The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice Seal The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 

Housing Cases banner

Case Summaries

Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.)

On July 20, 2007, the court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund’s land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township’s Planning Board. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Division’s brief argues that the Townships’ commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.

Alexander v. Riga (3rd Cir.)

A federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages.

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. On March 22, 2000, the appellate court reversed the district courts’ judgment for the defendants by holding that "in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm," and directed the district court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to hold a new jury trial on whether the plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 8, 2001.

Avalon Residential Care, Homes, Inc. v. City of Dallas (N.D. Tex.)

Our amicus brief will oppose legal arguments made by the City of Dallas in its motion for summary judgment. The United States argue that the City violated the Fair Housing Act by improperly denying a reasonable accommodation when it refused to grant the plaintiff a variance to the City's 1000 foot spacing requirement and six person occupancy limit for group homes serving persons with disabilities.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc. (D. Md.)

The United States filed two amicus briefs in this case, brought by private plaintiffs. They had claimed that a condominium complex in Anne Arundel County, Maryland violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to be designed and constructed so that it is accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. In our first brief, we set forth the standard for determining whether the defendants had violated the accessibility provisions of the Act. In our second brief, we presented the court with our views as to what equitable remedies are appropriate in a case in which the defendants have been found liable for violating the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

On April 21, 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for both monetary damages and equitable relief. In its opinion, the court found that "affirmative action relief in the form of retrofitting or a retrofitting fund is an appropriate remedy in this case." Accordingly, the court ordered the establishment of a fund of approximately $333,000 to pay for the cost of retrofitting the common areas of the condominium and, with the consent of individual owners, interiors of inaccessible units. Individuals seeking to retrofit their units will be entitled to receive an incentive payment of $3,000 to do so. Although the condominium association was not found liable for the violations, the court ordered it to permit the retrofitting of the common areas. The court will also appoint a special master to oversee the retrofitting project, and retains jurisdiction until all funds have been expended or distributed. If any funds remain unspent, the court noted that "the equitable principles and the purposes" of the Fair Housing will guide the distribution of those funds.

Bank of America Corporation

On May 26, 2011, the United States executed a Memorandum of Agreement with Bank of America Corporation resolving the United States' claims that the Bank violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by failing to lower the interest rate on servicemembers' credit card loans to 6%, or to maintain the reduced interest rate through the entire period of military service, after those servicemembers sent in military orders and requested a reduction in the interest rate between October 2003 and December 2007. Under the agreement, the Bank will provide $86,023 to compensate nine servicemembers whom the Division claimed were victims of the Bank's conduct. The Bank will also make changes to its policies and procedures to ensure that it does not impose fees or interest rates in excess of 6% on servicemembers' credit card loan obligations that originated prior to the period of military service, such as training employees, verifying active duty information with the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center database before raising a servicemember's credit card interest rate above 6%, and designating a telephone number at which servicemembers with questions about SCRA benefits may reach Bank of America representatives.

Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.)

On November 13, 2009, the en banc Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.) ordered the partial reinstatement of a Jewish family’s FHA suit against a condominium board that repeatedly removed a mezuzah, a small religious object required by the familys’ faith, from their door frame. The original panel affirmed the trial court’s finding for the defendants in holding that the FHA does not reach post-acquisition discrimination per Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes and that the condo association did not discriminate because it acted under a neutral, though previously unenforced, policy of barring hallway clutter. On January 16, 2009, at the request of the en banc Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States filed an amicus brief arguing that the court should reinstate a Jewish familys’ FHA suit against a condominium board that barred them from placing a mezuzah on their door frame. In its brief, the United States argues that the trial court and the panel majority erred in holding that the FHA did not apply to post-acquisition discrimination and that the family presented evidence suggesting that the condominium board changed the enforcement of its rules to bar the familys’ mezuzah based on anti-Jewish animus. The en banc decision "effectively overrules Halprin as far as § 3617 is concerned" and holds that the "contractual connection between the Blochs and the [Condo] Board distinguishes this case from Halprin" for purposes of § 3604(b). As a result, the court found the plaintiffs ’claims of post-acquisition discrimination viable under both FHA provisions and ordered the trial court to determine whether defendants acted with discriminatory intent on remand. As for Section 3604(a), the unanimous court agreed with Halprin in holding that post-acquisition discrimination claims under this provision extend to actual and constructive evictions (and little else) but dismissed this count after finding that the plaintiffs failed to explain their decision to remain on the premises.

Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (M.D. Tenn.)

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (M.D. Tenn.). In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants’ practice of permitting Nissan dealers to set finance charges at their discretion resulted in African-Americans paying higher finance charges, and that these higher charges could not be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In our amicus brief in support of plaintiffs ’opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, we argue that a lender has a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA, and, thus, is liable under ECOA for discriminatory pricing in loans that it approves and funds. The United States further argue that plaintiffs do not need to prove that defendant was on notice regarding the alleged discrimination, but that, in any case, plaintiffs have offered evidence that defendant was on notice.

The court subsequently denied summary judgement for the defendants, and the case is currently on appeal regarding class certification.

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.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. National City Bank (W.D. Pa.)

On January 9, 2014, the court entered a consent order in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. National City Bank (W.D. Pa.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act case that resulted from a joint investigation by the Division and the CFPB. PNC Bank is the successor in interest to National City Bank. The complaint, which was filed on December 23, 2013, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in residential mortgage lending. The consent order requires PNC Bank to pay $35 million to African-American and Hispanic victims of National City Bank's discriminatory conduct.

Dominos’ Pizza LLC (N.C.)

The United States announced an agreement reached with Dominos’ Pizza, Inc. under which Dominos’ adopted a Limited Delivery Services Policy. The United States had received a complaint that Dominos’ policy of providing only limited pizza delivery in certain geographical areas had a discriminatory effect on African Americans in the more than 650 corporate stores and 3,900 franchise stores throughout the country. The policy provides guidelines by which store managers can limit delivery in certain geographical areas. Under the policy, Dominos stores may limit delivery services in specific areas where there is evidence that’ the safety of delivery drivers is threatened by current criminal activity in the area. The policy recommends that Dominos’ stores consult with local law enforcement, as well as businesses and community organizations, to determine the gravity of safety concerns and the need to limit delivery services. The scope of any delivery limitations by Dominos stores must be narrowly confined to the area in which safety is a concern. Store managers also must conduct an annual review of any decision to limit delivery to determine if the threat to safety is still present or if the delivery limitation may be lifted. Dominos’ Director of Safety and Security will review decisions by corporate stores to limit delivery.

Estes, et al. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission, et al. (Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee)

On October 18, 2010, the United States’ filed an amicus brief in Estes, et al. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission, et al. (Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee). The amicus brief argues that Islam is plainly a religion, that a mosque is plainly a place of worship, and that county acted appropriately under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in treating the application as it would any other application from a religious institution. The division’s brief argues that Islam is a religion entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and points out that, "consistent among all three branches of government, the United States has recognized Islam as a major world religion." This is an action brought by county residents in state court objecting to the county’s approval of a mosque construction project in Murfreesboro. The residents contend, among other things, that the county erred in treating the mosque as a religious institution without inquiring into whether Islam is an ideology rather than a religion, and without inquiring into whether terrorist and other illegal activities would be undertaken at the site. Rutherford County, Tenn., is the defendant in the civil case, and had granted permission for the construction of the mosque. The county is opposing the landowners’ attempt to stop construction.

Equal Rights Center v. AvalonBay Communities (D. Md.)

On July 1, 2008, the court accepted for filing the United States' amicus brief in Equal Rights Center v. AvalonBay Communities (D. Md.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice design and construction case. The Defendant has moved to dismiss part of ERC's complaint, arguing that relief for properties completed more than two years before the complaint was filed is barred by the statute of limitations. The Division argues that the statute of limitations does not bar ERC from seeking relief for these properties. On March 23, 2009 the court denied AvalonBay’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment based on its Memorandum Opinion.

Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties (D.D.C.)

On February 20, 2009, the United States filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief opposing defendants' summary judgment motion in Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties (D.D.C.), a Fair Housing Act design and construction case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The brief argues that 1) violations of the HUD Fair Housing Amendments Act Guidelines establish a prima facie case that the Act's design and construction provisions have been violated, which may be overcome only by showing compliance with a comparable, objective accessibility standard; 2) contrary to Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Thompson v. Turk, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 724 (2008), the statute of limitations in design and construction cases begins to run when the plaintiff encounters and is injured by the accessibility violations; 3) the continuing violations doctrine allows plaintiff to recover for properties completed before the limitations period; and 4)to defendants’ brief misstates the law on organizational.

Fair Housing of the Dakotas v. Goldmark Property Management Co. (D. N.D.)

On November 2, 2010, the Division filed an amicus brief in Fair Housing of the Dakotas v. Goldmark Property Management Co. No. 09-cv-58 (D. N.D.), a putative class action challenge brought under the Fair Housing Act to a rental management company’s animal assistance policies. The United States’ brief was filed in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion and argued that: (1) the FHA bars landlords from requiring that assistance animals have special training in order to be accepted as a reasonable accommodation. Emotional support or companion animals, which do not have special training, may be required accommodations under the FHA; (2) the FHA may require landlords to waive generally applicable pet fees for assistance animals if necessary to ensure a disabled tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a residence; and that (3) fees that are applied to non-specially trained assistance animal for persons with mental disabilities but waived for "service animals" for persons with physical disabilities, are not generally applicable and discriminate on the basis of disability.

Settlement Agreement between United States and F & K Management, Inc.,
d/b/a Hard Times Cafes and Santa Fe Cue Clubs (Springfield and Herndon, Virginia)

On February 28, 2003, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with F & K Management, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Cafes and Santa Fe Cue Clubs, to resolve a complaint brought to the attention of the Division's National Origin Working Group (NOWG) by the Sikh Coalition, a national Sikh advocacy group. The Coalition reported that on September 23, 2001, a young Indian-American Sikh was told by a manager to remove his turban or leave at its Springfield, Virginia club. The Division's investigation revealed that F & K had promulgated and posted a policy in its clubs prohibiting head coverings with the exception of cowboy hats and baseball caps. Pursuant to the agreement, F & K rescinded its head covering policy and replaced it with a dress code approved by the United States, posted nondiscrimination signs at the five (5) establishments it owns and/or operates, agreed to place periodic nondiscrimination ads in the Washington Post and local and national Sikh and Muslim publications over a 3-year period, and arranged for periodic training of its owners and employees by Sikh and Islamic organizations over the three-year term of the agreement. In addition, F & K's owner wrote a formal letter of apology to the complainant and provided free dinner and pool playing privileges for use by him, his family and friends.

First Boston Real Estate (Okla.)

The United States signed a settlement agreement with a real estate company settling our allegations that one of its former agents violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in the sale of a dwelling.

The settlement agreement obligates the real estate company, First Boston Real Estate, to implement a non-discriminatory policy, which will be displayed in its offices and distributed to any persons who inquire about the availability of any properties, as well as to all agents. There are reporting requirements and the Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will receive $3,000.00 in compensatory damages.

Gordon v. Pete’s Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. (4th Cir.)

On February 14, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion holding that the SCRA amendments providing an express private right of action for damages should apply to this case. On October 27, 2010, the Division participated in oral argument as amicus in Gordon v. Pete’s Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. (4th Cir.), supporting the servicemember’s argument that there is a private right of action to enforce the provision of the SCRA that requires lienholders to get a court order before enforcing a lien on a servicemember’s property. The court ordered supplemental briefing on whether amendments made to the SCRA on October 13, 2010, adding an explicit private right of action, are retroactive. On November 29, 2010, the Division filed a supplemental amicus arguing that the amendment providing an express private right of action for damages should apply retroactively in this case.

Groome and United States v. Jefferson Parrish, (E.D. La.)

In June 1999, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that Jefferson Parish violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to permit the operation of a group residence for five adults with Alzheimer's Disease. The Parish zoning ordinance required the group home provider to seek an accommodation to house five persons instead of the permitted four. The court held that the Parish broke the law when it failed to act on the request because of opposition from neighborhood residents and a member of the Parish Board.

The Parish has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Fair Housing Act protections for persons with disabilities are unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Division has intervened and filed a brief arguing that Congress had power to pass the legislation under both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The United States also filed an amicus brief in the district court. On November 20, 2000, a unanimous three-judge panel joined three other Courts of Appeal holding that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the housing market.

Hamad, et al. v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association, et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On November 5, 2003, the United States filed an amicus brief in Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association, et al. (E.D. Mich.), a private Fair Housing Act case alleging familial status discrimination. In its brief, the United States argues that defendants' former policy of restricting families with children to first floor units violates the Act as a matter of law. The United States had also filed an amicus brief in January 2001, taking the same position.

In February, 2002, the United States had entered into a settlement agreement with the defendants rescission of association bylaws restricting families with children to first floor units in the three story complex. The agreement also provides for rescission of condominium rules restricting the conduct of children in the common areas, fair housing training of association board members and employees and notification to the public of the association's change in policies.

The plaintiffs in the action were a young couple steered to a first floor unit because they planned to have children and a single woman in the process of obtaining custody of her minor nephew who was denied permission to live with her nephew in her third floor unit.

Hand in Hand/Mano en Mano v. Town of Milbridge, Maine, et al. (D. Me.)

On March 16, 2010, the case settled before the court ruled on the issue raised in our amicus brief. On November 17, 2009, the court granted the United States' motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in Hand in Hand/Mano en Mano v. Town of Milbridge, Maine, et al. C.A. No. 1:09cv287 (D. Me.). In this case, defendant Town of Milbridge adopted a moratorium that halted development of plaintiff’s proposed housing project of farmworkers and their families. The plaintiff alleges that the moratorium was adopted because of resident opposition based on the national origin and familial status of the prospective residents. Our amicus brief was submitted in connection with plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We did not take a position on the merits, but set out our view as to the applicable legal principles.

Hargraves v. Capitol City Mortgage Corp. (D.D.C.)

In this lawsuit against Capital City Mortgage Corp. and its president and Thomas Nash, private plaintiffs contend that the company targeted minorities for loans that were designed to fail, due to unfair payment terms and income levels of the borrowers that would not sustain the loan payments. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Capital City's lending practices violated several federal laws, including the Fair Housing and the Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by engaging in a pattern or practice of targeting African American communities, a practice known as "reverse redlining," for abusive or predatory lending practices. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that reverse redlining does not violate either law because they have provided credit to African Americans, and on the same terms that they would provide to whites. The United States filed an amicus brief, which supported the view that lending practices designed to induce minorities into loans destined to fail could violate the fair lending laws.

Our brief argues that by targeting minorities for predatory loans, a lender discriminates in the terms and conditions of home financing, even if it makes all or most of its loans in minority areas. The fact that a lender does business only in minority neighborhoods does not shield its business from scrutiny under federal fair lending laws. In addition, racially targeted loans that are designed to fail make housing unavailable because of race since the borrowers are likely to lose their homes through foreclosure.

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate action charging the same defendants with violating a number of federal consumer protection laws. FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., No. 98-237 (JHG/AK) (D.D.C. filed Jan. 29, 1998). Both matters are still pending.

Homecomings Financial, LLC

On December 12, 2008, Homecomings Financial, LLC and GMAC Mortgage, LLC and their affiliates, including but not limited to GMAC Bank and Residential Funding Company, LLC, agreed to resolve our Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) investigation. This matter arose when United States Air Force Master Sergeant Brenda S. Gomez received permanent change of station orders transferring her from Tinker Air Force Base to Vance Air Force Base. When she sold her home to move closer to the new base, Homecomings denied MSgt Gomez’s request to waive the prepayment penalty on her residential mortgage loan. As a result of the Justice Department’s investigation, Homecomings has refunded MSgt Gomez’s $9,144 prepayment penalty and has agreed to waive the prepayment penalties of servicemembers in the future who are transferred involuntarily to a base thirty miles or more from their current residence.

Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.)

In consolidated cases brought by the United States and Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing and Gene Lewis, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the owner and operator of an apartment complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, intentionally discriminated on the basis of race against Gene Lewis when he refused to rent him a studio apartment. On September 15, 1998, the jury found liability against Danny LeBlanc and awarded Gene Lewis no compensatory damages, but $10,000 in punitive damages. LeBlanc appealed the judgment, arguing that Lewis' punitive damages award should be vacated because the jury awarded him neither compensatory nor nominal damages.

The Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit arguing that the Fair Housing Act permits an award of punitive damages in the absence of compensatory or nominal damages, and that the district court had properly entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict awarding punitive damages to Gene Lewis. On May 15, 2000, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the jury's punitive damages award to Gene Lewis, holding that a plaintiff suing under the Fair Housing Act may not receive punitive damages absent an award of compensatory or nominal damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 5, 2001.

Magner v. Gallagher (No. 10-1032)

On December 29, 2011, the United States filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher(No. 10-1032), an appeal from a decision of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States filed as amicus in support of neither party. In its amicus brief, the United States argued that disparate impact claims are cognizable under Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act. First, the United States argued that the text and history of Section 804(a) support the recognition of disparate impact claims. The United States further argued that, even if the text of the statute were ambiguous, HUD, the agency charged with interpreting the Act, has consistently expressed a view that the FHA provides for disparate impact claims by means entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, including in formal adjudications, joint guidance with other agencies, and appellate briefs. The brief also notes that, on November 16, 2011, HUD issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, reiterating the agency's consistent view that the FHA encompasses disparate impact liability and establishing standards for resolving disparate impact claims. Finally, the United States argued that while the 8th Circuit correctly invoked a three-step burden shifting framework for analyzing disparate impact claims under the FHA, its application of that framework to the respondents' claims was flawed, as the court failed to identify sufficient evidence that the City's enforcement measures caused a disparate impact on African-Americans or that there existed a less discriminatory alternative that could equally achieve the City's legitimate objectives.

Hunter v. The District of Columbia (D.D.C.)

Hunter v. The District of Columbia is an action by a family, including a minor daughter with severe mobility impairments, who reside in the D.C. homeless shelter system. They allege among other things that the District, and the contractor which runs its shelters, failed to respond adequately to requests for accommodations to address her disabilities, in violation of the fair Housing Act, Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and DC statutory provisions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Housing Section and the Disability Rights Section filed a Statement of Interest opposing the motions.
On August 18, 2014, the court issued a favorable decision, denying the motion to dismiss the ADA and Sec. 504 claims in its entirety, holding among other things that the district is liable for discrimination by its contractor. With respect to the FHA, the court concludes that shelters are covered "dwellings" under the FHA. The court also concludes that even though section 804(f)(1) of the FHA, which prohibits refusal to make a dwelling available, does not apply to protect the plaintiffs because they are not &buyers or renters," section 804(f)(2), which forbids discrimination in the "terms or conditions of a rental," does protect plaintiffs even though they do not pay directly for their shelter. Other claims are dismissed in part and sustained in part.

Marriott International Settlement

On August 15, 2002, the Department of Justice entered into settlement agreement with Marriott International and the Midwest Federation of American Syrian-Lebanese Clubs to resolve allegations that the Des Moines, Iowa Marriott, which is managed by Marriott International, discriminated against the Midwest Federation on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, when it revoked its previous offer to host the 2002 annual convention of the Midwest Federation. Under the agreement, Marriott agreed to pay $100,000 to establish a scholarship fund to be administered by the Midwest Federation, to pay $15,000 to be a corporate sponsor of the Midwest Federation's 2002 annual convention, and to issue a formal written apology to the Midwest Federation for its conduct in canceling the convention.

On September 5, 2001, Marriott had faxed a signed contract to the Midwest Federation for its signature agreeing to host the Midwest Federation's 2002 convention at the Des Moines Marriott from August 8 through August 10, 2002. In addition to using at least 60 sleeping rooms during the three-day convention, the contract also stated that the Midwest Federation would use the hotel's meeting rooms, restaurants and hold two dinner-dances in the hotel ballroom. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Marriott revoked its offer to the Midwest Federation and repeatedly refused to reconsider its decision in the week following September 11th.

The Justice Department's investigation was conducted under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment. This is the first case matter resolved by the Department's Housing and Civil Enforcement Section involving post-September 11th discrimination against Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian Americans.

Memphis Center for Independent Living and the United States v. Milton and Richard Grant Co. et al. (W.D. Tenn.)

On February 15, 2007, a federal court in Memphis approved a consent decree resolving Memphis Center for Independent Living and United States v. Grant, et al. (W.D. Tenn.). The Department's suit, which was filed on November 6, 2001, joined a case filed on January 25, 2001, by the Memphis Center for Independent Living ("MCIL"), a disability rights organization, alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct the Wyndham Apartments in Memphis and Camden Grove Apartments in Cordova, Tennessee, with required features for people with disabilities. The consent decree requires the Richard and Milton Grant Company, its principals and affiliated entities, and their architects and engineers, to retrofit apartments and public and common use areas at the two complexes, and to provide accessible pedestrian routes from front entrances of ground floor units to public streets and on-site amenities. The defendants must establish a Community Retrofit Fund of $320,000, administered by the MCIL, to enable qualified individuals in Shelby County, Tennessee, to modify residential dwellings to increase their accessibility to persons with disabilities. The defendants also are required to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages to the MCIL and $110,000 in civil penalties to the government, and to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council v. Gundacker Real Estate, Co. (E.D. Mo.)

In this case, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testing evidence and to exclude expert testimony. The court ordered a hearing on the admissibility of testing evidence and the plaintiff's experts. In the order, the court noted that the defendant challenged "the methodology by which [the fair housing] tests were compiled and the lack of supporting data to show that the tests may have some scientific validity." The United States filed an amicus brief on the question of whether testing evidence is subject to any special review before they can be admitted into evidence. The United States argue that testing results are factual evidence, not opinion or expert testimony and, therefore, should be admitted.

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Spanos (N.D. Cal.)

On September 22, 2008, the district court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief, and issued an order denying the defendant's motion for reconsideration in National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Spanos (N.D. Cal.). In its order, the court agreed with the United States' argument that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Garcia v. Brockway did not limit plaintiffs from seeking relief for allegedly inaccessible apartment complexes that were designed and constructed more than two years before the filed their complaint, but were designed and constructed pursuant to a pattern or practice by defendants that continued into the statute of limitations period. The court concluded that in Garcia the Ninth Circuit had not "done away with the continuing violations doctrine in all design and construction cases under the Act" and reaffirmed the application of Havens v. Coleman Realty when such a pattern or practice is pled.

Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Circuit)

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Circuit). This case involves a small church that leased space in the central business district of Holly Springs, Mississippi, but was denied a permit to renovate and occupy the space. In Holly Springs, churches must meet a number of standards that other uses need not meet, including approval of the Mayor and Board of Alderman and the approval of 60% of homeowners within a 1,300-foot radius. After the church's permit was denied, it filed a complaint under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), challenging the ordinance both facially and as applied, and sought a preliminary injunction against the city. The court denied the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff had not showed irreparable harm. The United States' amicus brief argues that the disparate treatment of churches compared to other assemblies violates Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA, which provides that religious assemblies may not be treated on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions. The brief also argues that the church had shown that it would be irreparably harmed if the discrimination against it were allowed to continue.

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America v. Donovan (N.D. Ill.)

On September 3, 2014, the court partly granted HUD's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and partly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in Property Casualty Insurers Association of America v. Donovan (N.D. Ill.) The plaintiff, a homeowners insurance trade association, filed a lawsuit on November 27, 2013, alleging HUD violated the Administrative Procedure Act in its February 2013 regulation formalizing that the Fair Housing Act provides for disparate impact liability. The plaintiff alleged HUD violated the APA because the regulation impermissibly intrudes on state insurance regulation, because the regulation's burden-shifting framework for proving a disparate impact claim is legally erroneous, and because HUD failed to adequately consider and respond to comments from the insurance industry during the rulemaking process. HUD's briefs, filed April 4, 2014 and June 20, 2014, argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, that its challenge was not ripe, and that HUD complied with the APA.

Pulte Home Corporation

The United States signed a modification agreement with Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) to supplement and amend a Settlement Agreement we previously entered into with Pulte in July 1998. The 1998 settlement agreement resolved the United States' allegations that Pulte had failed to design and construct certain developments in Florida, Illinois, and Virginia to be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act. The Modification Agreement covers three additional properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, and includes provisions requiring Pulte to annually notify current owners, for a period of three years, of their option to have Pulte retrofit their units at no expense to them in order to bring them in compliance with the Act, as well as to report to the United States the names and addresses of those persons who elect to have their units retrofitted.

Gomez v. Quicken Loans (C.D. Cal.)

On April 1, 2013, the Division filed a statement of interest in Gomez v. Quicken Loans (C.D. Cal.), a case alleging that Quicken Loans discriminated against borrowers with disabilities by requiring that they provide a letter from a doctor as a condition of their loans. The Statement of Interest states that (1) Smith v. City of Jackson did not overrule, explicitly or implicitly, decades of FHA disparate impact precedent, (2) disparate treatment claims do not require proof of ill intent, and (3) Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims do not require a denial of credit.

Reading Housing Authority

On February 6, 2009 the Division entered into an out-of-court Settlement Agreement with Reading Housing Authority ("RHA") to resolve a HUD election referral, Section 504 referral and Title VI referral. Under the agreement, RHA will set aside 5% of its annual capital funding to create, through new construction or renovation, at least 5 two-bedroom accessible housing units, and will renovate kitchens in one of its developments upon request by a tenant. RHA also will maintain a list of landlords who participate in the Section 8 program that specifically includes information about whether each has accessible units, and will provide that information to all tenant participants who have received a housing voucher. Finally, RHA has adopted and agreed to implement a new Assistance Animal Policy that will protect the rights of persons with disabilities to keep assistance animals, and has agreed to return to the individual complainant the $50 it now holds as a deposit.

Joann Reed et al. v. Penasquitos Casablanca Owner’s Association (9th Cir.)

A federal court jury in San Diego, California found that the defendants employee, a condominium security guard, had sexually harassed the plaintiff. However, the judge refused to let the claims of the plaintiff's two sons and grandson go to the jury. The judge also refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages.

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief on November 7, 2008, arguing that the claims of the children should have gone to the jury, and the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages.

Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown

In 1998, the United States intervened as plaintiffs in Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, a private action that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint joined the private plaintiff, a nonprofit corporation, in alleging that the City violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused them permission to operate a residential facility for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2000, the court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, agreeing with the complainants that the court applied the wrong legal standard. The Second Circuit decision is reported as Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002). Private plaintiffs subsequently reached a settlement with the City. The Division agreed to dismissal of our complaint in order to facilitate the settlement. The case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's office.

Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al. (D.D.C.)

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in an action brought by four tenant associations against the District of Columbia for selective and discriminatory code enforcement in the Columbia Heights area on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The District argued that because the District is neither a "provider of housing" nor a "municipal service provider," it cannot be held liable under Sections 3604(a) and (b) of the Act. The United States' amicus brief in opposition to the District's Motion to Dismiss argued that the District's alleged actions of closing and/or threatening to close buildings in areas of the District with high concentrations of Latinos and Vietnamese makes housing unavailable. Finally, the United States argued that the tenant associations have standing to bring a claim on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of their members.

Syringa Property Management, Inc.

The United States and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) entered into a settlement agreement with Syringa Property Management, Inc., resolving the IFHC's allegations that Syringa had, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, required disabled tenants to pay deposits in order to keep service or support animals in apartments managed by Syringa. Under the settlement agreement, Syringa will not charge deposits or fees to disabled tenants in connection with the maintenance of service or support animals.

Settlement Agreement U.S. and Tiberti-Blood, Inc., John David Burke, L.R. Nelson Civil Engineers, and the Spanish Gardens Condominiums Homeowners Association

On April 1, 2003, the United States entered into a Settlement Agreement with the developer, architect, site engineer, and homeowners association of Spanish Gardens Condominiums (respondents) in suburban Las Vegas, Nevada. As reflected in the agreement, the respondents failed to design and construct 112 ground-level units and various public and common use areas of the Spanish Gardens Condominiums, a/k/a Desert Lion Condominiums, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Previous to the signing of the Agreement, the respondents had already retrofitted a portion of the common use and public areas at an approximate cost of $35,000. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the respondents will within 60 days of the Agreement, submit a plan for completion of the remaining required retrofits to the common areas, for approval by the Division. Additionally, the respondents will create an $11,000 fund for use by any homeowner to retrofit the interior of his or her unit. After an initial notice, owners shall receive additional notices of the opportunity to retrofit their units, at no cost to them, on an annual basis for three years. The respondents shall also report information regarding future design or construction of multi-family housing and certify to the Department that such design or construction fully complies with the Act. This matter was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (9th Cir.)

Two landlords whose religious beliefs prevented them from renting housing to unmarried couples filed a federal action asking the court to find that any enforcement against them of Alaska or Anchorage laws prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status would violate their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the statutes substantially burdened the landlords' religious beliefs and that the government had no compelling interest in prohibiting marital status discrimination in housing, and affirmed the district court's order prohibiting the State and the City from enforcing the laws against the landlords.

The United States filed an amicus brief when the court of appeals withdrew the panel opinion and decided to rehear the case en banc. The United States argued that the Alaska and Anchorage statutes are neutral and generally applicable exercises of the police power, and that the landlords in these appeals have failed to show "colorable" claims under the Takings Clause or Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The en banc court held that the landlords' claim was not ripe, and dismissed the action.

In October, 2000, the landlord-plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, arguing that they had met the standing and ripeness requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution. In February 2001, the Supreme Court denied the landlords' petition.

Trop Edmond, L.P., et al. (Nev.)

The United States entered into a settlement agreement with Trop-Edmond, L.P.; Trail Properties, Inc.; and Danielian Associates (respondents), thereby resolving the United States' claims that respondents discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at West Trop Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. This case was referred to the Division by HUD as a pattern or practice case. After respondents were contacted by HUD regarding a complaint of design and construction deficiencies, respondents took corrective actions at an approximate cost of $41,000. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents Trop-Edmond, L.P. and Trail Properties, Inc. will donate $5000 to an organization in Nevada that serves the housing needs of persons with disabilities. Respondent Danielian will conduct annual in-house training for a period of three years to its employees involved in the design of multi-family dwellings.

Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On September 8, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint alleged the condominium association engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability when they established a written policy prohibiting persons in wheelchairs from using the front door to the condominium building and when they applied that policy to a ten-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair who lives in the building.

The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $70,000 to the complainants; admit that their actions violated the Fair Housing Act; issue a letter of apology; pay $10,000 to the widow of a Triumvera resident who used a wheelchair during the last years of his life, and pay a $3,500 civil penalty. The consent order also requires the president of the association's board of directors to resign, issue new by-laws, and require training of its members on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

The complainants filed a lawsuit in this matter in March, 2004. The United States filed a complaint-in-intervention May 19, 2004.

Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.)

On May 13, 2008, District Judge Alan H. Nevas denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.). This is a Fair Housing Act disability discrimination case filed by the owners of two recovery houses for people with addictions, who allege that the city of New Haven failed to make a reasonable accommodation by allowing more than eight to ten persons to reside in the houses. The Division had filed a brief as amicus curiae to address legal issues raised by defendants, without taking a position on the merits of the summary judgment motion. The court's opinion found that there are material issues of fact in dispute, without addressing any of the contested legal issues.

