Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Shen v. Simpson (N.D. Fla.)
On June 27, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Shen v. Simpson (N.D. Fla.), a lawsuit challenging provisions of a new Florida law, SB 264. Among other things, the law prohibits individuals who are “domiciled” in certain foreign countries, particularly China, from purchasing real property in the state; sellers of real property and individuals who own or acquire real property in violation of the law may be subject to civil and criminal penalties. In its filing, the United States supports the ACLU’s motion to enjoin implementation of these provisions. The brief explains that SB 264’s property ownership restrictions violate the Fair Housing Act because they discriminate based on a person’s national origin and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the restrictions are not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling government interest. The United States Attorneys in all three Florida judicial districts signed on to the brief.
United States v. FPI Management, Inc. (E.D. Cal.)
On June 14, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. FPI Management, Inc. (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on June 13, 2023, alleged that FPI, a property management company, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by requiring nine servicemembers who were exercising their SCRA right to terminate their residential lease to repay lease incentives they had received. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a total of $51,587 to the nine servicemembers and a $22,500 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires FPI to repair the servicemembers’ tenant database entries, implement new policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA, and train its employees on the SCRA.
Press Release - 6/13/23
United States v. ESSA Bank (E.D. Pa.)
On June 9, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. ESSA Bank & Trust (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on May 31, 2023, alleged that ESSA violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area by avoiding providing mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and discouraging prospective applicants from those neighborhoods from applying for credit. The consent order requires ESSA to: (1) invest at least $2.92 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; (2) spend an additional $125,000 on community partnerships and $250,000 on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in majority-Black and Hispanic communities; (3) hire two new mortgage loan officers to serve its existing branches in West Philadelphia; and (4) conduct a research-based market study to help identify the needs for financial services in communities of color.
Press Release (May 31, 2023)
United States v. Timothy Britton (W.D. Pa.)
On May 19, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Timothy Britton, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that Timothy Britton discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing female tenants since at least 2016. The complaint alleges that Mr. Britton made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, touched female tenants’ bodies without their permission, requested sexual contact, offered reduced or free rent in exchange for sexual contact, and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint also names as a defendant Britton Enterprises, LLC, which operates the rental properties where the harassment occurred. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendants’ conduct, a civil penalty from the defendants to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
Press Release – (5/19/2023)
United States v. Abraham Kesary (C. D. Cal.)
On September 29, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Abraham Kesary, et al. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on May 11, 2023, alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because Mr. Kesary, a property manager, sexually harassed female tenants since at least 2012. The complaint also named the owner of the property where the harassment occurred, M&F Development, LLC (M&F) as a defendant in the case. The consent order requires that M&F pay $120,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. In addition, the consent order prohibits Mr. Kesary from managing rental housing and requires M&F to retain an independent property manager to manage its rental property, obtain fair housing training, and implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at the property in the future.
Press Release - 9/29/2023
Press Release - 5/12/2023
Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.)
On May 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The complaint in the case alleges that the City of Santa Ana substantially burdened Micah’s Way’s religious exercise when it refused to grant a certificate of occupancy to allow Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that provides services to persons that are homeless, to provide food and drinks to its clients in accordance with its religious beliefs. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that feeding persons who are homeless is not religious exercise and that it did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The United States’ Statement of Interest responds to the City’s contentions and explains that feeding persons who are homeless may be religious exercise under RLUIPA and that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the City’s denial of its certificate of occupancy and threats of fines and criminal prosecution had substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.
On June 8, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding, inter alia, that feeding the homeless can be religious exercise for the purposes of RLUIPA and that prohibiting a religious organization from helping those in need could violate RULIPA’s substantial burden provision.
United States v. Danny T. Bell (E. D. Ky.)
On April 17, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Danny Bell (E.D. Ky). The complaint alleges that the defendant discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing numerous female tenants since at least 2010 and retaliated against female tenants who objected to his harassment. The complaint asserts that Bell made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, entered the homes of female tenants without their consent, touched female tenants’ bodies without their consent, offered reduced or free rent in exchange for sexual contact, and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct, a civil penalty from the defendant to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
United States v. Artimus Construction, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.)
On April 7, 2023, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement resolving the allegations in United States v. Artimus Construction, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 3, 2023, alleges that Artimus Construction, Inc. (“Artimus”), a Manhattan-based developer, violated the Fair Housing Act’s accessible design and construction requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), in designing and constructing two rental complexes in Manhattan — Chelsea Park and Susan’s Court — which have numerous inaccessible conditions. The settlement stipulation resolves the United States’ allegations and requires the defendant to make retrofits to remove accessibility barriers in housing units and common areas at the two subject properties and at additional properties, pay at least $75,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The settlement also requires the defendant to receive training about the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act and to take steps to ensure that any future covered multifamily housing construction complies with those laws.
United States v. Albright Care Services (M.D. Pa.)
On April 11, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Albright Care Services, et al. (M.D. Pa.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, which was filed on April 6, 2023, alleges that a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania refused to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the son of a resident with disabilities to live with her as an aide, which was necessitated by the fact that the community barred external visitors to the community due to COVID-19 restrictions. Asbury Communities, Inc. is also named as a defendant 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. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $215,000 in damages to the HUD complainants and to adopt reasonable accommodation policies in all of their CCRCs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Tennessee.
Press Release (4/12/2023)
United States v. Aqua 388 Community Association, et al. (C.D. Cal.)
On January 22, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Aqua 388 Community Association, et al. (C.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” case. The complaint, which was filed on April 3, 2023, alleges that the managers of two neighboring high-rise condominium towers in Long Beach, California violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide the complainant, who has paraplegia, a reserved accessible parking space for over three years. FirstService Residential California, LLC, Rebecca Hawkins, Christopher Harrington, and Aqua Maintenance Corp. are also named as defendants in the case. On October 10, 2023, the court granted the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt new reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications policies, provide fair housing training to employees working at the approximately 950 properties managed by one of the defendants, and provide a properly marked, accessible parking space to the complainant for as long as she lives at the subject property. 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.
Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (S.D.N.Y.)
On March 27, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (S.D.N.Y.), a private lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Town of Forestburgh and other municipal defendants engaged in a series of discriminatory acts to prevent an Orthodox Jewish developer from building a subdivision in Forestburgh because the defendants believed that it would attract Orthodox Jews. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants denied their applications for building permits on the basis of religion. The statement argues that the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims, premised in part on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of their building permit applications, are ripe and that the plaintiffs, who alleged lost profits and lost home sales, have standing to assert their FHA claims.
United States v. Hussein (E.D. Mich.)
On April 8, 2024, the court entered a consent order United States v. Hussein (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on March 14, 2023, alleged that, Mohamad Hussein, the owner and manager of rental properties in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing actual and prospective female tenants. The consent decree requires Hussein to pay $185,000 in monetary compensation to 8 aggrieved persons, and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. It also permanently enjoins Hussein from managing rental properties in the future, and requires that Hussein retain an independent property manager, obtain Fair Housing Act training, and implement non-discrimination policies to prevent sexual harassment at his properties in the future.