Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. ESSA Bank (E.D. Pa.)
On June 9, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. ESSA Bank & Trust (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on May 31, 2023, alleged that ESSA violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area by avoiding providing mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and discouraging prospective applicants from those neighborhoods from applying for credit. The consent order requires ESSA to: (1) invest at least $2.92 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; (2) spend an additional $125,000 on community partnerships and $250,000 on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in majority-Black and Hispanic communities; (3) hire two new mortgage loan officers to serve its existing branches in West Philadelphia; and (4) conduct a research-based market study to help identify the needs for financial services in communities of color.
Press Release (May 31, 2023)
United States v. Timothy Britton (W.D. Pa.)
On May 19, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Timothy Britton, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that Timothy Britton discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing female tenants since at least 2016. The complaint alleges that Mr. Britton made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, touched female tenants’ bodies without their permission, requested sexual contact, offered reduced or free rent in exchange for sexual contact, and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint also names as a defendant Britton Enterprises, LLC, which operates the rental properties where the harassment occurred. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendants’ conduct, a civil penalty from the defendants to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
Press Release – (5/19/2023)
United States v. Abraham Kesary (C. D. Cal.)
On September 29, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Abraham Kesary, et al. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on May 11, 2023, alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because Mr. Kesary, a property manager, sexually harassed female tenants since at least 2012. The complaint also named the owner of the property where the harassment occurred, M&F Development, LLC (M&F) as a defendant in the case. The consent order requires that M&F pay $120,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. In addition, the consent order prohibits Mr. Kesary from managing rental housing and requires M&F to retain an independent property manager to manage its rental property, obtain fair housing training, and implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at the property in the future.
Press Release - 9/29/2023
Press Release - 5/12/2023
Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.)
On May 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The complaint in the case alleges that the City of Santa Ana substantially burdened Micah’s Way’s religious exercise when it refused to grant a certificate of occupancy to allow Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that provides services to persons that are homeless, to provide food and drinks to its clients in accordance with its religious beliefs. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that feeding persons who are homeless is not religious exercise and that it did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The United States’ Statement of Interest responds to the City’s contentions and explains that feeding persons who are homeless may be religious exercise under RLUIPA and that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the City’s denial of its certificate of occupancy and threats of fines and criminal prosecution had substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.
On June 8, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding, inter alia, that feeding the homeless can be religious exercise for the purposes of RLUIPA and that prohibiting a religious organization from helping those in need could violate RULIPA’s substantial burden provision.