Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.)
On May 17, 2017, after a six-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States in United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The jury awarded a total of $37,000 in damages, consisting of approximately $31,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the former tenant and approximately $6,000 in compensatory damages to the fair housing group that assisted her with her HUD complaint. The complaint, which was filed on October 6, 2014, alleged that defendants charged a $1000 pet deposit for a service animal owned by a tenant with traumatic brain injury, despite being requested to waive the deposit as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 804(f) of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged that defendant Katz threatened to evict the tenant after she sought the return of the deposit in violation of sec. 818 of the FHA.
United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio)
On September 16, 2015, the court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio). In this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, the court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio). In this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, filed on September 16, 2014, and amended on December 12, 2014, the United States alleged that the aggrieved individuals, two former students (a couple), were denied the right to keep their assistance animal in their university apartment. In their motion to dismiss, the individually named University defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that the Fair Housing Act applied to student housing. The district court squarely rejected this argument, relying on both the clear language of the statute, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3602(b) and (c), as well as HUD’s 1989 regulations, which defined “dwelling” to include dormitory rooms. The United States alleges that the aggrieved individuals, two former students (a couple), were denied the right to keep their assistance animal in their university apartment. In their motion to dismiss, the individually named University defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that the Fair Housing Act applied to student housing. The district court squarely rejected this argument, relying on both the clear language of the statute, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3602(b) and (c), as well as HUD’s 1989 regulations, which defined “dwelling” to include dormitory rooms.
United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio)
On September 20, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, filed on September 16, 2014, and amended on December 12, 2014, alleged that Kent State University, the Board of Trustees of Kent State University, and four individual university officials violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation in university housing for a student and her husband who requested to live with an assistance animal that ameliorated the effects of her disability. The consent decree provides for $130,000 for the students and a local fair housing organization involved in the case, a $15,000 payment to the United States, and injunctive relief requiring the University to implement a policy on reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, as well as training and regular reporting. The case was referred to the Department after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.)
On December 2, 2016, the court entered a final consent order in United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.) resolving the United States’ claims against the Mississippi-based developers Ike W. Thrash, Dawn Properties, Inc., Southern Cross Construction Company, Inc. and other affiliated companies. The complaint, which was filed on May 23, 2014 and amended on June 23, 2016, alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by building apartment complexes that were inaccessible to persons with disabilities. As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make substantial retrofits to remove accessibility barriers at the six complexes, which have nearly 500 covered units. The consent order also requires the defendants to pay $250,000 to 25 identified aggrieved persons, pay $100,000 in civil penalties, and undergo training. On December 18, 2014, November 3, 2015, September 2, 2016, and November 30, 2016, the court entered consent orders with Rule 19 Defendants 14510 Lemoyne Boulevard, LLC, Summer Miss, LLC, Belmont RS Apartments, LLC and Lexington Mill Mississippi Owner, LLC. The pattern or practice case was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
United States v. The Durst Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.)
On November 13, 2015, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. The Durst Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 16, 2014, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct The Helena, a residential apartment complex at 601 West 57th Street, New York, New York, with the features of accessible and adaptive design and construction required by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This decree resolves the litigation with respect to the developers. Litigation against the architect is continuing. The decree provides for standard injunctive relief, retrofits of non-compliant features, and covers several additional properties subsequently determined by the United States to have been designed or constructed by the developers. The decree provides for a $250,000 settlement fund for payments to aggrieved persons and for a civil penalty of $55,000. The settlement fund may be increased up to $515,000 if the initial amount proves insufficient to compensate all aggrieved persons at the Helena and the additional properties. This case was litigated by the United States Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York.
United States v. The Town of Oyster Bay (E.D. N.Y.)
On April 10, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Town of Oyster Bay (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that the Town of Oyster Bay, the town supervisor, and the Long Island Housing Partnership ("LIHP") engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, through the use of residency preferences in the administration of two affordable housing programs, one for first-time homebuyers and one for seniors. The complaint was filed along with a settlement agreement with LIHP which requires LIHP to ensure that residency preferences it administers do not violate fair housing laws, and to provide education regarding the requirements of fair housing laws. The claims against the remaining defendants were stayed between 2016 and 2019 pending resolution of criminal charges against the town supervisor.
Press Release (4/10/2014)
United States v. Noble (N.D. Ohio)
On June 23, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Noble Homes (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case filed on December 2, 2013, and amended on May 14, 2014, alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct two neighboring condominium complexes with the required accessibility features. The defendants, a developer and an architect in Ohio and their related businesses, were responsible for designing and constructing 13 condominium buildings across two related condominium complexes that contained significant accessibility violations. Pursuant to the decree, defendants, who are no longer in the business of building multifamily housing, will pay $100,000 into a fund available for retrofits and a $40,000 civil penalty. They will further pay $10,000, respectively, to two fair housing organizations that expended time and resources in connection with this matter, and be subject to standard injunctive relief. 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. Previously, on November 13, 2014, the court entered a partial consent decree resolving claims against two of the defendants, John Hershberger and Hersh Construction, Inc., who were responsible for the construction of one of the buildings in the condominium complexes that had less severe accessibility violations.
United States v. Wren (N.D. Ill.)
On August 24, 2015, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in United States v. Wren (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging disability and familial status discrimination against prospective tenants at a duplex owned and managed by the defendant. A bench trial took place on June 5, 2015. The court found that the defendant asked the HUD complainant what her disability was and refused to rent to her when she learned that the complainant was HIV positive. The court also found that the defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against families with children and specifically discriminated against one family. The court awarded $15,000 in damages to the aggrieved individuals and issued a permanent injunction. The complaint was filed on November 18, 2013.
United States v. Trinity Villas, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)
On July 9, 2015, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Trinity Villas, Inc. (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on November 18, 2013, alleged that the defendants discriminated against an individual with a mobility impairment by refusing her request for a ground floor apartment unit as a reasonable accommodation for her disability in violation of Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $9,000 in monetary damages to the complainant and provides for other injunctive relief. 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. Schimnich (D. Minn.)
On February 8, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Schimnich (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, which was filed on November 15, 2013, alleges that the owner/manager of a three-unit residential rental property St. Cloud, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to the HUD complainant because she used an assistance animal. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $2,000 to the HUD complainant, to adopt a reasonable accommodations policy and to obtain fair housing training. 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. Highland Management Group, Inc. (D. Minn.)
On August 15, 2013, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Highland Management Group, Inc. (D. Minn.). The complaint, which was filed on August 13, 2013, alleged that defendants; Highland Management Group, Inc., Edina Park Apartments LLC, and Amy Koch discriminated against Somalis in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The testing evidence showed that Somali testers were told to make appointments to see apartments, whereas white testers were shown apartments when they walked in. The consent decree contains injunctive relief and civil penalties of $30,000. The case was based on evidence developed by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program.
United States v. Clarendon Hill Somerville, LP (D. Mass.)
On May 10, 2013, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Clarendon Hill Somerville, LP (D.Mass.), a Fair Housing Act HUD election referral. The complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2012, alleged Clarendon Hill Towers violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to a couple because they had three minor children. The consent decree requires standard injnctive relief, non-discriminatory occupany standards, record-keeping, reporting and training. The consent decree also required the defendants to pay $13,000 to the HUD complainants. Defendants also include; Linda Hamilton, Jill Oullette, and Donna McCarthy. 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.