Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
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.
United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial (N.D. Tex.)
On September 30, 2022, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial (N.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that GM Financial violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by illegally repossessing 71 servicemembers’ vehicles and by improperly denying or mishandling over 1,000 vehicle lease termination requests. The amended consent order, which the court entered on October 4, 2022, requires GM Financial to pay $3,534,171 to the affected servicemembers and a $65,480 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires GM Financial to repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to its employees, and follow policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA.
Press Release (9/30/22)
United States v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (E.D. La.)
On October 6, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), et al. (E.D. La.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by designing and constructing eight multi-family housing properties without the accessibility features required by the FHA and ADA. Seven private developers who worked in concert with HANO were also named as defendants in the case. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $200,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to retrofit the eight properties to be compliant with the FHA and ADA.
United States v. Louis Liberty & Associates, PLC, et al. (N.D. Cal.)
On April 6 and 10, 2023, the court entered two proposed consent orders to resolve claims against all defendants in United States v. Louis Liberty & Associates, PLC, et al. (N.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” case. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin in violation of the FHA by targeting Hispanics for predatory loan modification services. Louis A. Liberty and Barney Diamos were 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. Evolve Bank and Trust (W.D. Tenn.)
On October 17, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Evolve Bank and Trust (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed on September 29, 2022, alleged that from at least 2014 through 2019, the bank engaged in lending discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin in the pricing of its residential mortgage loans. The consent order requires the bank to amend its pricing policies, employ a fair lending officer who will work closely with the bank’s leadership, and have employees undergo fair lending training. The consent order also includes a $1.3 million settlement fund to remediate borrowers harmed by this pricing discrimination and a $50,000 civil penalty.
United States v. Lakeland Bank (D.N.J.)
On September 29, 2022, the court approved the entry of consent order resolving all the claims in United States v. Lakeland Bank (D.N.J.). On September 28, 2022, the United States filed the complaint and proposed settlement. The complaint alleged that from at least 2015 to 2021, Lakeland violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act on the basis of race, color, and national origin by failing to provide mortgage lending services to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark, New Jersey, metropolitan area. The Department’s complaint also alleges that all of Lakeland’s branches were located in majority-white neighborhoods and that its loan officers did not serve the credit needs of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Newark. Under the settlement, the Bank will invest at least $12 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark area; $750,000 for advertising, outreach and consumer education; and $400,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit. Lakeland will also open two new branches in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, including at least one in the city of Newark; ensure at least four mortgage loan officers are dedicated to serving all neighborhoods in and around Newark; employ a full-time Community Development Officer who will oversee the continued development of lending in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark area; and maintain an expanded Community Reinvestment Act Assessment Area that includes Essex, Somerset and Union counties.
United States v. Humphrey-Stavrou Associates (D. Md.)
On September 27, 2022, the United States filed a complaint and partial proposed consent order in United States v. Humphrey-Stavrou Associates, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleged that Defendants discriminated against persons with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, by failing to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings in a manner that makes them accessible to persons with disabilities. Specifically, the United States’ complaint alleged that Defendants designed 17 properties, most of which are funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, without the required accessibility features.
The court approved the partial consent order on November 22, 2022, in which Defendants Stavrou Associates Inc. and related entities agreed to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers in housing units and common areas at 11 multi-family housing complexes in Maryland, pay all costs related to the retrofits, pay $175,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the United States. On October 19, 2023, the court approved a second partial consent order, in which the remaining defendants, Humphrey-Stavrou Associates Inc., and related entities, agreed to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers at the three properties Humphrey-Stavrou Associates Inc. still owns, pay all costs related to the retrofits, deposit a sum of $410,000 in an account to be used to retrofit the three properties now owned by other entities, pay $60,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals who were harmed by the inaccessible conditions, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to United States.
Both settlements also require the Defendants to receive training about the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ensure that their future multi-family housing construction complies with these laws, and to provide periodic reports to the United States.
United States v. LJLD, LLC (Bridgewater), et al. (E.D. Mo)
On September 1, 2023, the court entered a Consent Order in United States v. LJLD, LLC (Bridgewater), et al. (E.D. Mo). The complaint, filed on September 26, 2022, alleges that the defendant(s) discriminated on the basis of disability by designing and constructing a multifamily apartment complex without the accessible and adaptable features required by the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Westminster Properties, LLC is also named as a defendant in the case. The Consent Order requires the defendants to make accessibility retrofits to the property, pay $18,500 to compensate aggrieved persons, undergo fair housing training, and report on compliance. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint filed by the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Nedzad Ukejnovic (E.D. Mo.)
On May 19, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Nedzad Ukejnovic (E.D. Mo.). The “election” complaint, which was filed on September 22, 2022, alleged that Nedzad Ukejnovic, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Saint Louis, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by sexually harassing a female tenant in 2018. The complaint also alleged that Ukejnovic’s conduct frustrated the mission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council (EHOC), a private, not-for-profit organization in Saint Louis, and caused EHOC to divert resources. EHOC investigated the tenant’s allegations, helped her file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and created an education and action plan for the affected community. The United States’ complaint also included a “group of persons” claim under the Fair Housing Act, based on additional victims that were identified during the Department’s investigation. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $85,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and $20,000 to compensate the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council for resources it expended responding to the reported harassment. The defendant is also required to pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. In addition, the consent order requires the defendant to retain an independent property manager to manage his rental properties, obtain fair housing training and implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at his properties in the future.