Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v Dana Christian and Yellowstone Apartments, LLC
On July 15, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Yellowstone Apartments, LLC (D. Mont.). The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of two apartment buildings in Livingston, Montana violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, by taking steps to evict the complainant after she complained that the property manager had behaved inappropriately with her daughter. The proposed consent order, which must be approved by the court, requires the defendants to obtain fair housing training, adopt a nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, submit to reporting requirements, and have no contact with the complainant. The order also refers to a separate settlement and release between the complainant and defendants that includes a payment of $25,000 in damages to the complainant. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Town of Franklinton, Louisiana (E.D. La.)
On June 28, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Town of Franklinton (E.D. La.). The complaint, which was filed on June 27, 2024, alleged that the Town of Franklinton discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when it obstructed, delayed, and denied zoning for a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing development that would have disproportionately served Black residents and would have been built in a predominantly white neighborhood. The consent decree requires the Town of Franklinton to pay $205,000 in damages to developers and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States, facilitate the development of new affordable housing to replace the units that the town previously blocked, amend its zoning ordinance and policies, and support the development of affordable housing by rezoning land to multi-family use and establishing a land donation program.
United States v. Toll Brothers, Inc. (S.D. N.Y.)
On June 18, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Fair Housing Act election/pattern or practice complaint alleging that several Toll Brothers-related entities and others discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with required accessibility features.
United States v. Methuselah Tree, LLC, et al. (D. Me.)
On June 3, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Methuselah Tree, LLC, et al. (D. Me.) alleging that a property manager and maintenance worker discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that Robert Ross and Brian Bennett sexually harassed a female tenant at two properties where she lived. The complaint also names as defendants the owners and management company of the properties. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. City of Anoka, Minnesota (D. Minn)
On June 4, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Anoka, Minnesota (D. Minn). The complaint, which was filed on May 21, 2024, alleged that defendant violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act by enforcing its “crime free” housing ordinance in a manner that denies tenants with mental health disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from emergency response services. The complaint alleged that calls related to medical emergencies could be flagged as a “nuisance,” and tenants with mental health disabilities and those associated with them were deterred from calling for emergency help and faced the threat of eviction, fines, or loss of the landlord’s rental license. The complaint further alleged defendant improperly disclosed confidential medical information to all landlords relating to calls for emergency services. The consent decree requires defendant to revise its program rules and enforcement practices; adopt non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures; notify landlords and tenants of changes to the program; designate an ADA compliance coordinator; train staff; and pay $175,000 to compensate harmed individuals. The complaint and consent decree follow a letter of findings that the United States issued on November 7, 2023.
United States v. Butters (D. Colo.)
On June 6, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Butters (D. Colo.). The complaint, which was filed on June 5, 2024, alleges that defendant property manager Kathryn Butters discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a husband and wife and their two minor children. Butters Investments, LLC is also named as a defendant in the case. The consent order permanently enjoins Kathryn Butters from serving as a property manager and requires the defendants to pay $300,000 in monetary damages to the complainant family. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Press Release (6/10/2024)
United States v. East Hampton Housing Authority, et al. (E.D.N.Y.)
United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.)
On May 8, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 26 motor vehicles leased or owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. The proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendant to develop policies and procedures for motor vehicle possessions that comply with the SCRA; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; pay $10,000 plus any lost equity and provide credit repair to affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $74,941.
Press Release 5/9/24
United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.)
On May 2, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2022, alleged that Dennis Parker, the on-site manager of a 19-unit rooming house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing a male tenant because of the tenant’s sex, including the tenant’s sexual orientation, and because of the tenant’s disability. The complaint alleges that Defendant Parker engaged in verbal and virtual harassment, as well as one instance of punching the tenant in the groin and threatening to evict him in retaliation for reporting the harassment to the police. The complaint also named as defendants Leaf Property Investments, LLC and Sam Leaf (the “Leaf defendants”), who own the property where the harassment occurred. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination, and the tenant elected to have the matter litigated in federal court. The consent order requires defendants to pay the tenant $40,000 in damages, prohibits Dennis Parker from managing residential properties and from contacting the tenant, requires the Leaf defendants to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and requires the Leaf defendants to undergo fair housing training.
United States v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.)
On April 11, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.) alleging that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Savannah, Georgia violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B) by failing to grant a disabled tenant’s request to transfer to a ground-floor unit and threatening her with an early lease termination fee. The complaint also names the local housing authority and a housing relocation service as defendants. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
Consent Order - United States v. Carlos Vazquez (D. P.R.)
On April 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Carlos Vazquez, et al. (D.P.R). The complaint in this Fair Housing Act “election” case, which was filed on April 3, 2024, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by making discriminatory statements to a former tenant that expressed a preference against renting to him because of his disability, rescinding an offer to extend the former tenant’s lease because of his disability, and interfering with the former tenant’s right to pursue a reasonable accommodation. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 in damages to the former tenant and waive any claims against him for outstanding unpaid rent or other amounts, adopt a non-discrimination policy, obtain fair housing training, and submit periodic reports to the United States. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County et al. (D.S.C.)
On April 2, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County, South Carolina, et al. (D.S.C.), a case that includes claims brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA when Florence County passed an ordinance to prevent the development of Plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartment complex based on discriminatory objections raised by community members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. First, the United States explains that Defendants misstate the legal standard for assessing disparate treatment FHA claims and that Plaintiff has put forth circumstantial evidence that may be indicative of discriminatory animus. Next, the United States explains the correct legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims. Applying the correct legal standard, Florence County’s ordinance is the kind of “policy” that may cause a disparate impact, and Defendants fail to counter Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence that Florence County’s ordinance was passed for illegitimate reasons and disproportionately affects Black residents.