Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. MA Partners 2, et al. (N.D. Tex.)
On June 27, 2023 and August 10, 2023 the court entered consent orders in United States v. MA Partners 2, et al. (N.D. Tex.), a Fair Housing Act “election” case. The complaint, which was filed on February 22, 2023, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Act by refusing to allow complainants, who received their SSI and SSDI payments around the third of every month, to pay their rent by the fifth of the month. The consent order entered on June 27, 2023 requires Defendants MA Partners 2, Brockbk JV LLC, Dallas Redevelopment Equities LLC, and Alden Short, Inc. to pay $10,000 in damages to the complainants, undergo fair housing training, adopt non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, and submit periodic reports to the United States. The consent order entered on August 10, 2023 requires Defendant Sam Matalone to pay $1,000 in damages to the complainants and to undergo fair housing training. 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.
United States v. Premiere Holdings, Inc. (D. Nev.)
On February 7, 2023, the court entered a consent order in this Fair Housing Act “election” case. The complaint, which was filed on February 2, 2023, alleged that the owners and managers of an apartment building in Las Vegas, Nevada violated the Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to a resident with an assistance animal (a pit bull), and by threatening to “enforce the terms of the lease” if the dog was present on the property. The complaint named Premiere Holdings, Inc.; Premiere Holdings Residential Division, LLC; Premiere Holdings Residential Division, LLC, Series LV; Lauri Villafane; and Felicia Abdo as defendants. The consent order requires the defendants to undergo fair housing training, adopt non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, submit periodic reports to the United States, pay $35,000 to compensate the complainants, and vacate a small claims judgment against one complainant. 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.
United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.)
On February 2, 2023, the Division filed a complaint alleging that the City of El Paso and its contractors, United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders. On May 7, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with United Road Towing, Inc., one of the three Defendants in United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.). The consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires United Row Towing, Inc. to develop policies and procedures that comply with Section 3958; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980. On August 1, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., requiring it to establish a $140,000 settlement fund to compensate the affected servicemembers and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. On August 1, 2024, the Division also filed a proposed consent order with the City of El Paso, requiring it to develop new policies and procedures to ensure that its contractors that are responsible for auctioning or otherwise disposing of impounded vehicles comply with the SCRA in the future and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.
United States v. Vernon C. Morgan (D. Colo.)
On August 18, 2023, the United States entered into a settlement agreement to resolve its claims in United States v. Vernon Morgan (D. Colo.). The complaint, which was filed on January 23, 2023, alleged that the defendant discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing the complainant when she rented housing in a building that he owned and managed and by retaliating against her by ordering her to move out after she objected to his advances. The settlement requires the defendant’s estate to pay $38,000 to the complainant. The case was referred to the Department after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. City National Bank (C.D. Cal.)
On January 31, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City National Bank (C.D. Cal.). On January 12, 2023, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in US v. City National Bank (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that City National Bank (City National), violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Division (Los Angeles County) by avoiding providing credit services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods because of the race, color, and national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods. The consent order, was approved by the court and requires City National to invest at least $29.5 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Los Angeles County; invest $750,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit in those neighborhoods; invest $500,000 for advertising and outreach in those neighborhoods; and invest $500,000 for consumer financial education.
Press Release (1/12/2023)
Comunicado de prensa (12 01 2023)
Remarks of Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke (1/12/2023)
Declaración de AAG Clarke (12 01 2023)
Louis et al. v. SafeRent et al. (D. Mass.)
On January 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Louis et al. v. SafeRent et al. (D. Mass.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Louis lawsuit was filed on behalf of two plaintiffs, Mary Louis and Monica Douglas, Black rental applicants who use housing vouchers to pay part of their rent. Plaintiffs applied for rental housing but allege they were denied due to their “SafeRent Score,” a score derived from Defendant SafeRent’s algorithm-based screening software. The plaintiffs allege that SafeRent scores result in an unlawful disparate impact against Black and Hispanic rental applicants because the underlying algorithm relies on certain factors that disproportionately disadvantage Black and Hispanic applicants, such as credit history and non-tenancy related debts, while failing to consider one highly-relevant factor, that the use of housing vouchers funded by HUD makes such tenants more likely to pay their rents. In its Statement of Interest, the United States sets out the appropriate standard for pleading disparate impact claims under the FHA and clarifies that the FHA’s text and caselaw support the FHA’s application to companies providing residential screening services. On July 26, 2023, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claims. In its order, the Court held that defendant SafeRent was subject to the FHA and that plaintiffs had alleged a plausible claim for disparate impact discrimination under the FHA against both defendants.
