Housing Act. In awarding civil penalties against the city, the court recognized that the city’s attempts to close the home and its restrictive zoning ordinance impeded the integration of people with disabilities from institutions into the community, a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C. As the court explained, the civil penalty award against the City of Springfield will “make clear to municipalities that these facially discriminatory spacing rules may not be used to hinder the trend of shifting persons with disabilities from institutions to community-based residences.” The court further permanently enjoined the city from taking any action against the owners or residents of the home, ordered the city to undergo fair housing training and awarded $53,654,50 in prejudgment interest on the jury’s damages award to IAG.
On July 26, 2022, a federal jury had awarded $293,000 in damages against the City of Springfield, Illinois, for attempting to close down a small home for three persons with developmental disabilities in 2016. The jury trial was to determine what damages should be awarded for any harm caused by the City’s conduct, and the jury determined that the City should pay a total of $293,000: $162,000 in compensatory damages to the residents of the home and their guardians, and $131,000 in compensatory damages to Individual Advocacy Group (IAG), the state-licensed provider of community residential services at the home. The United States filed its complaint against the City of Springfield in 2017, alleging that the City had discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In 2020, the court entered judgment against the City, holding that the City had violated the FHA by enforcing an ordinance requiring that homes for persons with disabilities, known as Community Integrated Living Arrangements, or “CILAs,” be spaced at least 600 feet apart in the city, granting the United States’ and IAG’s motions for summary judgment on liability. In that ruling, the court held that Springfield engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, by imposing the rule on homes of five or fewer persons with disabilities, but not on comparable homes of non-disabled persons. The court also held that by maintaining and enforcing this ordinance, Springfield denied rights under the FHA to a group of persons and that “the availability of community-based housing for persons with disabilities is most assuredly an ‘issue of general public importance.’” The court further held that Springfield violated the FHA by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for the home with three residents with intellectual and physical disabilities to stay in their home and ordered Springfield to submit a remedial plan to cure all these violations of the FHA. The district court had granted IAG a preliminary injunction in 2017 to prevent the City from shutting down the home, a decision that was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States had participated as amicus in that appeal.
United States v. Irvin (W.D. Okla.)
On August 10, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Irvin (W.D. Okla.), a Fair Housing Act HUD election case that alleged discrimination based on disability. The complaint, which was filed on November 16, 2017, alleged that Christine Irvin, who owns and manages Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, denied the HUD complainant's request for a reasonable accommodation to the park’s "small dog" policy for an emotional support animal. The complaint also alleged that the defendant retaliated by serving a notice of eviction on the complainant after she made a complaint of housing discrimination to HUD. The settlement agreement requires the defendant to pay $50,000 in damages, participate in Fair Housing Act training, and implement a reasonable accommodation policy. 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. Westview Park Apartments, L.P. (D. Minn.)
On April 6, 2018, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement resolving the allegations in United States v. Westview Park Apartments, L.P. (D. Minn.). The complaint in this election case, which was filed on November 15, 2017, alleges that the owners and property managers of an apartment complex in West St. Paul, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow a veteran with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to live with his emotional assistance dog. Additional defendants include: James Tilsen, Tilsenbilt Homes, LLC and Deborah Brookins. The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $15,000 to the tenant, adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy, conduct fair housing training, and report to the United States on future denials of requests for assistance animals. 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. Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, d/b/a Park City Communities (D. Conn.)
On November 5, 2019, the Court entered a consent order fully resolving the United States’ claims in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, d/b/a Park City Communities (D. Conn.). The complaint, filed on November 15, 2017, and based on a referral from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleged that the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by systematically mishandling and failing to fulfill requests for reasonable accommodations. It also alleged that the Housing Authority failed to meet its community’s need for accessible units many years after federal regulations and a voluntary compliance agreement with HUD required it to do so. The consent order requires the Housing Authority to institute broad reforms to safeguard the rights of individuals with disabilities, including revising its policies and processes for handling reasonable accommodation requests and developing an inventory of accessible units for tenants with mobility, vision, and hearing-related disabilities. The settlement also requires HACB to pay $1,500,000 to those hurt by its discriminatory practices and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States.
United States v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (W.D. Wash.)
On September 26, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving the allegations in United States v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (W.D. Wash.). The complaint, which was filed on November 9, 2017, and amended on January 8, 2018, alleged that a company that provided foreclosure services to mortgage lenders in the Western United States violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by foreclosing on 28 homes owned by protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. The settlement agreement requires Northwest Trustee, which has gone out of business and is in state receivership proceedings, to pay up to $750,000 to the aggrieved servicemembers.