United States v. 2 Gold, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On June 5, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. 2 Gold, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 23, 2013, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct 2 Gold Street, a rental apartment complex in Manhattan, so that it was accessible to persons with disabilities. The decree resolves the United States' claims against the architect defendants. It provides for injunctive relief, review of the architects' future designs by a qualified compliance reviewer, a civil penalty of $35,000, and a payment of $45,000 into a fund to compensate aggrieved persons. It also includes an admission by the architects that they provided design services with respect to 2 Gold Street and that, as built, certain features of the complex did not meet the accessibility standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Another consent decree, entered April 24, 2013, resolved the United States' claims against the developers.

United States v. 4 Anchorage Lane Owners, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.)

On July 5, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint and proposed stipulation of settlement in United States v. 4 Anchorage Lane Owners, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that a 156-unit cooperative housing complex in Oyster Bay, New York discriminated against a HUD complainant on the basis of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B). The complainant has a mobility impairment that requires him to use a walker and, at times, a wheelchair. The housing complex refused to modify its first-come, first-served parking policy to designate an accessible parking space close to his unit for his exclusive use. The stipulation of settlement requires defendants to designate a particular accessible space for the complainant's exclusive use and gives him thirty days to intervene if wishes to pursue additional relief against the defendants. The court entered the settlement on July 8, 2011.

United States v. 475 Ninth Avenue Associates, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On May 25, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. 475 Ninth Avenue Associates, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice design and construction case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed together with the consent decree by the United States Attorney's Office on May 25, 2012, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct Hudson Crossing, a 259-unit apartment building in New York City, in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The decree provides injunctive relief and requires retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and within the dwellings. The decree requires the defendants to pay up to $115,000 to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices at Hudson Crossing, with unspent monies to be distributed to a qualified organization conducting fair housing enforcement-related activities in New York City. A civil penalty of $20,000 is also imposed.

United States v. 61 Main Street Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)

On December 2, 2013, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. 61 Main Street Corp. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, also filed on December 2, 2013, alleged that 61 Main Street Corporation and Rosario Marci have engaged in conduct constituting discrimination on the basis of race under the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the United States alleges that the defendants failed to inform African-American prospective tenants about available apartments, while telling Caucasian prospective tenants, even on the same day, that apartments were in fact available. The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to show available apartments and give rental applications to African-American prospective tenants, but showed available apartments and gave rental applications to Caucasian prospective tenants, even on the same day. Finally, the complaint alleges that the defendants provided higher rent prices and less favorable security deposit terms to African-American prospective tenants than those offered to similarly situated Caucasian prospective tenants. The consent decree requires the defendants, to refrain from discriminating on the basis of race in their rental practices, and to implement a non-discrimination policy and non-discriminatory standards and procedures at the apartment complex located at 123 South Broadway. In addition, the defendants will pay $60,000 into a fund for the compensation of victims of their discriminatory conduct, as well as a $32,000 civil penalty to the United States.

United States v. 75 Main Ave. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.)

On January 26, 2010, the court entered a settlement agreement and order in United States v. 75 Main Ave. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.), an election case referred by HUD. The complaint, filed in September 2008, alleged that a cooperative apartment building in Rockville Centre, New York and its board of directors refused to allow a 90-year old woman with depression to keep a small assistance dog. The settlement enjoins defendants from future discrimination and requires them to implement a reasonable accommodation procedure, refrain from enforcing the "no pets" rule against the HUD complainant as long as she lives at the coop and withdraw their pending state court action against the complainant. The court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for three years. This case was litigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

United States v. Acme Investments, Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On July 7, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving all claims in United States v. Acme Investments, Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, filed by the United States and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 3, 2010, alleged a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act by the owner and property manager, Laurie Courtney of Ivanhoe House Apartments located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The complaint alleged discrimination against African Americans in the rental and inspection of apartments. The case was developed through testing conducted by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan, which filed suit on July 16, 2009, alleging the same violations. The cases were later consolidated by the court. Under the settlement, the defendants will pay $35,000 in damages to three victims who the United States contends were discriminated against because of their race at Ivanhoe House Apartments; pay $7,500 in a civil penalty to the United States; and pay $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan as damages for the non-profit’s efforts in testing and investigating the apartment complex. The settlement also requires the defendants and their employees to undergo fair housing training, conduct self-testing of the apartment complex, and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department and the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan. This case was handled jointly by the United States and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.)

On September 28, 2007, the United States filed a complaint and a consent order in United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.). The complaint alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons on the basis of familial status by the owners and management of Phoenix Village Apartments, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Under the terms of the consent order, which was entered by the court on October 1, 2007, the defendants will pay up to $165,000 to compensate victims and $20,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The consent order also calls for injunctive relief, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.

United States v. ADI Management, Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y.)

On July 2, 2003, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. ADI Management, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.). The United States Attorney's Office brought this action on behalf of the estate of the complainant, who lived at the subject property until she died from metastatic breast cancer at the age of 34. The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property management company of an apartment complex in Jamaica Estates, Queens, violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation to their no-pets rule to allow the complainant to keep an emotional support dog in her unit, and instead served her with eviction notices. The Division alleged that she was suffering from anxiety and depression, caused by being mobility-impaired due to the cancer. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $11,000 in damages to the estate of the complainant. The Decree also enjoins the defendants from: violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability in the future; requires them to adopt specific guidelines for assessing requests for reasonable accommodations; and requires the president of the property management company to attend a fair housing training program. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, Inc. (D. Del.)

On March 4, 2010, the United States filed a fair lending complaint and consent order resolving United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, Inc. (D. Del.). AIG Federal Savings Bank (FSB) and Wilmington Finance Inc. (WFI), two subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc., have agreed to pay a minimum of $6.1 million to resolve allegations that they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American borrowers. The complaint alleges that the two violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when they charged higher fees on wholesale loans to African American borrowers nationwide on thousands of loans from July 2003 until May 2006, a period of time before the federal government obtained an ownership interest in American International Group Inc. The complaint further alleges that AIG FSB and WFI contracted with mortgage brokers to obtain mortgage applications that were underwritten and funded by the defendants and failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees. Under the settlement, AIG FSB and WFI will pay up to $6.1 million to African American customers who were charged higher broker fees than non-Hispanic white customers and will invest at least $1 million in consumer financial education efforts and shall also be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race or color in any aspect of wholesale home mortgage lending. This case resulted from a referral by the Treasury Department’s Office of Thrift Supervision to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The court entered the consent order on March 22, 2010.

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.)

On September 24, 2009, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Ferdows Akhavan (E.D. Va.), alleging that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). The matter first came to the Department as a referral from the Civil Law Division Chief at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. The complaint alleges that Ms. Akhavan, a Virginia landlord, violated the SCRA when she refused to return rent paid in advance and a security deposit to her former tenant, a United States Air Force Colonel. The complaint was filed simultaneously with a consent order resolving the United States’ claims. Under the terms of the consent order, Ms. Akhavan must pay her former tenant a total of $5,650 in damages and is enjoined from engaging in future violations of the SCRA.

United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (D. Alaska)

On September 3, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (D. Alaska). The complaint, filed on March 12, 2010, alleged that the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the state's housing authority, discriminated on the basis of disability when, in providing a Section 8 housing voucher to the complainant, it rejected her request for a reasonable accommodation for an extra bedroom for her exercise equipment that she needed for rehabilitation. The consent decree includes standard injunctive relief and requires AFHC to allow the complainant to rent a unit with an extra bedroom as a reasonable accommodation. 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. Albank (N.D.N.Y.)

In this case, the United States claimed that the bank refused to take mortgage loan applications from areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York with significant minority populations. The bank could provide no reason for carving out areas with large concentrations of minority individuals from its lending areas. The United States resolved this matter on August 13, 1997, with a consent decree, which required the bank to provide $55 million in loans at below market rates to the areas that it refused to service previously and to implement a non-discriminatory lending policy.

United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builder, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C.)

The United States' complaint, filed on January 19, 2001, alleges that a developer and an architect failed to design and construct a 226-unit apartment complex in Greenville, North Carolina, with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include steps into the individual units, an insufficient number of curb cuts, doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and an inaccessible rental office.

The terms of the consent decree, filed on January 25, 2001, include the following: Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc., the builder and developer, must: (1) retrofit the common use areas of the apartment complex; (2) ensure that at least one fully retrofitted one-bedroom unit and two-bedroom unit remain vacant and available at all times for viewing and rental by a prospective tenant who requests such a unit; (3) give notice to every prospective tenant of the availability of the fully accessible units; (4) compensate aggrieved persons up to $5,000 over any out of pocket costs suffered by such persons; and (5) include enhanced accessibility features in a portion of the units in the next two multi-family projects which they construct. Rivers & Associates, Inc., the architectural firm that designed the complex, must: (1) pay a $5,000 civil penalty; (2) donate 100-hours of technical assistance to non-profit organizations that serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities in the Greenville community; and (3) contribute to any amount paid to compensate aggrieved persons by Aldridge & Southerland.

United States v. Allegro

On January 8, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Allegro Apartments (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, which was filed on December 2, 2013, alleged that the owners of a 96-unit residential rental property in Racine, Wisconsin violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to rent an apartment to a woman who used an assistance dog. The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt a new assistance animal policy, attend fair housing training and pay $8,500 to the woman and her husband.

United States v. Ally Financial Inc. (E.D. Mich.)

On December 23, 2013, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ally Financial Inc. (E.D. Mich.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act lawsuit filed on December 20, 2013. The complaint was filed on December 20, 2013 against Ally Financial, Inc. and Ally Bank, which collectively are one of the nation's largest car lenders. The complaint alleged that from April 1, 2011 to the date of filing, Ally discriminated against approximately 235,000 African-American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers across the country by systematically charging higher dealer interest rate markups for those borrowers' auto loans as compared to white borrowers. The consent order requires Ally to establish an $80 million settlement fund to pay damages to victims, remunerate borrowers if discriminatory disparities continue during the next three years, and implement an improved compliance management system that includes more robust dealer and company-wide monitoring. The Division's investigation was coordinated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the complaint and consent order were filed simultaneous with a CFPB administrative settlement order with the same substantive terms, plus an $18 million civil penalty, which only the CFPB has statutory authority to collect.

United States v. Altman (D. S.C.)

On August 13, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Altman (D. S.C.). In the order, the defendant, the owner and operator of a 16-unit apartment complex, agreed to pay $15,000 in monetary damages to two aggrieved persons and $10,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. The defendant also agreed to injunctive relief that requires him to adopt a nondiscrimination policy and attend training on the Fair Housing Act. The court previously ruled in July that the defendant was liable for discriminating against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint, filed on September 21, 2011, was developed by the Section's Fair Housing Testing Program.

United States v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.)

On January 18, 2005, the court entered a consent decree in United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint, filed on March 2, 2005, alleged that Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his next door neighbors, and their two minor children, on the basis of their religion (Jewish) and national origins (Israeli and Mexican). The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $15,000 to the complainants, enjoins the defendant from discriminating based on religion or national origin, prohibits him from violating 42 §: 3617 with regard to the complainants, and requires him to attend fair housing training. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years. This case was handled primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

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. Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Pa)

On December 14, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Pa), alleging that the defendant discriminated on the basis of race by evicting an African-American tenant with less due process than was given to white tenants with similar or worse lease violations. This case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) following a determination of reasonable cause and an election by the complainants to have the case filed in federal court. This case will be litigated by the United States Attorney's Office.

United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance (E.D. Wis.)

This case was the Department's first challenge, under the Fair Housing Act, to racial discrimination in the provision of homeowner's insurance. In our complaint,filed on March 30, 1995, we charged the company with engaging in a pattern of illegal discrimination by using race as a factor in determining whether to issue homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area.

On July 17, 1995, the United States resolved this case with a consent decree, which required the company to pay $14.5 million in damages to compensate the victims of the company's discriminatory policies. Over nine million dollars was directed toward community-based relief, such as a home purchase and home improvement loan subsidy; financing cost assistance; home ownership counseling; and a emergency home repairs fund. The agreement also provided that the company issue a non-discrimination statement, recruit qualified prospective customers from the state's insurance plan, conduct random testing, no longer exclude homes solely on the basis of the age or sales price of the home, and provide a new custom value policy so that quality insurance coverage will be more widely available. The decree also established a five million dollar fund to compensate individual victims; over 1,600 households in the community received damages.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.)

On August 30, 2005, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 14, 2005, alleged that the defendants failed to design River's Edge condominiums, a five building complex located in Chicago, Illinois in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The consent decree requires the defendant to contribute $37,500 to an established fund to compensate persons who have been injured by the lack of accessible features and pay $10,000 in damages to Access Living, a non-profit corporation that serves and advocates on behalf of persons with disabilities throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.)

In this case, the United States claimed that a housing referral agency in New Orleans, Louisiana, had honored the requests of several housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on their race and/or familial status. Based upon a referral from the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, we investigated the matter and filed a complaint. The matter settled before trial and the consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, advertising targeting the minority community, and a ban on the use of an occupancy standard more restrictive than two persons per bedroom. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $180,000 in damages, including a $50,000 victim compensation fund, a $10,000 civil penalty, $30,000 to a victim, and $90,000 to the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

On March 1, 2007, the court entered a consent decree   (PDF version) resolving all claims in United States, et al. v. Arlington Park Racecourse (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed September 30, 2005, alleged the that the defendant owners and operators of the Arlington Park Racecourse in Arlington Heights, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers who live at the racetrack. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants will construct 48 new units of housing with private bathrooms and air conditioning by the beginning of the 2007 racing season. This new housing will be made available to the seasonal workers with families. Defendants will also install air conditioning in 127 units of housing that will continue to be available for seasonal workers with families. The consent decree also allows Defendants to restrict six existing buildings to licensed workers only, provided that they do so on a nondiscriminatory basis. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants have also agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States, and damages and other relief to resolve HOPE's claims.

United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority and Shirley Foxworth (M.D. Ala.)

On September 18, 2007, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) a Fair Housing Act election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant from his apartment.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $45,000 in compensation to three aggrieved persons. In addition, the consent decree includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of discrimination; fair housing training and reporting requirements; and provisions requiring the establishment of non-discrimination, complaint, and reasonable accommodation policies. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Associates National Bank (D. Del.)

On March 29, 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit against Associates National Bank of Delaware [ANB], a leading issuer of Visa and MasterCard bank cards, claiming that the bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ECOA] by discriminating on the basis of national origin, specifically, against persons of Hispanic origin. Our complaint asserted that individuals applying for an ANB/UNOCAL MasterCard through the bank's Spanish-language application were processed through a separate approval system, which utilized a credit scoring system that required higher scores than those required for English-language applicants. As a consequence, some Spanish-language applicants were denied credit on a discriminatory basis. The United States also claimed that approved Spanish-language UNOCAL applicants were given lower credit line assignments than applicants processed through the English-language decision system. Finally, we contended that the bank offered different promotional credit services to those who applied through the Spanish-language system from those commonly offered to other customers. The United States estimate that as a result of ANB's actions, approximately 1,800 Hispanic applicants and customers who utilized ANB's Spanish-language applications were adversely affected.

Under the settlement agreement ANB will establish a $1.5 million Compensation Fund to provide damages to hundreds of Hispanic applicants who faced stricter underwriting standards and less favorable credit terms and conditions than those who applied in English between late February 1996 and April 1997. Any funds remaining after all claims have been paid will be used for consumer education in Hispanic communities. This is the first fair lending case brought by the Department of Justice alleging discrimination in connection with credit cards.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency referred this matter to us.

United States and State of North Carolina v. Auto Fare, Inc.(W.D.N.C.)

On January 13, 2014, the Division filed a complaint in United States and State of North Carolina v. Auto Fare, Inc. (W.D.N.C.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act case. The complaint alleges that the owners and operator of two "buy here, pay here" used car dealers engaged in "reverse redlining," or targeting African-American customers for unfair and predatory credit practices, in the financing of used car purchases. The State of North Carolina also alleges that the defendants' actions violated the state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ind.)