Press Release (1/9/2023)
Group Home on Gibson Island LLC v. Gibson Island Corporation (D. Md.)
On November 23, 2022, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Group Home on Gibson Island LLC v. Gibson Island Corporation (D. Md.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The complaint in the case alleges, among other things, that a private homeowners’ association discriminated on the basis of disability when it refused to allow a small assisted living home for seniors with disabilities to operate unless it complied with certain conditions. Both sides moved for summary judgment on this claim. In its Statement of Interest, the United States addresses the correct legal standard for the Court to apply when determining whether subjecting the home to these conditions would have afforded persons with disabilities an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” under the FHA.
United States v. Hannah, et al. (W.D. Mo.)
On August 8, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Hannah, et al. (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, which was filed on November 21, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow the complainant to live with her assistance animal. La Maison Investment, LLC is also named as a defendant in the case. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complaint $5,000, vacate her eviction judgment, provide her with a favorable reference letter, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, attend fair housing training, and read multiple guidance documents issued by HUD and DOJ. 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.
Press Release - 9/6/2023
Adam Community Center v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich.)
On November 15, 2022, the United States filed a statement of interest related to damages briefing in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, Michigan, et al (E.D. Mich.), the private companion case to United States v. City of Troy, Michigan (E.D. Mich.). The statement of interest explains that damages may be available to private litigants pursuing land use claims against municipal defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The damages briefing followed the Court’s orders in both lawsuits finding that Troy violated RLUIPA by (1) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam Community Center’s exercise of religion in its effort to operate a mosque and (2) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous zoning restrictions than places of nonreligious assembly.
United States v. Madison Property L.L.C., et al (D. Minn.)
On November 4, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Madison Property L.L.C., et al (D. Minn.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the complainant to rent a unit with her emotional assistance cat. Andrew Brenner 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.
United States v. Retsel Corporation (D. S.D.)
On November 29, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Retsel et. al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. The complaint, which was filed on October 19, 2022, alleged that that the Retsel Corporation and the owners, Connie Uhre and her son Nicholas Uhre, discriminated against Native American customers through policies and practices that denied Native Americans the full and equal enjoyment of access to the services, accommodations and privileges at the Grand Gateway Hotel and the Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Grand Gateway and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino are in Rapid City, South Dakota. The consent order enjoins Connie Uhre from being a director or officer of the Retsel Corporation and from engaging in any of the hotel’s operations for four years. The consent order also enjoins Defendants from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race and requires that they issue an apology to be distributed to the tribal communities and posted on the company’s website. Defendants must also undergo training, develop an anti-discrimination policy, complaint procedure and marketing plan. Defendants must also hire a compliance officer to monitor Defendants’ compliance with the consent order. Except for the provisions regarding Connie Uhre, the terms of the Consent Order are in effect for three years from the date the court issued the order.
United States v. Concord Court at Creative Village Partners, LTD, et al. (M.D. Fla.)
On April 10, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Concord Court at Creative Village Partners, LTD, et al. (M.D. Fla.). On October 6, 2022, the United States filed the complaint and a proposed consent order. The complaint alleges that the defendants, Concord Court at Creative Village Partners LTD., Concord Management LTD., related entities and a property manager, discriminated against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to issue building access devices to minor residents, prohibiting children from common areas and amenities unless supervised by adults, and misrepresenting the availability of units to families with children at an apartment complex in Orlando, Florida. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $260,000 to residents who were harmed by their practices and a civil penalty to the United States. The defendants will also implement nondiscrimination policies and provide fair housing training to employees with management or leasing responsibilities at all the residential rental properties they own or operate in Florida. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received several complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued multiple charges of discrimination.