Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.)
On April 28, 2011 the United States filed a statement of interest in Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.), in support of the Congregation's motion for summary judgment in this Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) suit. The statement of interest addresses the standard the court should apply in evaluating the Congregation's RLUIPA Section 2(b)(1) claim, and discusses certain criteria for determining whether a substantial burden exists under RLUIPA Section 2(a). On January 6, 2011, the court issued an order holding that the City's administrative zoning decisions did not preclude the congregation's RLUIPA claims in federal court. The United States had filed a Statement of Interest on November 1, 2010. In the order, the court quoted the United States' Statement of Interest extensively.
United States v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid-America Apartments, L.P., formerly Post Apartments (D.D.C.)
On November 20, 2018, the United States and Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid-America Apartments, L.P., executed a settlement agreement. The settlement resolves the United States’ complaint (initially filed against Post Apartment Homes, et. al.) on September 23, 2010, that the defendants had violated the design and construction requirements under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act at fifty properties located in six states and the District of Columbia. The parties settled for $11.3 million. From this amount, they agreed to allocate $8.7 million to retrofit 36 properties that MAA owns; $25,000 to modify units requested by individuals living in 14 properties that MAA does not own; $175,000 to pay victims; and $2.4 million toward retrofits that defendants made at some of the properties after suit had been brought. The defendants are required to pay for the fees and expenses of a neutral planner who will develop retrofit plans for the properties, and a neutral inspector who will conduct inspections of the properties after the retrofits are made. The defendants also agreed to undergo training and to hire an accessibility consultant to evaluate plans for any new properties for compliance with the FHA and ADA.
United States v. Castle Management and Consulting, LLC (D. Nev.)
On April 28, 2009 the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Petition to Enforce a HUD Subpoena in United States v. Castle Management & Consulting, LLC (D. Nev.). The underlying HUD complaint involves allegations of housing discrimination on the basis of familial status. The subpoena seeks access to information relevant to whether the respondents qualify for the statutory exemption for "housing for older persons."
United States v. Peterson (E.D. Mich.)
On August 6, 2010, a federal jury in Detroit returned a $115,000 verdict against Glenn Johnson, Ronnie Peterson and First Pitch Properties LLC in United States v. Peterson (E.D. Mich.),a case under the federal Fair Housing Act alleging sexual harassment of female tenants. Over the course of a six day trial, the United States presented evidence that Glenn Johnson, the property manager, subjected six women to severe and pervasive sexual harassment, ranging from unwelcome sexual comments and sexual advances, to requiring sexual favors in exchange for their tenancy. One woman testified that Johnson refused to give her keys to her apartment until she agreed to have sex with him. Another woman testified that she had sex with Johnson at least 20 times because he threatened that the owner would evict her if she did not. The United States also presented evidence that Washtenaw County Commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who owned the properties, knew that Johnson was sexually harassing tenants but did nothing to stop it. Compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $115,000 will be divided among the six female tenants whom the jury found were victims of the harassment.
On March 3, 2011, Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr., issued an order requiring defendant Johnson to pay a $55,000 civil penalty, the maximum civil penalty for a first violation of the Fair Housing Act, and orders defendant Peterson to pay a $27,500 penalty. The order also permanently bars Johnson from having any further involvement in the management, rental or maintenance of housing. The order requires Peterson to adopt and implement a comprehensive sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure at his properties. The complaint was filed on January 29, 2009, and was handled jointly by the Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit. This case was referred to the Department of Justice by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan.
United States v. Sayville Development LLC (E.D.N.Y.)
On October 2, 2015, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Sayville Dev. Group (E.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The complaint, filed on August 28, 2007, alleged design and construction violations against an owner and architect in Sayville, New York. The consent order, requires the retrofit of two of the Defendants’ properties, the payment of $32,500 in compensatory damages to be divided among current and former residents, and a not-for profit fair housing organization, Long Island Housing Services. In addition, the defendants must set aside $5,000 in a fund to retrofit certain items at a tenant’s request, and pay a civil penalty of $2,500.
United States v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City (D. Md.)
On September 29, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in the United States v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City (D. Md.). The complaint alleged that HABC engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, it alleged that HABC discriminated in both its public housing and Section 8 subsidized housing programs by refusing to admit non-elderly persons with disabilities; failing to make its public housing units, their common areas, and its administrative offices accessible; and failing to provide sufficient assistance to persons with physical or mental disabilities who sought to rent private units through HABC’s Section 8 housing subsidy program. Under the 2004 agreement, HABC had to implement changes to its housing facilities, programs, policies and practices; commit several million dollars to provide over 2,000 new housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities; and pay $1,039,000 in damages. On October 29, 2015, the court entered a Supplemental Consent Decree in United States v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City (D. Md.), which amended the original decree by setting final and certain deadlines for the performance of some of the initial obligations that the Housing Authority still had to meet. In addition, the Supplemental Consent Decree requires that the Housing Authority of Baltimore City impose certain terms on private owners who will be acquiring several public housing properties pursuant to the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (“RAD”) authorized by Congress in 2012. These terms, among others, include adhering to policies and practices that protect the rights of public housing tenants and persons with disabilities.
United States v. Little Rock Planning Commission (E.D. Ark.)
On September 30, 2003, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Little Rock Planning Commission (E.D. Ark.), alleging that the Commission violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race when it denied a special use permit to an African American family who wanted to build a manufactured home in a white residential neighborhood. The complaint alleges that the Commission voted to deny the permit after white residents opposed the request at a public hearing although the application met all applicable zoning requirements and the manufactured home was compatible with the existing area, which included other manufactured homes and mobile homes. On October 4, 2004, the parties agreed to a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal. 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. Royalwood Cooperative Apts, Inc. (E.D. Mich.)
On February 18, 2005, a jury returned a verdict of $314,209 ($14,209 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages) for the United States and plaintiff-intervenor Joyce Grad in United States v. Royalwood Cooperative Apts., Inc. (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, filed on August 8, 2003, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to waive a no-pets rule to allow the complainant to keep an emotional support dog in her unit. The case was handled primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit. 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.