On October 22, 2010, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of race and familial status. The complaint, filed on July 14, 2008, alleged that the Condominium Association and the members of its Board of Directors in located in Munster, Indiana, maintained a written policy that prohibited families with minor children from living in the condominium complex The complaint further alleged that members of the Board made oral statements indicating a preference against families with children and that the policy was enforced in a discriminatory manner to exclude African-Americans from living in the condominium complex. The consent order, provides for monetary relief in the amount of $106,500 to compensate seven aggrieved persons, and a $13,500 civil penalty. The consent order also provides for extensive injunctive relief, including fair housing training, reporting requirements, and the resignation of the president of the condominium board. 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. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (C.D. Cal.)

On May 26, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (C.D. Cal.), a case brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). Countrywide services mortgage loans and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. The United States initiated the investigation in this case based on a referral from the United States Marine Corps on behalf of a servicemember whose home Countrywide was scheduled to sell at a trustee's sale in three days despite having received a copy of his military orders. The servicemember was deployed to Iraq at the time. The complaint alleges that Countrywide foreclosed without court orders on the pre-service residential mortgages of approximately 160 individuals who were in military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA in states that allowed for non-judicial foreclosure from January 1, 2006 through May 31, 2009, and that Countrywide failed to check consistently for the military status of mortgagors prior to foreclosure. The consent order requires Countrywide to establish a $20 million victim fund to compensate servicemembers foreclosed on between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2009, in violation of the SCRA. The consent order also requires Countrywide to compensate any additional victims from June 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Moreover, Countrywide will not pursue any remaining amounts owing under the mortgages and must take steps to remedy negative credit reporting directly resulting from Countrywide's foreclosures of affected servicemembers' loans. Further, the consent order requires Countrywide to adopt measures designed to help secure the SCRA rights of servicemembers going forward. These measures include a monitoring program to test for effective compliance with the SCRA, training on the SCRA for employees who provide customer service to servicemembers or who have significant involvement in any aspect of the mortgage foreclosure process, systematic checks of the Defense Manpower Data Center's SCRA database during the foreclosure process, as well as record-keeping and reporting requirements to the United States. Finally, Countrywide must perform an audit of its compliance with the provision of the SCRA limiting the interest rate to 6% on certain credit obligations. The court entered the consent order on May 31, 2011.

United States v. Bachmaga (E.D. Wis.)

On May 8, 2014, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bachmaga (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed on November 4, 2013, alleged that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, discriminated on the basis of race and familial status in violation of Sections 804(b) and (d) of the Fair Housing Act against the complainant and her minor child. Under the consent decree, the defendants are prohibited from violating the Fair Housing Act and must attend training.

United States v. Bank of America N.A. (W.D.N.C.)

On September 13, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Bank of America, N.A. The complaint, based on a HUD election referral, alleges that Bank of America discriminated on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance in underwriting and originating loans, by requiring loan applicants who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) income to provide a letter from their doctor as part of the loan application. The consent order requires the Bank to maintain revised policies, conduct employee training and pay compensation to victims. Bank of America will pay $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000 to eligible mortgage loan applicants who were asked to provide a letter from their doctor to document the income they received from SSDI. Applicants who were asked to provide more detailed medical information to document their income may be paid more than those who were asked to have a doctor verify their source of income. In addition, the HUD complainants who initiated this suit received a total of $125,000. The consent order was entered on October 10, 2012.

United States v. Bank of America Corp., Citibank, NA, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial, Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. (D.D.C.)

On March 12, 2012, the United States, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint and five proposed consent orders in United States v. Bank of America Corp., Citibank, NA, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial, Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. (D.D.C.). Under the consent orders, which were entered by the court on April 4, 2012, the nation's five largest mortgage loan servicers will conduct reviews to determine whether any servicemembers have been foreclosed on either judicially or non-judicially in violation of the SCRA since 2006, and whether servicemembers have been unlawfully charged interest in excess of six percent on their mortgages since 2008. As a result of these settlements, when combined with the Division's settlements with Bank of America and Saxon covering non-judicial foreclosures filed in 2011, the vast majority of all foreclosures against servicemembers will be subject to court-ordered review. Foreclosure victims identified through these reviews will be compensated a minimum of $116,785 each plus any lost equity with interest, and victims of violations of the SCRA's six percent interest rate cap identified through these reviews will be compensated by the amount wrongfully charged in excess of six percent, plus triple the amount refunded, or $500, whichever is larger. These agreements were incorporated into an historic mortgage servicer settlement between the United States and 49 state attorneys general and these five servicers, which provides for $25 billion in relief based on the servicers' illegal mortgage loan servicing practices. The financial compensation to servicemembers is in addition to the $25 billion settlement. All five servicers agreed to numerous other measures, including SCRA training for employees and agents and developing SCRA policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the SCRA in the future. The servicers will also repair any negative credit report entries related to the allegedly wrongful foreclosures and will not pursue any remaining amounts owed under the mortgages.

United States v. B & S Properties of St. Bernard L.L.C.  (E.D. La.)

On April 1, 2005, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. B&S Properties of St. Bernard, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. La.). The complaint, filed on April 15, 2004, alleged a pattern or practice of race discrimination by the owners of apartments in Chalmette, Louisiana. Specifically, the complaint alleged the owners and managers of the Foster Apartments, either turned away black testers or steered them to an apartment building in a black neighborhood while encouraging whites to rent their other properties. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants will pay a $100,000 civil penalty, $60,000 in damages to victims, and $10,000 to fund community-wide training for tenants and landlords regarding the Fair Housing Act. The four-year decree also provides for monitoring of the defendants' operation of their business, requires them to undergo training, and imposes restrictions on any subsequent buyer of the rental properties.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.

United States v. Badeen, et al. (D. Kan.)

On March 8, 2002, the United States filed a consent order along with the complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of Joe's nightclub, one of the largest night clubs in Wichita, Kansas which was formerly known as Acapulco Joe's, discriminated against Latino and African American patrons and potential patrons.

In the consent order, the defendants admit that African American and Latino individuals were wrongly excluded from the club. In addition to prohibiting future discrimination, the consent order requires the defendants to modify its admission and ID checking policies, train employees, advertise its new procedures and nondiscrimination policies in English and Spanish, and document its compliance efforts.

This case was originally referred to the Division by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The Equal Opportunity Office and Office of Special Investigations at McConnell Air Force Base and KHRC assisted with the Division's investigation.

United States v. Bailey (S.D. Ohio)

United States v. Bailey (S.D. Ohio) On July 18, 2012, the court entered a consent judgment in United States v. Bailey (S.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act sexual harassment case. The complaint, filed on January 31, 2011, alleged that Henry Bailey, the owner and manager of several buildings in the Cincinnati, Ohio area, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing female tenants by, inter alia, making unwanted sexual advances and engaging in unwanted sexual touching. Under the terms of the proposed judgment, Mr. Bailey admitted to liability and has agreed to a monetary judgment of $800,000 in damages to compensate fourteen victims and a $55,000 civil penalty. Mr. Bailey is also permanently enjoined from participating in the management of any rental properties in the future. The case was referred to the United States by Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) after they received several complaints regarding the defendant's conduct.

United States v. Ballis (D. Or.)

On April 10, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Ballis (D. Or.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on February 1, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a nine-unit apartment building in Portland, Oregon refused to rent to a couple on the basis of one of the individual's race and sex (African American male). The complaint also alleged that the defendants discriminated against the Fair Housing Council of Oregon by engaging in disparate treatment against an African American male tester. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $36,500 in damages, to attend fair housing training and to comply with injunctive relief and reporting provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Bank United d/b/a/ Commonwealth United Mortgage (W.D.N.Y. 1999)

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Bank United discriminated against a loan applicant and her children on the basis of disability. The complaint contended that the bank requested information from the applicant concerning the nature and severity of their disabilities when she sought a mortgage loan.

The bank agreed to resolve this matter without a trial and entered into a consent decree, which provided $25,000 in monetary compensation to the complaints, established procedures for processing mortgage applications where the applicant relies on disability income to qualify, and required bank employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Barnason, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On May 9, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Barnason, et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on on April 20, 2010, alleged that the managers and owner of three residential apartment buildings in Manhattan engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female tenants in violation of Fair Housing Act. Defendant Barnason is a Level 3 sex offender who was hired after being released from prison for various sexual offenses. Pursuant to the consent decree, the defendants will pay a $55,000 civil penalty to the United States and more than $2 million in damages to six victims. This is the largest award ever recovered in a sexual harassment suit brought by the United States under the Fair Housing Act. Also under the decree, the building manager who engaged in the most severe of the harassing conduct is permanently enjoined from having any involvement in the management or maintenance of occupied rental housing property.

United States v. Barone, et al. (D. Wyo.)

The United States filed a fair housing election complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant and her son on the basis of their familial status, by refusing to rent an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. Defendants own a single-family home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as well as a number of other small rental properties in that area.

In the consent order, filed on June 20, 2001, the Defendants agreed to pay $5,000 in damages to the complainant and her son. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting discriminatory housing practices by the defendants in the future; mandatory fair housing training for Mr. Barone and his employees; and an agreement that Ms. Barone will withdraw from the management of rental properties.

United States v. Barrett, et al. (M.D. Ga.)

On October 22, 2002, the court (Lawson, J.) entered the consent decree in United States v. Barrett, (M.D. Ga.). The Division's complaint , filed October 9, 2002, alleged that John Barrett, an Athens, Georgia apartment-complex owner and developer, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to construct accessible housing in seven apartment complexes which he owns and operates. In addition to Mr. Barrett, the complaint named several companies with which he is associated as defendants in the lawsuit. Three of the apartment complexes are located in Athens, Georgia; two are located in Statesboro, Georgia; and one is located in Greenville, North Carolina. By signing the decree, the defendants admitted their failure to design and construct the subject properties in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires Mr. Barrett and his companies over the next 15 months over the next 15 months to retrofit the public and common use areas of the seven complexes and of the individual apartments units to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Among the features which will be retrofitted are bedroom and bathroom doors which are too narrow to accommodate persons who use wheelchairs; clear floor space in bathrooms that is inadequate for use by persons in wheelchairs; and excessive sloping of the pavement leading up to dwelling unit entrances as well as the thresholds to those entrances which makes it difficult for persons who use wheelchairs to enter units. The estimated cost of the retrofits is approximately $800,000. In the event that any current residents have to be relocated during the term of their tenancy or that any prospective residents have their move-in dates delayed because of the retrofits, the decree provides for the payment of reasonable relocation or housing expenses and $750 in the event of any such relocation or delay. The decree also requires the defendants to pay $15,000 in civil penalties and contributions to a fund to further housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

United States v. Bathrick (D. Minn.)

On August 23, 2007, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Bathrick (D. Minn.), a pattern or practice sexual harassment case brought under the Fair Housing Act. The United States' complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2005, alleged that Ronald Bathrick engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment in rental units he owned and managed in Hastings and St. Paul, Minnesota. The consent decree will require Bathrick to pay $360,000 to twelve aggrieved persons and $40,000 to the United States as a civil penalty, enjoin Bathrick from discriminating on the basis of sex, and require him to retain an independent management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

The complaint was originally brought to the Division's attention through a private local attorney.

United States v. B.C. Enterprises, Inc. ("Aristocrat") (E.D. Va.)

On May 2, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. B.C. Enterprises, Inc. ("Aristocrat") (E.D. Va.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case. The complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2008, and amended on November 2, 2009, alleged that a towing company in Norfolk, Virginia towed and sold a Navy Lieutenant's car without a court order, in violation of the SCRA. The complaint also alleged that the defendants may have towed and sold at least twenty servicemembers' cars without court orders. Pursuant to the consent order, the defendants must pay $75,000 in damages and repair the credit of the aggrieved servicemembers.

On November 6, 2009, the court issued an order on summary judgment resolving "a question of first impression" by adopting the United States' position that Section 537 of the SCRA is a strict liability statute and finding that servicemembers need not notify towing companies of their active duty status in order to benefit from the SCRA's protections. The court rejected defendants' arguments that it is impractical to verify a vehicle owner's military status and ruled that, "even if the defendants exercised the utmost care in investigating their victims' military status, they face liability for their actions." The United States Navy referred this matter to the Department of Justice.

United States v. Beaudet (D. Minn.)

On December 2, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Beaudet (D. Minn.) The Defendant, David R. Beaudet, has owned and managed numerous single-family rental homes throughout St. Paul since 1990. The complaint, filed February 19, 2003, alleged that Beaudet subjected female tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. Specifically, the complaint alleged that he subjected female tenants to unwanted sexual touching and advances, conditioned the terms of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors, and entered the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice. Under the consent decree, the defendant is required to pay $400,000 to the alleged victims, plus a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. He has also agreed to hire a management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Beck (D. Minn.)

On May 15, 2009 the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint in United States v. Beck (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of rental properties in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (c) by refusing to rent an apartment to a HUD complainant who is an African-American woman and participates in the Section 8 voucher program.

United States v. Bedford (D. Mont.)

On July 21, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Bedford (D. Mont.) The complaint, filed on June 11, 2007, alleged that the defendants, owners of an apartment building in Bigfork, Montana, discriminated against an individual and testers employed by Montana Fair Housing on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants told a complainant, who has a teenage daughter, that they did not want teenage children. When she asked to see the unit, she was told to look elsewhere, and the defendants rented to someone without a child. Montana Fair Housing conducted telephone testing in which a single parent of a teenaged boy was also discouraged from renting. Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants must pay $33,000 to the complainants. The consent decree also calls for injunctive relief, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years. 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. Berk-Cohen Associates at Tor View Village Apartments, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On February 19, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Berk-Cohen Associates at Tor View Village Apartments, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The complaint, filed on May 6, 2009, alleged that the defendant’s refusal to accept rental guarantees from Loeb House, a local social service provider that assists people with mental disabilities, violated the Fair Housing Act. The United States alleged in its complaint that the defendant should have allowed people with mental disabilities to include rental guarantees provided to them by social services organizations toward meeting the eligibility requirements to rent an apartment at the Tor View Village Apartments. Pursuant to the consent decree, the defendant has agreed to change their rental application income requirements to include reasonably verifiable income provided to applicants by accredited social service agencies that provide benefits to people with disabilities. The defendant has further agreed to advise their tenants promptly of this policy, and to inform and train their staff to implement this new policy. In a separate agreement with Loeb House, the defendant has agreed to pay Loeb House the sum of $20,000. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Biafora's Inc., et al. (N.D. W.Va.)

On September 29, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Biafora's Inc., et al.(N.D. W.Va.). The complaint alleges that Biafora's Inc, and several affiliated companies, designed and constructed twenty-three residential properties in West Virginia and Pennsylvania in a manner that is not accessible to persons with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. (W.D. Ark.)

In April 1998, a jury found Big D Enterprises, Inc. and its owner, Edwin Dooley, had discriminated against prospective African American tenants at three Fort Smith, Arkansas apartment complexes. The United States had filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants refused to rent to an African American household. Our complaint, filed on March 13, 1997, added a claim that this refusal to rent to black persons was part of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in rentals. The jury also awarded a total of $101,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the two households affected by the defendants' practices. The defendants appealed the jury verdict and the district court's injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in future acts of discrimination. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and its opinion is reported at 184 F.3d. 924 (8th Cir. 1999).

United States v. The Bigelow Group, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

In this case we claimed that the Bigelow Group, the developer of a 286-unit housing development, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the development so that they are accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. Our complaint, filed on April 13, 2000, which is based on information obtained through our testing program, alleges that there are excessive slopes in the public areas, as well as steps leading to some of the units, some doors are too narrow for the passage of wheelchairs, and the kitchens and bathrooms are not readily usable by persons who use wheelchairs.

