Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Jarrah; aka Yurman (S.D. Tex.)
On February 1, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Jarrah (S.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2016, alleged that the owner and operator of the Houston-based sports bar 360 Midtown (formerly d/b/a Gaslamp) implemented discriminatory admission practices to discourage and/or deny African American, Hispanic and Asian-American prospective patrons entrance. The complaint further alleged that Defendant Jarrah used racial slurs when explicitly instructing employees to exclude African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American patrons from the bar. Under the settlement agreement, defendants are required to comply with Title II; implement a system for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; and conduct monitoring to ensure that 360 Midtown’s employees act in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.
United States v. NALS Apartment Homes (D. Utah)
On September 28, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. NALS Apartment Homes, LLC (D. Utah). The Fair Housing Act election complaint, which was filed on September 26, 2016, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by denying the reasonable accommodation requests of certain tenants with disabilities who sought to live with their assistance animals. The defendants, located in the Salt Lake City area, include the property management company NALS Apartment Homes; the owners of Pinnacle Highland Apartments, Cobble Creek Apartments and Sky Harbor Apartments; and the former owners of Thornhill Park Apartments. The United States’ complaint alleges that the defendants required certain tenants with disabilities who sought to live with an assistance animal to have a healthcare provider complete a “prescription form” suggesting that the healthcare provider may be held responsible for any property damage or physical injury that the assistance animal may cause. The defendants did not require tenants without disabilities who had pets to have a third party assume liability for their animals. Under the terms of the consent order the defendants are required to pay $20,000 to a former tenant and her seven-year-old son with autism who were denied permission to keep the child’s assistance animal after the child’s doctor refused to sign a form suggesting he could be liable for damages caused by the animal. The defendants are also required to pay $25,000 to establish a settlement fund to compensate any additional individuals who were harmed by their conduct. The settlement also prohibits the defendants from engaging in future discrimination and requires them to establish a non-discriminatory reasonable accommodation policy, use non-discriminatory reasonable accommodation application forms and have the relevant employees participate in fair-housing training. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints from both former tenants and Utah’s Disability Law Center (DLC), conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Ginsburg Development, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)
On April 12, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Ginsburg Development, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2016, by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to design and construct two properties in Rockland County so that they were accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, Ginsburg Development agreed to make retrofits to two apartment complexes in Haverstraw, New York, the Riverside and the Parkside, which together contain more than 200 rental units, in order to make them more accessible to individuals with disabilities. Ginsburg Development also committed to establish procedures to ensure that its future residential development projects will comply with the accessibility requirements of the FHA. Additionally, the settlement required Ginsburg Development to provide up to $125,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, and to pay a civil penalty of $50,000. Previously, on September 28, 2016, the United States obtained in this lawsuit a court-ordered preliminary injunction on consent that required Ginsburg Development to ensure accessibility at four Westchester rental complexes then under development – Saw Mill Lofts in Hastings-on-Hudson, Harbor Square Crossings in Ossining, and River Tides and 1177 Warburton Avenue in Yonkers.
United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
On October 12, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act election referral. The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2016, alleged that the bank discriminated on the basis of familial status by requiring two women on maternity leave each to return to work before closing on a loan, which caused each of them to shorten their respective maternity leave. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendant shall pay the HUD complainants a total of $45,000, implement non-discriminatory policies and practices and obtain fair lending training for officials and employees. The defendant shall not require that an applicant on maternity or paternity leave have to physically returned to work before a loan can close and comply with monitoring of the policy. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.)
On September 9, 2016, the United States Attorneys Office for the Middle District of Florida filed a complaint in United States v. First Federal Bank of Florida (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act election referral. The complaint alleges that the bank discriminated on the basis of sex and familial status by requiring two women on maternity leave to return to work before closing on a loan, which caused them to shorten their maternity leave. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination
United States v. Webb (E.D. Mo.)
On March 19, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Webb (E.D. Mo.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election referral. The complaint, filed August 31, 2016, alleged that Hezekiah and Jameseva Webb violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of sex by sexually harassing HUD complainant when Hezekiah Webb made unwanted sexual advances and sexually explicit comments, propositioned the complainant for sex in exchange for reduced rent, attempted to touch her breast, and ultimately evicted her after she rebuffed his sexual advances. The complaint also included a pattern or practice claim based on fourteen other tenants that Hezekiah Webb sexually harassed in similar fashion from the 1990s to the present. Under the settlement, Hezekiah and Jameseva Webb will pay a total of $600,000 in monetary damages to fifteen former and prospective tenants who were subjected to sexual harassment, as well as a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also bars Hezekiah and Jameseva Webb from continuing to serve as property managers. 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. The Home Loan Auditors (N.D. Cal.)
