Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
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.
Complaint - United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC (E.D. N.Y.)
On April 1, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC, et al. (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that the owner and property managers of a condominium complex in Rockaway Park, New York violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide a black buyer with an accessible parking space even though it had agreed earlier to provide an accessible parking space to a white resident. Delkap Management, Inc. and Joei Losito are also named as defendants in the case. 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.
Chabad Jewish Center of The Big Island v. County of Hawaii (D. Haw.)
On March 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island, et al. v. County of Hawaii, et al. (D. Haw.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs, a Chabad Jewish Center and its Rabbi, Levi Gerlitzky, filed their complaint against the County of Hawaii and its planning director after the County assessed thousands of dollars in fines against Plaintiffs and prohibited them from operating a house of worship in a residential zone without a use permit, even though analogous nonreligious meeting facilities do not require a use permit. The complaint, filed in conjunction with a motion for preliminary injunction, alleges that the County’s zoning code and conduct has substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and treats Plaintiffs’ worse than comparable secular uses in violation of RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States supports Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hawaii County zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.
United States v. Jimmie Bell et al. (W.D. Mo.)
On May 20, 2024, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Jimmie Bell et al. (W.D. Mo.). The original complaint was filed on March 25, 2024. The “election” complaint alleges that Jimmie Bell, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Springfield, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), by sexually harassing a female tenant from 2017 through 2019. The United States’ complaint also included a “group of persons” claim under the Fair Housing Act, based on additional victims that were identified during the Department’s investigation. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The case also names as defendants Jimmie Bell as Trustee of Second Bell Trust and Fourth Bell, LLC.
United States v. Ariel Solis, et al. (D.N.M.)
On March 6, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Ariel Solis, et al. (D.N.M.). The complaint alleges that between 2010 and 2022, Ariel Solis, a property manager in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit further alleges that Solis’s employer, PacifiCap Properties Group, LLC, and the owners of St. Anthony Plaza, St. Anthony Limited Partnership and PacifiCap Holdings XXXVIII, LLC, are vicariously liable for Solis’s discriminatory conduct because Solis acted as their agent when he sexually harassed tenants at St. Anthony Plaza.
United States v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania (M.D. N.C.)
On February 13, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, et al. (M.D.N.C.). The complaint, which was filed on February 5, 2024, by the United States and North Carolina Department of Justice, alleges that First National Bank of Pennsylvania (including as successor in interest to Yadkin Bank, which it acquired in 2017) violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in unlawful redlining in its service areas in the Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North Carolina markets. Specifically, among other things, the complaint alleges the bank located and maintained nearly all of its branches and mortgage loan officers outside of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, relied on mortgage loan officers concentrated in majority-white areas as the primary source of new loan applications, and maintained inadequate internal fair lending policies and procedures to ensure that the bank was positioned to provide equal access to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. As a result, the bank’s peers generated lending activity in those neighborhoods at two to four times the rate of other banks with similar lending volume. The consent order requires the defendant to invest at least $11.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase credit opportunities for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; spend $1 million on community partnerships to provide services to residents of those neighborhoods; spend $750,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit counseling focused on those neighborhoods; open two new branches in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and one such branch in Winston-Salem; ensure that at least two mortgage bankers and two community homeownership specialists are assigned to solicit loan applications from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; and employ a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color in North Carolina. First National Bank of Pennsylvania also agreed to complete a community credit needs assessment, to assess and report on its fair lending program; and to train staff on the bank’s obligations under the consent order.
United States v. Patriot Bank (W.D. Tenn.)
On January 30, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Patriot Bank (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed January 17, 2024, alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) specifically that, from 2015 through 2020, Patriot Bank engaged in unlawful redlining in its self-designated service area in Memphis, Tennessee and discriminated on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The consent order requires Patriot to invest at least $1.3 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis. Additionally, in those same neighborhoods, Patriot will spend at least $375,000 for advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education and counseling; spend $225,000 to develop community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit; employ two loan officers dedicated to serving those communities of color in Memphis and a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in those communities; and continually assess the credit needs of the communities.
United States v. Shevis D. Petties (W.D. Okla.)
On January 11, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Shevis D. Petties, et al. (W.D. Okla.). The complaint alleges that Shevis D. Petties discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants at residential rental properties he owned and/or operated and managed in the Western District of Oklahoma since at least 2016. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Petties, among other things, subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual comments and contact, physically assaulted female tenants, photographed and/or filmed female tenants in their bedrooms and bathrooms without their knowledge and permission, and demanded that female tenants engage in sexual acts with him in order not to lose housing. The lawsuit further alleges that the other defendants, the owners of these residential rental properties, are vicariously liable for the actions of their agent, Mr. Petties.
United States v. McGowan Realty, LLLC, d/b/a RedSail Property Management (E.D. Va.)
On January 8, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. McGowan Realty, LLLC, d/b/a RedSail Property Management (E.D. Va.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case. The complaint alleges that a property management company operating throughout Hampton Roads area in Northern Virginia refused to honor the residential lease termination of a U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class and were assessing early lease termination charges and additional rent against him. RedSail allegedly erroneously insisted that the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) placed a 35-mile limitation on a servicemember’s SCRA residential lease termination rights. The complaint alleges that the Petty Officer paid $3,408.55 in early termination charges and additional rent to RedSail, which placed a considerable financial burden on him. Under the proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, RedSail will pay $10,225.65 to the Petty Officer and a $3,000 civil penalty. The consent order also requires RedSail to provide SCRA training to its employees, develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA, and refrain from imposing the VRLTA’s 35-mile limitation on servicemembers who lawfully terminate a lease under the SCRA.
Stanton Square, LLC v. The City of New Orleans
On September 16, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Stanton Square, LLC v The City of New Orleans (E.D. La.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The amended complaint in this case alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA and Title VI by blocking Plaintiff from developing a multifamily apartment complex that complied with the City’s zoning requirements and Master Plan based on discriminatory objections raised by constituents. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support Plaintiff’s FHA and Title VI claims. First, the United States argues that comments like those alleged to have been made by opponents of the development can be indicative of discriminatory intent, and that Plaintiff has put forth adequate circumstantial evidence that the City capitulated to the discriminatory objections of its constituents. Second, the United States explains that Defendants misconstrue the legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims and that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the City’s actions have a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic residents and perpetuate segregation in violation of the FHA.
On December 29, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest responding to arguments made by Defendants in their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint. After Plaintiff amended its complaint, the court denied Defendants’ prior motion as moot.
Aventurine One, LLC v. The City of Marshall (E.D. Tex.)
On January 11, 2024, the court denied the City of Marshall’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, including its Fair Housing Act (FHA) claim, in Aventurine One, LLC v. The City of Marshall, Texas (E.D. Tex.). The
in this case alleges, in part, that the City of Marshall violated the FHA by denying a special use permit for the plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit development based on discriminatory objections raised in public hearings. On December 21, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest, explaining that comments that do not directly reference a protected class may nevertheless be indicative of discriminatory animus, and clarifying that municipalities can be held liable under the FHA for capitulating to constituents’ discriminatory motives.