The consent decree, filed on February 14, 2001, requires the defendant to offer current residents the opportunity to have their units retrofitted at no expense to them and to make a similar offer annually to each resident for the next three years. In addition, the decree requires the defendant and its employees to make future housing accessible to persons with disabilities, to receive fair housing training, to advertise to the public that their units are accessible to persons with disabilities, and to notify the Civil Rights Division of other covered multi-family dwellings it designs and constructs and provide a certification by the architect that it complies with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Henry Billingsley, et al. (E.D. Tex.)

On April 24, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Henry Billingsley, et al. (E.D. Tex.), a Fair Housing Act referral from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the members of the zoning committee and property owners of Air Park Estates, in Collin County, Texas, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation by allowing the complainant to keep a footbridge in front of her house. The complainant, who has a mobility disability, needs to use the bridge to reach the street without risk of injury. On June 30, 2009, the court issued an order granting our motion for preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants from removing the bridge or causing it to be removed. The court granted the motion using broadly favorable language, finding that the complainant would "almost certainly suffer personal injuries" if the bridge were removed and that the United States had presented a likelihood of success on the merits in the suit.

United States v. Biswas, et al. (M.D. Ala.)

On February 3, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Biswas, et al. (M.D. Ala.), a Fair Housing Act case based on evidence developed by the Division’s fair housing testing unit. The complaint, filed on July 21, 2009, alleged that the owner, manager, and maintenance worker at Rolling Oaks Apartments engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and/or a denial of rights to a group of persons by making statements expressing a preference for tenants on the basis of race and color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). Specifically, the complaint alleged that the manager and maintenance worker, in their capacity as employees of the owner, told testers on multiple occasions that a selling point of Rolling Oaks Apartments was the relative lack of African-American tenants, and that management had posted a sign referencing a credit check and police background check in order to discourage African-Americans from applying for units. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay a total of $15,500 in civil penalties. The owner-defendant is further required to adopt non-discrimination measures at each of his rental properties (including nine apartment complexes) located throughout Alabama. This includes notifying the public about the availability of equal opportunity housing, implementing and attending a training program for all rental managers, implementing non-discriminatory standards for showing apartments, and submitting periodic reports to the Division.

United States v. Blackpipe State Bank (D. S.D.)

The United States resolved claims, set forth in our complaint, that the bank charged Native Americans higher interest rates than other equally qualified applicants and refused to make loans when the collateral was located on reservations. In the consent decree, the bank agreed to expand its services to reservations, market its products to Native Americans, reduce interest rates and finance charges on existing discriminatory loans, and create a $125,000 fund for past rejected applicants.

United States v. Black Wolf, Inc. (The Mounty) (N.D. W. Va.)

On November 20, 2003, the court entered a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Black Wolf, Inc. (The Mounty) (N.D. W. Va.). The public accommodations complaint alleges The Mounty, a bar and restaurant located in Chester, West Virginia, discriminated on the basis race and color when it refused to serve African-Americans, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The complaint alleges The Mounty required African-Americans to display a "membership card" before being served while not demanding the same from non-African-American persons. Under the terms of the consent decree, The Mounty agrees to: train its employees in the requirements of Title II; post a sign at all entrances stating that it does not discriminate against customers on the basis of race or color; include similar announcements in all advertisements; and file periodic reports with the Division regarding its compliance with the agreement. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

The complaint was initially referred to the Division by a citizen and investigated by the Division's testing program .

>

United States v. Bleakley, et al. (D. Kan.)

On January 6, 2003, the United States submitted a consent decree to the Magistrate Judge in United States v. Bleakley, et al. (D. Kan.), a case alleging that the developer, architect and the civil engineer involved in building two apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas had violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to make the complex accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the consent decree, the defendants will spend more than $350,000 to retrofit the complexes in order to make them accessible, establish a $214,443 fund that will be available to make accessibility modifications to other housing in the community, pay $130,000 to a fund for the compensation of persons with disabilities who experienced difficulty living at or visiting the inaccessible apartment complexes, and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. The total payment of the settlement will therefore exceed $715,000. The architect and the civil engineer defendants are also defendants in United States v. LNL Associates/Architects, et al., which involves similar issues at two other apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas, and is still pending.

In its complaint, filed on May 10, 2001, the Division alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct 340 covered units at the Homestead Apartment Homes, and 160 covered units at the Wyncroft Apartments, so that they would be accessible and usable by people with disabilities in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act. The Division alleged the violations of the accessibility provisions included: doors that are not wide enough for wheelchairs to pass through; kitchens and bathrooms with insufficient space to allow those in wheelchairs to maneuver and use the appliances, sinks, toilets, and bathtubs; failure to provide accessible routes that allow people using wheelchairs to get into and move around apartments and public and common use areas that required persons to go up with steps or travel steeply-sloped sidewalks. The Division also alleged that the rental offices in both offices were inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The consent decree was entered by the court on January 29, 2003, and will remain in effect for five years and nine months.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Legal Aid of Western Missouri, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Blueberry Hill Associates, et al. (W.D.N.Y.)

On February 18, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., et al. (W.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination of the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on October 23, 2002, alleged that the defendants, Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., Costich Engineering, and Passero Associates, P.C., failed to design and construct Blueberry Hill Apartments in Rochester, New York, in accordance with the accessibility guidelines provisions of the Act. Under the consent order, the defendants will retrofit the complex, including the interiors of all 168 ground-floor units as well as sidewalks, entryways, and other public exterior spaces to bring it into compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The defendants will also pay $300,000 to compensate individuals who experienced difficulties living at the complex, or who were unable to live in the complex, due to its non-compliance and a $3,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years. The case was referred to the Division by HUD after it received a complaint from a tenant with a disability, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Blue Meadows Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho)

On September 27, 2002, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Blue Meadows Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on August 31, 2001, alleged the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by enforcing a pool rule that prohibited children under seventeen years old from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent. Current state law permits children thirteen years old or older to use public swimming pools without adult supervision. Under the terms of the Decree, the Defendants agreed to; delete the current restriction on persons under seventeen from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent; limit any future age restrictions governing unaccompanied children using the pool to those under age thirteen; and refrain from instituting any other rules that restrict the use of common areas at by persons under 18, except those that apply to all persons, regardless of age.

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. Board of Commissioners of the County of Montezuma (D. Colo.)

On August 6, 2002, the court entered a consent decree in the case of United States v. Board of County Commissioners of Montezuma County. The complaint, filed on December 21, 2000, alleged that Montezuma County violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the bases of disability, race, color, and national origin when it refused to permit the establishment of a group home for adolescents recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse. The complainant who sought to open and operate the home on a site located in the southwestern corner of the state near three different Reservations, was a teacher and counselor with over 25 years of experience working with Native American students. Most of the residents in the home were expected to be Native American. The County denied the complainant's application for a land use permit after local residents spoke out against the siting of the home on the ground that the residents would be people with a history of drug and alcohol problems, and made disparaging comments about Native Americans.

The consent order requires the County to comply with the Fair Housing Act, issue written findings of fact when it declines requests for land use or zoning permits, participate in training on the Fair Housing Act, and advise the United States when it receives applications for permits for specified land uses. It also requires the County to pay $30,000 to the individual who was prevented from establishing the proposed group home and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to create a $30,000 fund to provide financial assistance in paying costs and fees associated with providing treatment for youths in Montezuma and Dolores counties to overcome alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Bockes (D. Minn.)

On July 17, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Bockes (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the owners and manager of an apartment building in Minneapolis, Minnesota discriminated against a woman and her two year old son on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent them a one-bedroom apartment. 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. 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. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.)

On December 14, 2005, the court entered the consent order resolving United States, Andrew and South Suburban Housing Center v. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on August 10, 2005, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of a four-unit rental building in Bourbonnais, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to the complainants because he and his wife had children. The complainant, South Suburban Housing Center, a non-profit fair housing organization, conducted two tests which allegedly provided additional evidence that the defendants discriminated against families with children. The consent order contains various injunctive provisions and requires the defendants to pay a total of $24,000 in monetary relief. The consent order will remain in effect for two years. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office.

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. Boleslav (N.D. Ill.)

On July 11, 2002, the court (Holderman, J.) entered a consent order resolving United States v. Boleslav (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on October 4, 2001, alleged that the defendants, owners of a six-unit building, had made statements to testers from a local fair housing organization that expressed opposition to renting both to African-Americans and to households with children. The consent order includes a non-discrimination injunction; standard training, record keeping and reporting requirements; and bars one of the three defendants from involvement with management of the property for the 30-month duration of the order. It also requires the defendants to pay $25,000 to the fair housing organization.

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. Herbert Bolt, et al. (S.D. Ga.)

On September 27, 2007 the United States filed a complaint and a consent decree in United States v. Bolt (Hickory Plantation Apartments) (S.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which was developed through the Division’s testing program, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment at Hickory Plantation to a visually impaired individual who used a guide dog. Under the consent decree the defendants will pay $35,000 to compensate any aggrieved victims at Hickory Plantation and Willow Way Apartments, pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government. The court entered the consent decree on October 31, 2007.

United States v. Bonanza Springs, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.)

On March 20, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bonanza Springs Apartments, LLC et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act case against the owners and operators of Bonanza Springs Apartments, a multi-family apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada. The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based upon race, disability, and familial status. Specifically, the complaint, alleged that the defendants steered African American apartment seekers to the least desirable apartments or represented that there were no apartments available at Bonanza Springs Apartments while at the same time telling white applicants that apartments were available for rent. In addition, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, refused to rent to families with children, and intimidated and interfered with the rights of those persons who complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding their fair housing rights. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants must pay $285,000 to identified victims of discrimination and $165,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The Department of Housing and Urban Development originally referred the case to the Division as a potential pattern or practice of discrimination.

United States v. Boote (D. Mont.)

On January 15, 2013, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Boote (D. Mont.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, which was filed on January 11, 2013, alleged that the defendants designed and constructed a building in Missoula, Montana without required accessible features for two covered units. Under the consent order, the defendants are required to construct three new accessible units that would not otherwise be covered under the Fair Housing Act, to undergo training, and to pay $3,000 to the HUD complainant, Montana Fair Housing (MFH). 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. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D. N.J.)

On March 12, 2004, the court entered a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D. N.J.). The complaint alleges that the Borough engaged in a ten-year pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin, race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act by adopting and enforcing a housing code and redevelopment plan for the purpose of making housing opportunities unavailable to Hispanic residents of the Borough.

The consent cecree will require the Borough to 1) revise its property maintenance code and adopt nondiscriminatory complaint and inspection procedures for code violations; 2) hire a Bilingual Coordinator to provide information to and assist Spanish-speaking Borough residents with housing related Borough services and to assist the Borough's code enforcement officials with inspections where the residents are Spanish-speaking; 3) contract with an independent consultant to create a revised redevelopment plan that will incorporate procedures for replacement housing, a relocation plan, and compliance with the Fair Housing Act; 4) provide fair housing training to Borough employees and officials; 5) pay a maximum of $425,000 to compensate persons who have been injured by the Borough's discriminatory practices; and 6) pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States.

The term of the consent decree is five years except for the provisions related to redevelopment activities which have a term of ten years.

United States v. Boston Housing Authority (D. Mass.)

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the Boston Housing Authority [BHA] discriminated by failing to respond adequately to complaints of racial harassment in several of its public housing developments. In particular, we contended, in our complaint, that the BHA failed to take adequate corrective actions to protect a number of black and Hispanic families who were subjected to racial and ethnic harassment, including racial and ethnic epithets, threats, graffiti, vandalism, and assaults.

The consent decree provides $1 million in monetary relief to the class in a pending private lawsuit, the hiring of two new civil rights investigators and one new BHA police officer, a plan for increasing the number, frequency, and responsiveness of police patrols at the developments, revisions to the BHA's procedures for responding to complaints of racial harassment, employee training and performance evaluations, tenant outreach and training, and community outreach.

United States v. Bouchon (E.D. La.)

On August 29, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Bouchon (E.D. La.), a pattern or practice case alleging that the owners and operators of a 16 unit apartment complex in New Orleans, Louisiana denied housing to African American prospective renters on the basis of race and color. The allegations are based on fair-housing testing conducted by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center (GNOFHAC). The lawsuit alleges that the building manager, Betty Bouchon, failed to return phone calls from African-American testers while returning phone calls from white testers, made statements to white testers indicating that she would not rent to African-Americans, and falsely told an African-American tester than an apartment was not available for rent when in fact it was available. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $50,000 to GNOFHAC and a total of $20,000 in civil penalties to the United State. The defendants must also adopt non-discriminatory policies and procedures and comply with specified reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The court entered the consent decree on September 2, 2011.

United States v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.)

On June 18, 2008, the United States Attorney's Office filed a consent decree and request that the court approve the settlement of the minor child's claims in United States & Wilder v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by HUD. The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners of town homes in Rochester, Minnesota, violated sections 3604(f)(1) and 3604(f)(3)(B) of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a unit to a woman and her family because she had an emotional assistance animal. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $82,500 in damages and attorney's fees, as well as to adopt an assistance animal policy, attend fair housing training and comply with reporting and record keeping requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years and was litigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota.

United States and Prach, et al. v. Bowen Property Management, et al. (E.D. Wash.)

On September 22, 2005, the court entered a consent order resolving United States and Prach, et al. v. Bowen Property Management, et al. (E.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) pattern or practice/election case referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by charging applicants who were of Russian national origin a fee to rent apartments that was not charged to applicants who were not of Russian national origin. The second claim alleged that the defendants fired a Westfall Village Apartments employee when she reported the discriminatory conduct to executives of Bowen Property Management, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. In addition to the claims based on HUD's charge, the complaint also alleged that Bowen Property Management and Kerry Lemons engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-Russians by denying them the opportunity to rent apartments at Westfall Village Apartments. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to the Russian HUD complainants who were not represented by private counsel; $10,000 for unidentified aggrieved persons who may have been the victims of the defendants' discriminatory housing practices at the subject property, and $7,000 in a civil penalty, for a total of $22,000. The defendants also have advertisement, fair housing training, record keeping, and reporting obligations. The total monetary settlement obtained by the Division through this settlement and the prior settlement totals $112,000. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. Boyers' Personal Care Homes, et al. (W.D. Pa.)

On October 13, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Boyers' Personal Care Homes, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of Boyers' Personal Care Home in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to house an applicant with AIDS based on that disability. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $7,000 to the estate of the applicant and $2,000 to an AIDS service organization that assisted him in his search for alternate housing. The consent order also contains provisions that prohibit future discrimination, requires the defendants to adopt and notify others of its new nondiscrimination policy and requires reporting. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. Breckenridge Plaza, et al. (E.D. Pa.)

On September 29, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Breckenridge Plaza, et al., (E.D. Pa.), a HUD election case in which the United States alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status at an apartment complex outside Philadelphia. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants will pay $15,000 to the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia, undergo training on the requirements of the FHA, implement non-discrimination policies and procedures, and report periodically to the Department. The court entered the consent order on November 4, 2011.

United States v. Brown (E.D. Mich.)

On February 2, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a Stipulated Notice of Dismissal together with an out-of-court settlement agreement with the defendant in United States v. Brown (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, filed on August 22, 2011, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of familial status by the owner of a small apartment complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The parties had initially submitted a proposed consent order to the district court, which subsequently issued an order refusing to approve and enter the proposed order. The settlement agreement, which does not require court approval, contains standard injunctive provisions similar to those previously agreed to and provides for the defendant to pay $9,000 into a settlement fund for victims and a $3,000 civil penalty.

United States v. Bushee (D. Minn.)