Between August 2018 and July 2019, the United States entered into a series of separate settlement agreements with individual defendants to fully resolve its claims in United States v. The Home Loan Auditors (N.D. Cal.), a HUD election/pattern or practice case. The amended complaint, filed on May 9, 2017, alleges that the defendants intentionally discriminated against Hispanic homeowners in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act by targeting them for predatory mortgage loan modification services and interfering with their ability to receive financial assistance to maintain their homes. As alleged, the individual defendants and their defunct companies – The Home Loan Auditors LLC, Century Law Center LLC, SOE Assistance Center Inc. – told homeowners that “forensic home loan audits” were essential for loan modifications, when the audits had no impact on the loan modification process and provided no financial benefit. The United States also alleged the defendants encouraged their clients to stop making mortgage payments and instructed homeowners to cease contact with their lenders, which resulted in clients defaulting on their mortgage payments and losing their homes. Among other relief, the settlement agreements with defendants Omar Alcaraz, Araceli Castro, Oralia Gutierrez, Hortencia Leon, Raul Luna, Elena Ramirez, and David Spieker and Spieker Law Office, establish more than $148,000 in a restitution fund to reimburse victims for fees the defendants collected as part of their predatory scheme.
Press Release (7/30/19)
comunicado de prensa (31/7/19)
Press Release (8/23/16)
comunicado de prensa (23/8/16)
United States v. HSBC Auto Finance (N.D. Ill.)
On August 8, 2016, the United States filed a complaint and a consent order in United States v. HSBC Auto Finance (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that HSBC is responsible for the repossession of 75 automobiles between 2008 and 2010 from protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders, in violation of SCRA Section 3952. The consent order requires HSBC to provide $434,500 in compensation to the victims of illegal repossessions. The court entered the consent order on August 18, 2016.
United States v. Blass (D. Kan.)
On August 2, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Blass (D. Kan.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). The complaint, filed on August 1, 2016, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by sending their tenant with a disability a letter strongly suggesting that she move out of their property and into a property better suited to fit her disability. The tenant did not have any problems with the property’s accessibility, and she had never complained to defendants about the property’s accessibility. The complaint also alleges that defendants coerced and interfered with their tenant because she had previously filed a HUD complaint against defendants asserting her right to keep an assistance animal. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 to the tenant and to provide her with a letter apologizing for their actions. It also includes standard injunctive relief, requirements that Defendants obtain fair housing training and adopt reasonable accommodation and nondiscrimination policies, and reporting requirements.
United States v. COPOCO Community Credit Union (E.D. Mich.)
On July 6, 2017, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. COPOCO Community Credit Union (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on July 26, 2016, alleged that the credit union violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by repossessing protected servicemembers’ motor vehicles without obtaining the necessary court orders. On January 5, 2017, the court denied COPOCO's motion to dismiss. The settlement agreement requires COPOCO to provide $10,000 in compensation to each of three servicemembers whose motor vehicles COPOCO unlawfully repossessed and $7,500 to one servicemember who faced an unlawful repossession but had his vehicle returned. The settlement agreement also requires COPOCO to implement SCRA policies to be approved by the United States, report to the United States on SCRA compliance, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000.
United States v. Bensalem Township (E.D. Pa.)
On September 1, 2017, the parties entered a settlement agreement in United States v. Bensalem Township (E.D. Pa.). As part of the agreement, Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania will permit the Bensalem Masjid, a Muslim nonprofit religious organization, to use its property for the purpose of building a mosque. The Township also agreed to review and amend its zoning ordinance to comply with the requirements of RLUIPA and to advise its officials and employees about the requirements of RLUIPA, among other remedial measures. The complaint, which was filed on July 21, 2016, alleged that the Township violated the substantial burden, equal terms, nondiscrimination, and unreasonable limitations provisions of RLUIPA by denying the Bensalem Masjid a use variance to build a mosque on its property. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Township’s denial of a variance imposed a substantial burden on the Bensalem Masjid’s religious exercise, treated the Bensalem Masjid less favorably than the Township treated nonreligious assemblies, and discriminated against the Bensalem Masjid on the basis of religion. The complaint also alleged that the Township only permitted places of worship on properties zoned as part of the Institutional District, and no properties with that zoning designation were available in that district when the Bensalem Masjid acquired the property.
Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n, et al. (D. Colo.)
On December 27, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n (D. Colo.), a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiff, the owner of a condominium unit, alleges that his condominium association improperly denied a reasonable accommodation to its “no dogs” policy to allow his tenant to keep a service dog that assisted her with her epilepsy, and that the condo association retaliated against him for allowing the tenant to keep the dog by issuing fines. The United States had filed a Statement of Interest arguing that a plaintiff may maintain a retaliation claim even in the absence of an underlying discrimination claim and that evidence that defendants imposed fines on a unit owner for allowing a tenant the requested accommodation supported a prima facie case of retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. The court ruled, consistent with the Statement of Interest, that plaintiff’s retaliation claim was not dependent upon his reasonable accommodation claim and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the fines were imposed in retaliation for allowing his tenant to live in the condo unit with her dog and assisting his tenant in exercising her fair housing rights.