On June 3, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving the claims in United States v. Bushee (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed on February 18, 2009, by the United States Attorney’s Office alleged that the owner and manager of a three-bedroom apartment unit in East Grand Forks, Minnesota violated 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), 3604(d), 3604(f)(1) and 3604(f)(3)(B) of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a unit to a complainant because her daughter used a service animal. In addition to standard injunctive relief, the defendant is required to pay $800 to the complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

United States v. Bray (C.D. Ill.)

On October 6, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bray, et al. (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on December 18, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the developer/owner/manager and the architect of the John Randolph Atrium Apartments in Champaign, Illinois, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct nine ground-floor units and the public and common use areas in the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act.

The consent decree requires the defendants to: undertake substantial retrofits; estimated to cost over $175,000; pay $10,000 to the complainant in compensatory damages, and to establish a $10,000 victim fund. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years. 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. Brazoria Manor Apartments, Ltd., et al. (S.D. Tex.)

On November 20, 2000, the Unites States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants, the owners of several multi-family rental properties in Texas, fired the complainant from her job as a site manager in retaliation for her participation in a fair housing investigation. The United States alleges that the firing constitutes a violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, which prohibits threatening or interfering with any person on account of their having aided another in enforcing their rights under the Act. The consent order, filed on June 15, 2001, provides for $15,000 in compensatory damages to the complainant, in addition to the dismissal of a related unemployment compensation claim Defendant had filed against her. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of retaliation against the complainant, and also prohibiting additional discriminatory housing practices; mandatory Fair Housing Training of all Defendants and their employees for the next four (4) years; and the establishment of a Fair Housing complaint policy for Defendants' tenants. The Brazoria Manor consent order is the first settlement filed by the Department that incorporates the Memorandum of Understanding among the Department of Treasury, HUD and the Department of Justice concerning low-income housing tax credit properties. That Memorandum requires the Department to notify state housing finance agencies of the filing and ultimate resolution of Fair Housing Act complaints filed against owners of low-income housing tax credit properties. The consent order provides that, in the event that Defendants fail to comply with its terms, the United States may notify the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs of the noncompliance. This provision serves to encourage the Defendants to adhere to the terms of the consent order or to risk losing the tax credits they receive through the state-administered Federal program.

United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.)

On April 16, 2007, the court approved and entered the consent order resolving United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which alleged sexual harassment discrimination. The consent order requires the Defendants to pay $110,000 in monetary damages to nine women, and a $15,000 civil penalty. The consent order also requires the Defendants to transfer all managerial responsibilities to an independent manager. The complaint, which was filed on December 22, 2005, alleged that from at least 2004 through the present, Defendant Mr. Brewer had subjected females tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, entering the dwellings of female tenants without permission or notice, and threatening to evict female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The Division commenced its investigation of the defendants in late 2004 based on a referral from the City of Knoxville.

United States v. Brosh (S.D. Ill.)

On November 20, 2003, the court issued a ruling  (PDF version 458KB) in the United States' favor in the case of United States v. Brosh (S.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 26, 2002, alleged that the defendant, Kenneth Brosh, refused to rent a single family residence located in Belleview, Illinois to an Air Force Captain, his wife, and their three minor children a family in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged that when the Captain's wife called Kenneth Brosh to inquire about the availability of a rental property he had advertised, Mr. Brosh stated that he did not rent to families with children under the age of three and refused to rent to the complainants once he learned that one of the complainant's children was age two.

A bench trial was held on September 22, 2003, in East St. Louis., Illinois. The court found that the defendant's conduct violated both § 3604(c) and § 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act. The court ordered the defendant to pay $15,000 in emotional distress damages to the complainants, as well as $445 dollars for costs they incurred as a result of the discrimination.

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. Briggs of San Antonio, d/b/a Fat Tuesday (W.D. Tex.)

On November 23, 2004, the court entered a stipulated order voluntarily dismissing the complaint in United States v. Briggs of San Antonio, Inc., d/b/a Fat Tuesday (W.D. Tex.), a Title II pattern or practice case that alleged discrimination on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 19, 2004. Because defendant has closed the San Antonio Fat Tuesday and has no plans to re-open it, the parties agreed to file the stipulation of dismissal of this case. As a condition of the dismissal, the defendant withdrew its motion to dismiss and also stipulated in the dismissal that he has no intention of reopening the restaurant.

The complaint alleged the San Antonio restaurant/bar known as Fat Tuesday, violated Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Filipinos on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The complaint alleged that the discriminatory conduct included, among other things: requiring prepayment for services not required of white persons.

United States v. The John Buck Company, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On September 18, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois and the Division submitted to the court a  consent decree. The complaint, filed on December 5, 2001, alleged the defendants; the John Buck Company, JBC Evanston Limited Partnership, Church & Chicago Limited Partnership, Harry Weese Associates, and Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning Worldwide P.C., discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the Park Evanston Apartments, a 283 unit hi-rise building in Evanston, Illinois accessible to persons with disabilities. The court entered the consent decree on September 25, 2002. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will retrofit the 283 units and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, pay damages of $30,000 to Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, pay $50,000 to compensate tenants who have been harmed by the lack of the accessible features at the complex, and pay a $13,600 civil penalty to the United States. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. The United States Attorney's Office and the Division filed the complaint in this matter on December 5, 2001. This case originated with a complaint filed by Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD conducted an investigation, issued a charge of discrimination, and referred the case to the Division.

United States v. Bryan Company (S.D. Miss.)

On May 19, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Bryan Company, (S.D. Miss.). The suit names the developers, owners, and design professionals responsible for the design and construction of nine properties in Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee. The nine complexes comprise more than 2,000 apartments with more than 800 ground-floor units that are required by the Fair Housing Act to contain accessible features. Eight of the complexes contain leasing offices that are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to contain accessible features. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design and construct the multifamily properties in accordance with the relevant accessibility requirements.

United States v. Bryan Construction Co. Inc. et al. (M.D. Tenn.)

On November 30, 2009, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Bryan Construction Company, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on March 10, 2005, alleged the defendants failed to design and construct South Bluff Apartments, Harbor Town Square Apartments, and Island Park Apartments, all located in downtown Memphis, in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. There are approximately 177 ground floor apartments at issue in addition to the public and common areas in each complex. The consent order covers eleven complexes located in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas that contain more than 800 units covered by the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility provisions. The consent order also: (1) requires eleven defendants to pay all costs related to making the complexes for which they were responsible accessible to persons with disabilities; (2) requires eleven defendants to pay up to $117,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing; (3) requires all defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and provide periodic reports to the United States; and (4) requires two defendants, Steve Bryan and Bryan Construction Company, Inc., to pay a civil penalty of $12,000.

United States v. Burgundy Gardens LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On April 17, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Burgundy Gardens, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case filed by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, filed on December 8, 2010, based in part on testing conducted by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program, alleged that the owner of Burgundy Gardens Apartments discriminated against persons on the basis of race and color, by, among other things, telling African Americans that certain apartments were not available while telling non-African Americans that such apartments were in fact available, and quoting higher rent prices to African Americans. In the consent decree, the defendant admits that its former on-site agent gave incorrect or incomplete information to African-American prospective tenants about the availability of apartments and failed to show available apartments to African-Americans. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay a $25,000 civil penalty and $150,000 into a victim fund to compensate persons who were harmed by its discriminatory practices. The decree includes standard injunctive relief and will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Cairns (M.D. Fla.)

On April 11, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Cairns (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act case. The complaint alleged that defendants Robert and Katerina Cairns evicted an African-American family from a single-family home because of their race, made discriminatory statements, and interfered with the family's fair housing rights. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay the family $25,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in attorneys' fees, undergo training, and meet reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

United States v. Harold W. Calvert, et al. (W.D. Mo.)

On April 30, 2008, the court entered a consent decree settling the United States' claims against Calvert Properties, Inc. for $250,000. The complaint, filed on August 8, 2006, alleged that Harold Calvert, the president of Calvert Properties, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Harold Calvert subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted physical sexual advances, forcible physical contact with the sexual parts of his body, inappropriate statements, and threats of eviction when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The consent decree requires Calvert Properties to pay $165,000 to six women whom the United States alleges were sexually harassed by Harold Calvert, and to two children of one of the women who witnessed their mother being harassed. Calvert Properties must also pay a $25,000 civil penalty. $60,000 has been set aside for an unidentified victim fund.

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. Camden Property Trust (D. Nev.)

The complaint in this case alleged that two developers and an architect failed to design and construct several apartment complexes in Las Vegas, Nevada with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, inter alia, steps into the individual units, inaccessible kitchens and bathrooms, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and inaccessible public and common use areas.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants are required to pay nearly $2 million to make retrofits to the apartment complexes, compensate aggrieved persons, and establish a retrofit fund. Specifically the defendants must: (1) pay approximately $1.7 million to make retrofits to the public and common use areas and individual units at the apartment complexes; (2) pay $25,000 to compensate aggrieved individuals; (3) pay $247,500 to establish an accessibility fund which will be used to provide grants to persons with disabilities who live in Las Vegas to assist them in making retrofits to their homes. The architect who designed the apartment complexes is paying $175,000 of the $247,500 accessibility fund. Additionally, over the next five years, the architect is required to provide technical assistance to non-profit groups in the Las Vegas area which provide assistance in housing to persons with disabilities.

United States v. Camp Riverview, Inc., d/b/a as Camp Riverview, et al. (W.D. Tex.)

On March 9, 2004, the court entered a settlement agreement and order in United States v. Camp Riverview (W.D. Tex.), a Title II case, filed on October 21, 2002, alleging discrimination against Hispanic campers based on national origin and color at the campground in Concan, Texas. The Division's investigation revealed that the campground and its owners, Jimmy Meyer and Suzanne Meyer, engaged in a pattern of evicting Hispanic campers and charging them double for the use of campground sites. The order contains injunctive relief prohibiting future discrimination and requiring the campground to adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures, maintain records on campers who are evicted, and maintain signage in public areas notifying campers of procedures to follow if they believe they are the victims of discrimination. The order will remain in effect for two years.

The case was initially referred to the Division by the Corpus Christi Human Relations Department.

United States v. Canal Street Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho)

On September 12, 2002, the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho filed a consent decree resolving United States v. Canal Street Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on March 16, 2001, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of handicap in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the 24 ground floor units and the public and common use areas in the Canal Street Apartments in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires the defendants to: retrofit the ground floor units and public and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, submit to periodic inspections and record-keeping, pay $3,300.00 in monetary damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, $5,000.00 to the Accessibility Improvement Program ("AIP") of the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to promote handicap accessible housing construction and Fair Housing in the Boise, Idaho and Ada County area and a $6,500.00 civil penalty. The five-year consent order also requires the defendants to notify the Division if they again design or construct multifamily dwellings and to provide a written statement from any architect involved with the project that the plans include design specifications that comply with the requirements of the Act and the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines.

The complaint was originally filed by the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigated a complaint filed by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Candlelight Manor Condominium Association (W.D. Mich.)

On October 17, 2003, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Candlelight Manor Condominium Association, No. 1:03-CV-248 (W.D. Mich.). The complaint alleged that the condominium association discriminated on the basis of familial status against a family with a child by forcing them to move out of a three-bedroom manufactured home pursuant to a condominium rule that permitted no more than three persons to occupy a unit. After the family moved into a new mobile home in the development, the Association board members told them that if they had a second child, they would be required to move out of that unit within one year. The consent decree enjoins the Association from discriminating on the basis of familial status and requires it to follow revised occupancy standards which shall not be more restrictive than those imposed by the City of Holland, the County of Allegan or the State of Michigan. The decree also provides for notification to the public of the Association's nondiscrimination policy, record-keeping and reporting. Damages for the family have been resolved as part of a settlement of a state court lawsuit they filed. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

The case was litigated primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

United States v. Candy II, d/b/a Eve (E.D. Wis.)

On December 29, 2006, the court entered a consent decree  in United States v. Candy II, dba Eve (E.D. Wis.) a Title II case. The complaint, which was filed on December 29, 2005, alleged that the defendant told African-Americans, but not similarly-situated whites, that the nightclub was full or was being used for a private party, when that was not the case. Pursuant to the consent decree, Eve, a nightclub in Milwaukee, will adopt new entry procedures designed to prevent racial discrimination, and will pay for periodic testing to assure that discrimination does not continue and requires Eve to post a prominent sign at the entries advising that Eve does not discriminate on the basis of race or color. In addition, Eve is required to train its managers, to send periodic reports to the Division and to adopt an objective dress code approved by the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Capital One, N.A. (E.D. Va.)

On December 21, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an amended consent order in United States v. Capital One, N.A. (E.D. Va.), settling a lawsuit which alleged the defendants violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The defendant has agreed to pay approximately $12 million to resolve the matter. The settlement covers a range of conduct that violated the protections guaranteed servicemembers by the SCRA, including wrongful foreclosures, improper repossessions of motor vehicles, wrongful court judgments, improper denials of the 6 percent interest rate the SCRA guarantees to servicemembers on some credit card and car loans, and insufficient 6 percent benefits granted on credit cards, car loans and other types of accounts. The agreement requires Capital One to pay approximately $7 million in damages to servicemembers for SCRA violations, including at least $125,000 in compensation plus compensation for any lost equity (with interest) to each servicemember whose home was unlawfully foreclosed upon, and at least $10,000 in compensation plus compensation for any lost equity (with interest) to each servicemember whose motor vehicle was unlawfully repossessed. In addition, the agreement requires Capital One to create a $5 million fund to compensate servicemembers who did not receive the appropriate amount of SCRA benefits on their credit card accounts, motor vehicle finance loans, and consumer loans. Any portion of the $5 million that remains after payments to servicemembers are made will be donated by Capital One to one or more charitable organizations that assist servicemembers. The consent order which was filed simultaneously with the complaint on July 26, 2012, is one of the most comprehensive SCRA settlements ever obtained by a government agency or any private party under the SCRA.

United States v. Hal Carter, et al. (M.D. Ga.)

On April 5, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Carter (M.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status. The defendants own and operate several apartment properties in and around Sylvester, Georgia. The consent decree requires the defendants to: adopt uniform, non-discriminatory standards, policies and procedures; provide training for employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; maintain records and submit bi-annual reports to the Division, and pay a $9,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and three months.

This case was developed through the Division's testing program.

United States v. Carteret Terrace, LLC (D.N.J.)

On August 17, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Carteret Terrace LLC (D. N.J.). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct 60 covered units and the public and common use areas at the Meridian Square apartment complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged that this failure constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination.

The consent decree requires the Defendant, Carteret Terrace, to retrofit the apartment complex so that the interiors of each ground floor unit and the common and public areas will be accessible to people using wheelchairs and establish a fund in the amount of $45,000 to be used to compensate other possible victims who may later be identified. The Defendant architect, Feinberg & Associates, will pay $5,000 in damages to Alliance for the Disabled, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for three½ years.

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. C&F Mortgage Corporation (E.D. Va.)

On September 30, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. C&F Mortgage Corporation (E.D. Va.), a pattern or practice case under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaint alleges that C&F charged greater interest rate markups (overages) and gave lesser discounts (underages) on home mortgage loans made to African-American and Hispanic borrowers by giving its employees wide discretion in overages and underages without having in place objective criteria for setting the overages and underages. The complaint alleges that this policy had a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic borrowers. The consent order resolves the case by requiring C&F to develop uniform policies for all aspects of its loan pricing and to phase out the practice of charging overages to home mortgage borrowers. The settlement also requires the bank to pay $140,000 to black and Hispanic victims of discrimination, monitor its loans for potential disparities based on race or national origin, and provide equal credit opportunity training to its employees. The court entered the consent order October 4, 2011.

United States v. C.F. Enterprises, LLC, et al. (S.D. Fla.)

On August 27, 2009 the court entered a consent decree resolving the claims in United States v. C.F. Enterprises LLC, et al. (S.D. Fla.) as to all but one defendant. The lawsuit, filed in August 2008 and later amended, alleged that the property manager at the time, Don Murroni, acting under the direction of Craig Forman, the president and sole shareholder of C.F. Enterprises, falsely told African-Americans that no apartments were available and discouraged African-Americans from applying. Murroni also allegedly offered to waive the application fee or other costs for white applicants, and told white testers that a selling point of College Square Apartments in Davie, Florida, was the absence of African-American tenants. The allegations were based on evidence obtained through the Department’s fair housing testing unit, where individuals pose as potential renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. Under the consent decree the defendants must pay a total of up to $140,000 to victims of discrimination and a civil penalty of $74,000 to the government.

The settlement requires C.F. Enterprises and Forman to implement and publicize a nondiscrimination policy and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. It also requires these defendants and their employees to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years. The consent decree does not resolve the US' claims against Murroni.

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. Cedar Builders, Inc., et al. (E.D. Wash.)

On September 14, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and the parties' consent decree in United States v. Cedar Builders, Inc., et al. (E.D. Wash.), Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging that the defendant developers and architect failed to build multifamily housing in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendant developers failed to build the public accommodations portions of the properties in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the agreement, the defendants will pay up to $500,000 to individuals who were harmed by the lack of accessible features at the properties. The balance of the fund, if any, will be used to provide accessible housing in the community. The agreement also provides for the retrofitting of more than 700 ground floor units at 10 properties, a $25,000 civil penalty, and a $15,000 fund for accessibility training for local designers and developers of multifamily housing. In addition, the agreement enjoins the defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act, enjoins the developer defendants from violating the ADA, and provides for fair housing training for supervisory employees with design and construction responsibilities.

United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.)

On October 13, 2006, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act/Fair Housing Act case which alleges discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The Bank is one of the largest residential and small business lenders in the Gary, Indiana, metropolitan area, one of the most racially segregated areas of the country. The complaint alleges Centier Bank has engaged avoided serving the lending and credit needs of majority minority neighborhoods, most of which are located in the cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond.

The consent order requires the Bank to: invest a minimum of $3.5 million in special financing program for residential and CRA small business loans; commit at least $375,000 in targeted advertising; invest $500,000 to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, business planning, and other related educational programs targeted at the residents and small businesses of African-American and Hispanic areas and sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work; open or acquire at least two full service offices within designated African - American neighborhoods; expand an existing supermarket branch in a majority Hispanic neighborhood to provide full lending services; provide the same services offered at its majority white suburban locations to all branches regardless of their location; train employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and require record-keeping and reports to United States as well as other remedial relief. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Champagne (E.D. La.)

On March 16, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants made statements to a tenant indicating a preference or discrimination because of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This election case was referred to us by HUD after the complainant, elected to proceed in federal court.

The evidence shows that the defendant landlords harassed and ultimately evicted the complainant, who is white, from her apartment because African American friends assisted her in her move into the unit.

The victim received $8,000 as part of the consent order, which also included injunctive relief and a note of apology from the defendants.

United States v. Chandler Gardens Realty, Inc. (D. Mass.)

On May 11, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a consent order in United States v. Chandler Gardens Realty, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.) The complaint, which was filed January 21, 2003, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of four four-unit rental properties in Worcester, Massachusetts, refused to rent an apartment to a woman and her four-year old son because children "did not get on well at the complex." The Housing Discrimination Project, a fair housing group in Holyoke, Massachusetts conducted several tests at the property. The property manager allegedly stated that she could not rent to families with children because the property had not been deleaded.

The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $18,000 in damages to the complainant, be enjoined from discriminating against families with children; display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in future advertising, and pay for their property manager to attend fair housing training. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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. Chateau Village Apartments, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On April 19, 2005, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Chateau Village Apartments, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that the owners of an apartment building in Carol Stream, Illinois refused to make a reasonable accommodation to allow the HUD complainant to move from a one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit (which had fewer steps and had more room for her therapeutic equipment), even though she had obtained a Section 8 voucher for a two-bedroom unit. Because of this refusal, the complainant allegedly was forced to move out. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay $33,000 to the Wendy Walsh Special Needs Trust and $4,500 to HOPE Fair Housing Center; adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and to obtain fair housing training. The decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Cherrywood & Associates, LP, et al. (D. Idaho)

On May 24, 2002, the United States filed a consent agreement with the court resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. Cherrywood Associates, LP, et al., CIV-00-0724-S-BLW (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on December 15, 2000, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they refused to permit a family of four to apply for an available, two bedroom unit because the family was expecting a third child. The family had a two year old boy and a one year old girl and the management prohibited children of different genders from sharing bedrooms, regardless of their ages. The defendants will pay the family $6,250 in damages, will modify their occupancy policy to be non-discriminatory, and comply with the Fair Housing Act. The court entered the consent order on June 24, 2002.

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. Chevy Chase Bank (D.D.C.)

In our complaint we alleged that the bank refused to market loans in predominantly African American neighborhoods because of the racial identity of those neighborhoods. Under the agreement we reached with the bank, it agreed to pay $11 million to the neglected areas through a special loan program and through efforts to service those neighborhoods.

United States v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. (E.D. Va.)

On October 4, 2013, the court entered a Settlement Agreement and Order in United States v. Chevy Chase Bank F.S.B. (E.D. Va.). The successor in interest to Chevy Chase Bank is Capital One N.A. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2013, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. Under the settlement, Capital One will pay $2.85 million to approximately 3,100 African-American and Hispanic victims of discrimination.

United States v. Chlypniacz, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On September 13, 2004, the court entered the consent order in United States & Wardiani v. Chlypniacz, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on May 7, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owners of a six-unit rental property in Chicago, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status by stating that they would not rent an apartment to the complainants because they had three children. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $30,000 to the complainants, attend fair housing training and submit to standard advertising, record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

United States v. Choice Property Consultants, Inc. (D. Mass.)

On November 18, 1997, the United States filed this complaint after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Choice Property Consultants, a private rental agency and its president, limited prospective applicants of rental properties based on the race, national origin, and familial status preferences of a landlord. The United States also added a claim that the defendants conduct, such as vacancy reports provided to the defendants' employees were coded to reflect those landlords who would not rent to African Americans, Hispanics, or to families with children was a pattern or practice of housing discrimination.

On May 7, 1999, the defendants agreed to a consent decree, which required them to provide fair housing training to their employees and agents; undertake affirmative marketing measures; and comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements. In addition, the complainant, a private fair housing organization, received $30,000 in compensatory damages.

United States v. Dwain Christopher (E.D. Tex.)

This is a fair housing case referred to us from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of race. The United States alleged, in our complaint that the defendant refused to rent a house to the complainant and her five children because two of the children were bi-racial (black/white). The terms of the consent order include the payment of $9,000.00 to the complainant and her children as well as training and reporting requirements for the defendant.

United States v. Cincinnati Capital Partners LXXIII, LLC (S.D. Ohio)

On January 27, 2012, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Cincinnati Capital Partners LXXIII, LLC (S.D. Ohio). The complaint, filed on September 7, 2011, alleged that defendants Cincinnati Capital Partners LXXIII, LLC, the owner of Valley Woods Apartments, and its former manager, Paula Wisham, violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (d), on the basis of race and national origin when the former manager told African-American testers that no apartment was available to rent or inspect, yet told Hispanic testers that an apartment was available immediately. The allegations are supported by testing conducted by the local fair housing group, Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME). The consent decree settles all claims, and requires the defendants to pay $5,000 in monetary damages to HOME and comply with 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.

United States v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank (E.D. Mich.)

On May 5, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank (E.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice case that was referred by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The complaint alleged that Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. (CRBC), as the successor to Republic Bank, and Citizens Bank failed to provide their home mortgage lending services to the residents of majority African-American neighborhoods on an equal basis as those services are provided to residents of predominantly white neighborhoods in the Detroit metropolitan area, a practice commonly known as "redlining." On May 24, the court declined to enter a proposed consent order, and on June 23, 2011, the United States and defendants filed a stipulated notice of dismissal based on the settlement agreement reached by the parties and attached to that notice. On June 28, 2011, the court dismissed the case. Under the settlement agreement, defendants will open a loan production office in an African-American neighborhood in the City of Detroit and hire two community lenders; and invest in the formerly redlined majority African-American areas of Wayne County by providing $1.5 million in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the bank extends in those areas, by partnering with the City of Detroit to provide $1.625 million in matching grants of up to $5,000 to existing homeowners for exterior improvements, and by conducting $500,000 in advertising, marketing, and consumer financial education targeted to those areas.

United States, et al. v. City of Agawam, et al. (D. Mass.)

On January 11, 2005, the court entered a consent order resolving United States, et al. v. City of Agawam, et al. (D. Mass.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint, filed on August 17, 2002, alleged that the City of Agawam, Massachusetts discriminated against a group of Black and Hispanic migrant farm workers when it rejected a plan to build a residence for twenty-seven farm workers in the City. The consent order requires the City to pay $250,000 in damages to the farm workers and their employer, in addition to a $10,000 civil penalty. The City will also issue a building permit for the housing, conduct fair housing training for city employees, and modify its zoning code to allow farm worker housing on agricultural property.

United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.)

On March 13, 2008, the court issued a ruling and injunction in United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act case in which the Division alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed in 2006, alleged that a zoning ordinance passed by the City in 2002 and amended in 2003 excluded housing for persons recovering from alcohol or drug dependency from residential zones and unreasonably restricted their operation in commercial zones, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The court enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance against licensed "substance abuse treatment facilities" operating separate group homes in residential areas. The court ruled that the ordinance did not violate the FHA by restricting "intensive inpatient facilities" and declined to award damages.

United States v. City of Blakely Housing Authority, et al. (M.D. Ga.)

On March 21, 2005, the the court approved and entered a consent order in United States v. City of Blakely Housing Authority, et al. (M.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on June 10, 2002, alleged that the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by maintaining racially segregated public housing and harassing African-American tenants. The complaint alleged that the Housing Authority advanced white applicants for public housing over black applicants on the waiting list, and placed and maintained single white tenants without children in two-bedroom apartments in Cedar Hill Homes II, a public housing complex, even though single tenants with no children were entitled under Housing Authority regulations to no more than a one bedroom or studio apartment. As a result several two-bedroom apartments were made unavailable to African-American families with children. The complaint also alleged that in its four other complexes, the Housing Authority rented to African-American tenants on less favorable terms than white tenants; failed to protect African-American tenants from racial harassment; and retaliated against those African-American tenants who exercised their rights under the Fair Housing Act.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $252,500 in compensatory damages, train employees on fair housing law, and establish new admissions policies and procedures to ensure that applicants are treated in a non-discriminatory manner. Additionally, the executive director of the Blakely Housing Authority shall resign under the terms of the decree.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) referred this matter to the Division after the Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity determined after an investigation that the Authority had engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination and notified HUD of its findings.

The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. City of Chicago Heights (N.D. Ill.)

In this case, the United States allege that the city's decision not to issue a permit to a mental health services provider to operate a residence for persons with mental illness was based on the disability of the prospective residents. The complaint also claims the city's action constitutes a failure to make a reasonable accommodation as required by the Fair Housing Act.

On March 21, 2001, the court granted partial summary judgment for the United States holding that the city failed to reasonably accommodate the providers request for a waiver of the spacing requirement, which the city had invoked to deny the provider a building permit, and the court, and the court enjoined the city from stopping construction of the group home. The court also held that portions of a newly enacted zoning code regulating group homes contained facially discriminatory provisions and enjoined the city from enforcing those provisions.

On August 21, 2001, we reached a settlement agreement in which the City of Chicago Heights paid Thresholds Inc. $122,878.00 in resolution of the government's remaining claim of damages on behalf of Thresholds. And, the city amended its 1998 zoning ordinance to remove the provisions regarding group homes and reverted back to the group home provisions of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance, thereby making moot the government's other remaining claim that it had intentionally made it more difficult for group homes to locate in Chicago Heights.

United States v. City and County of Honolulu, et al. (D. Haw.)

On January 23, 2007, the United States filed a settlement agreement in United States v. City & County of Honolulu, et al. (D. Haw.), resolving the individual claims of the complainant, who filed a complaint with HUD after he fell and broke his hip while walking over a curb without a ramp in West Loch Village. The original complaint, filed on February 22, 2005, alleged the City and County of Honolulu and three private design and construction firms discriminated on the basis of disability when they failed to build 75 ground floor units at West Loch Village, an apartment complex in Honolulu, Hawaii in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. The defendants will pay the complainant $150,000 in damages.

On January 24, 2007, the Division filed a partial consent order resolving the pattern or practice design and construction portion of this case. Under the terms of the partial consent order the defendants – the City and County of Honolulu; Mecon Hawaii Limited; Yamasato, Fujiwara, Higa & Associates, Inc.; Hawaii Affordable Properties, Inc; and R.M. Towill Corp. – will pay for the retrofitting of the apartment complex. The defendants must also establish a $75,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The settlement also requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. City of Columbus (S.D. Ind.)

On June 17, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. City of Columbus (S.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice suit. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2009 alleged that the City discriminated on the basis of disability when it denied a permit for the operation of a home for recovering addicts. Under the terms of the decree, the city will adopt a procedure for processing reasonable accommodations to its zoning ordinance, and pay $18,000 in monetary damages to the providers of the proposed home and a $6,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree also requires standard injunctive relief with respect to training, record-keeping, and reporting.

United States v. City of Fairview Heights (S.D. Ill.)

On September 18, 2001, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. City of Fairview Heights (S.D. Ill.), a fair housing case alleging that the city discriminated on the basis of race and familial status in the denial of a building permit to a developer. In 1998, Fairview Heights, a small city in southern Illinois near St. Louis, Missouri, denied a permit to build an apartment complex proposed by a developer. The Developer, who is African-American, filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) who referred the matter to the Division. The United States' complaint alleged that the city acted out of fear that the complex would bring African American tenants into the city and because of the City’s desire to have no or few children in the apartment complex and/or to appease local residents who opposed the project based on such fears at a series of public hearings. Under the terms of the consent decree the City agrees to: pay $275, 000 to the aggrieved parties; intervening plaintiffs and their counsel; submit to standard injunctive relief; obtain fair housing training, designate a fair housing compliance monitor; submit to reporting and record-keeping requirements; and inspection of records. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. City of Hanford (E.D. Cal.)

On October 14, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. City of Hanford (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2004, alleges the denial of a reasonable accommodation to the residents of a group home for persons with disabilities. The consent decree requires the city to allow the continued operation of the home in a single-family residential district; enjoins the city from further discrimination; incorporates a city ordinance setting forth procedures by which persons with disabilities may apply for reasonable accommodations and provides for a total of $55,000 in compensatory damages for current and former residents of the home. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. City of Hollywood (S.D. Fla.)

On July 7, 2006, the Court entered consent orders resolving both the Synagogue's and the Division's lawsuits against the City in United States v. City of Hollywood (S.D. Fla.), a RLUIPA case in which the Division alleges that the City of Hollywood, Florida violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, when, among other things, the City denied the Hollywood Community Synagogue's application for a special exception. The consent orders resolving the United States complaint against the City of Hollywood that the Division filed on April 26, 2005.

As part of the Consent order between the city and the United States, the city agreed to allow the Hollywood Community Synagogue to operate permanently as a house of worship at its properties, and to expand if it should acquire additional properties within a block of its current location. The city also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the city will adopt new complaint procedures, and report periodically regarding matter related to compliance with the Order to the Justice Department. In a separate consent order between the city and the Synagogue, filed with the court at the same time, the city also agreed to pay the Synagogue $2 million in damages and attorneys fees and costs.

United States v. The City of Janesville (N.D. Iowa)

On November 5, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. The City of Janesville (N.D. Iowa), a Fair Housing Act land use case alleging discrimination based on race, color and national origin. The complaint alleges that the City of Janesville, Iowa, discriminated in January 2000, when it denied the re-zoning request of private developers who sought to build a 116-lot manufactured home residential development in the City.

The consent decree, which was entered on November 15, 2004, requires the City to: provide fair housing training to City officials; modify its local zoning ordinance; undertake a Fair Housing outreach plan to support the development of affordable housing in Janesville; submit biannual compliance reports; pay $45,000 in compensatory damages to the developers and a $10,000 civil penalty. The consent decree also enjoins the City from further acts of discrimination. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. City of Johnstown, Pa. (W.D. Pa.)

On June 16, 2004, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Johnstown (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on October 21, 2002, alleged the City denied the American Legion's application for a conditional use permit to operate a transitional housing facility for homeless veterans at an old school building because the prospective occupants were disabled. There was strong neighborhood opposition to the proposed facility.

The consent order enjoins the city from discriminating on the basis of disability in housing. In addition, the city will pay $82,500 in damages to the American Legion and a $15,000 civil penalty to the United States. Certain city employees will also receive training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

The case was originally referred to the Division by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

United States v. City of Joliet (N.D. Ill.)

On August 4, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Joliet (N.D. Ill.) alleging that the City's actions to condemn and take by eminent domain a Section 8 project-based affordable housing complex known as Evergreen Terrace violate the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that the City has not put forth a reasonable plan to provide safe and affordable replacement housing for the displaced residents, 96% of whom are African-American, and that City's actions have the purpose and effect of discriminating on the basis of race and color. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is a defendant in the condemnation action due to its interest in the property. The complaint also includes a claim that the City's actions violate the Housing and Community Development Act, which prohibits discrimination in any program funded in whole or in part by HUD funds granted under the HCDA, which includes Community Development Block Grants.

United States v. City of Lake Station (N.D. Ind.)

In December 1998, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the City of Lake Station, Indiana violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to permit the development of a subdivision of affordable, owner-occupied, single-family tract homes on an approximately 100-acre city lot. The United States contends that the refusal to authorize the construction was based on fears that the subdivision's residents would come from neighboring Gary, whose population is overwhelmingly African American. Despite Lake Station's proximity to Gary, only 0.2 percent of Lake Station's population is African American.

The consent order, entered on March 26, 2001, requires the City to permit construction of the subdivision, called Timbercreek, the first phase of which should be completed next year, after the City makes improvements to its sewer system. Under the agreement, the City will also: (1) amend its ordinances to ensure that all Timbercreek homes qualify for a significant, six-year, phased-out property tax abatement; (2) waive standard building permit fees, occupancy permit fees and inspection fees for Timbercreek homes; (3) waive water meter installation fees on the first four homes; (4) pay LCEDC $10,000 to market Timbercreek throughout Northwest Indiana; (5) enter into a $5,000 per year services contract with NIOHC for the next five years; and (6) send City officials to fair housing training. The consent order imposes standard injunctive, record-keeping and reporting obligations on the defendants as well.

United States v. City of Lilburn (N.D. Ga.)

On August 26, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and a consent decree on August 29th, in United States v. City of Lilburn (N.D. Ga.), a religious discrimination case brought under RLUIPA alleging that the city discriminated against an Islamic group seeking to construct a mosque by denying the group's applications for rezoning and a special use permit. The settlement requires the city to conduct RLUIPA training, establish procedures for addressing RLUIPA complaints, report to the United States, retain records, and expedite other permitting needed for the Islamic group to construct the mosque. The court entered the consent decree on September 1, 2011.

United States v. City of Lomita (C.D. Cal.)

On March 8, 2013, the United States filed a complaint and agreed order in United States v. City of Lomita (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) when it denied the Islamic Center of the South Bay's application to tear down the aging and scattered structures on its property and construct a new mosque. The denial is alleged to have created a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Islamic Center and its members. The agreed order requires the city to consider a renewed application by the Islamic Center on an expedited schedule contained in a separate agreement between the city and the Islamic Center. The settlement also contains recordkeeping, reporting, and training requirements for city officials. The court entered the agreed order on March 8, 2013.

United States v. City of Milwaukee (E.D. Wis.)

On February 4, 1997, the United States filed a Title VIII complaint alleging that the City discriminated on the basis of national origin against Native Americans by denying a zoning variance to a proposed low-income senior citizen housing development sponsored in part by the Indian Council of the Elderly. In the consent order, filed on May 31, 2001, the City agreed to provide more than $650,000 toward the construction of the senior center, including $340,000 in damages to the private plaintiffs and other aggrieved persons.

United States, et al. v. City of Mt. Pleasant, et al. (M.D. Tenn.)

On October 24, 2002, the United States filed a consent order resolving United States and Roslyn Baker v. City of Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint, filed in June, 2001, alleged that the City and the South Central Tennessee Development District discriminated against an African-American woman, and her three children, during their participation in the HOME Program, a HUD-funded federal housing subsidy program. Since 1990, the HOME Program has made 400,000 newly constructed or rehabilitated housing units available to low income individuals throughout the United States. The complaint alleged that in administering the HOME Program, the defendants discriminated against the woman and her family based on race, by: refusing to approve repairs to her home that were approved for white participants in the HOME program; providing home repairs that did not bring her home up to code, while bringing the homes of white participants up to code; and offering a replacement home to several white participants but not to her.

The consent order requires defendants to pay the woman and her family $55,000 in compensatory damages, and to construct a replacement home, at a cost not to exceed $87,588, consistent with the HOME Program guidelines. In addition, the consent order requires the defendants to complete fair housing training, adopt non-discriminatory policies governing the treatment of participants in their housing assistance programs and inform the public that they are equal housing opportunity providers. The court entered the consent order on December 16, 2002.

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. City of New Berlin (E.D. Wis.)

On April 19, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of New Berlin (E.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act lawsuit. In the complaint, filed on June 23, 2011, the Division alleged that the City withdrew its initial approval for the construction of a Low Income Housing Tax Credit affordable housing development in response to race-based opposition from community residents and also took actions in response to that opposition to prevent the future construction of affordable housing. The Division, as well as the project's developer, had previously filed motions for preliminary injunction, after which the City agreed to allow the construction of the project. Under the consent decree, which still must be approved by the court, the City is enjoined from further obstructing completion of the development. The City is further required to reverse its actions that prevented the development of further affordable housing and must implement a housing outreach plan to encourage developers of affordable housing to come to New Berlin. The City is also required to establish a Housing Trust Fund that is capitalized initially with $75,000 to assist projects that promote affordable housing and residential integration in the City. City officials must also receive fair housing training, and the City must pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

United States v. City of New Orleans (E.D. La.)

On April 17, 2014, the court entered a settlement agreement between the United States and the City of New Orleans in United States v. City of New Orleans & Louisiana State Bond Commission (E.D. La.). The complaint, filed on August 6, 2012, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the ADA by blocking the conversion of a former nursing home into a housing development that would include 20 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons with disabilities. The settlement agreement, which is enforceable as an order of the court, requires the City to allow the housing development to be built and to provide the developer with all necessary and appropriate permits to complete the development. The settlement also requires the City to develop 350 additional permanent supportive housing beds for persons with disabilities over the next three years; to amend its Zoning Ordinance to make permanent supportive housing a permitted use in all multifamily districts; and to prepare and implement a reasonable accommodation policy pursuant to the FHA and Title II. Standard training and reporting relief are also included. The case has not been resolved as to the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

United States v. City of Parma (N.D. Ohio)

In 1995, we resolved our long-standing litigation against the City of Parma, Ohio. In 1980, the court determined that the city violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a series of actions undertaken for the purpose and effect of excluding African Americans from living in the virtually all-white suburban community outside of Cleveland, Ohio. Our agreement with the city is designed to promote voluntary housing integration and increase housing opportunities for African Americans who want to live in Parma. The new agreement provides for the establishment of a housing counseling office, which oversees implementation of an affirmative marketing plan designed to attract African Americans to Parma and provides housing counseling services and financial assistance to first-time home buyers. In addition to paying all overhead and administrative expenses for the housing counseling center, the city agreed to provide at least $500,000 for a down payment assistance program for home buyers and at least $500,000 for a rental rehabilitation program, which provides low-interest loans to local landlords to rehabilitate apartments.

United States v. City of Payette, Idaho (D. Idaho)

On September 15, 2003, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. City of Payette (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on October 21, 2002, alleged the City violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow Harbor House, a group home for recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts to open in a residential neighborhood of the city. The city claimed that the group home was a "commercial" entity that didn't belong in a residential neighborhood, although the city had previously allowed other commercial businesses to open in residential neighborhoods.

The consent decree requires the City to: allow the group home to open at its originally requested location; comply with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act; notify the United States of any applications for permits and zoning requests relating to group homes; and train city employees and officials on the requirements of the Act . The Defendant will also pay $15,000 to the owner/operators of the facility, and a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The donsent decree will remain in effect for three years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

United States v. City of Pooler, GA (S.D. Ga.)

On June 16, 2003, in United States v. City of Pooler, GA, (S.D. Ga.), the court entered a Settlement Agreement and Dismissal Order resolving all claims in this Fair Housing Act case. The Division filed this action against the City of Pooler on November 13, 2001, alleging that the City, a majority white suburban community outside Savannah, Georgia discriminated on the basis of race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act when it took certain steps during 2000 to block the development of low-income senior housing in Pooler. Under the terms of the Order, the housing developer will receive $25,000 in compensation and the City will contribute up to $425,000 towards the construction of new affordable housing for senior citizens. In addition, the City will provide training for its employees, maintain certain records and engage in outreach activities to recruit developers to build low-income housing in Pooler. The Order will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. City of Santa Rosa (N.D. Cal.)

On August 2, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Santa Rosa (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on Nov. 21, 2011, alleged that the city of Santa Rosa, Calif., and La Esplanada Unit 1 Owners' Association, a homeowners' association, unlawfully sought to restrict residency at a housing development to seniors aged 55 and older. While the law allows an exemption for senior housing, the suit alleged that neither the city nor the homeowners' association took the steps, such as routine age-verification, necessary to qualify for an exemption to the Fair Housing Act. Under the terms of the consent order, the city of Santa Rosa will not take any enforcement action against the housing development to force it to exclude families with children, and will waive the estimated $12,500 in costs associated with any zoning changes that may be necessary to bring the city's regulation of the property into compliance with federal law. In addition, the homeowners' association will provide compensatory damages to the aggrieved persons in an amount of $44,000 by providing a set-off to amounts it has claimed it is owed by the aggrieved persons. The consent order also requires additional affirmative relief which includes fair housing training. The homeowners' association and the city shall also pay $5,000 each to the United States as a civil penalty. 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. City of St. Anthony Village (D. Minn.)

On August 27, the United States and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota filed a complaintin United States v. City of St. Anthony (D. Minn.), a case alleging that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it denied a conditional use permit to a mosque to locate on the ground floor of an office building. The suit alleges that the city violated Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA, which requires that religious assemblies be treated at least as well as nonreligious assemblies. The zone where the office building is located permitted assembly halls when the permit was denied, and contains a union lodge with banquet facilities. The suit also alleges that the denial imposed a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of the mosque and its members without a compelling justification, in violation of RLUIPA Section 2(a). The suit seeks a declaration that the denial violated RLUIPA and an injunction to remedy the violation.

United States v. City of Satsuma, et al. (S.D. Ala.)

On September 16, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Satsuma, et al. (S.D. Ala.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice land use case that was referred by HUD. The complaint filed on May 7, 2008 alleged the city of Satsuma, Ala., and the city’s Board of Adjustment, discriminated against individuals with disabilities. The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated against three persons on the basis of their disabilities by refusing to allow them to reside together in a group home. The suit charged that Satsuma refused to make reasonable accommodations in its rules, policies, practices or services, which were necessary to afford the residents an opportunity to use and enjoy their home. The three adult residents lived in a single-family home with supportive services provided by professional care-givers. The City's zoning ordinance permitted five unrelated persons to reside together in single-family homes in residential districts of the City. Under the consent decree, the city agreed to pay $59,000 in damages to the operator of a group home for three women with intellectual disabilities and the trustees of the three residents, as well as a $5,500 civil penalty to the government. As part of the settlement, the city also adopted amendments to its zoning laws.

United States v. City of Toledo, Ohio (N.D. Ohio)

In this case, we claimed that the City of Toledo, Ohio violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against persons with disabilities. Our complaint, filed on September 2, 1998, contended that the city had enacted an ordinance, which sought to limit the number of group homes that could be located within a specified distance of each other.

Under the settlement agreement, filed on March 25, 1999, which resolved the litigation, the city agreed to repeal the challenged ordinance and to revise its zoning regulations. In addition, the city agreed pay $95,500 in damages to the private plaintiffs in the companion actions as well as their attorneys' fees.

United States v. City of Saraland, Alabama and Saraland Board of Adjustment (S.D. Ala.)

On October 24, 2006, the Unites States filed a consent order resolving United States v. City of Saraland, Alabama and Saraland Board of Adjustment (S.D. Ala.). The complaint, filed on May 18, 2005, alleged that the defendants, an Alabama municipality and its zoning adjustment authority, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they refused to grant a special exception for the establishment of a foster home for mentally disabled adults in a residential zone of the City. The consent order resolves the government's case as well as a consolidated lawsuit filed by the Fair Housing Center of Alabama on behalf of Lewis Community Care and its owners. Under the consent order the city has agreed to allow the complainants to operate their home as planned, and to pay $65,000 in damages and attorneys fees to the complainants and a civil penalty of $7,000 to the government. The consent order also mandates that certain city employees undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, and that the city maintain records relating to future proposals for housing for disabled persons and submit periodic reports to the Division. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. City of Satsuma, Alabama (S.D. Ala.)

On April 30, 2009, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. City of Satsuma, et al. (S.D. Ala.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice land use case that was referred by HUD. The amended complaint adds three additional causes of action. The original complaint, filed on May 7, 2008, alleged that defendants discriminated against three persons on the basis of their disabilities by refusing to allow them to reside together in a group home. The suit charges that Satsuma refused to make reasonable accommodations in its rules, policies, practices or services, which were necessary to afford the residents an opportunity to use and enjoy their home. The three adult residents lived in a single-family home with supportive services provided by professional care-givers. The City's zoning ordinance permits five unrelated persons to reside together in single-family homes in residential districts of the City. The suit seeks a court order prohibiting future discrimination by the City and requiring the City to grant the requested accommodation, pay monetary damages to compensate victims, and pay a civil penalty.

United States v. City of Walnut, California (C.D. Cal.)

On August 4, 2011, the court approved an agreed order resolving the United States' injunctive and declaratory claims in United States v. City of Walnut (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2010, alleged that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), when, in 2008, it denied a conditional use permit to the Chung Tai Zen Center. The Zen Center sought the permit so that it could build and operate a Buddhist house of worship at property it then owned in the city. The agreed order, which is enforceable by the court, mandates that the City of Walnut not impose differential zoning or building requirements on other houses of worship. The City also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the City will adopt new procedures that clarify its appeals process for houses of worship, and will report periodically to the Justice Department. The Buddhist house of worship's private claims have not been settled, and trial is expected to occur in April or May 2012.

United States v. City of Waukegan (N.D. Ill.)

In this case filed on August 13, 1996, we claimed that an ordinance enacted by the City of Waukegan discriminated against Hispanic individuals because it limited the number of persons related by blood or marriage who could live together in the same dwelling. At the time that the city passed the ordinance, its Hispanic population percentage was increasing. The United States contended that the city enacted the ordinance based on the belief that Hispanics moving into the community often lived in extended families and that the ordinance would slow the growth of the Hispanic population. The consent order, which resolved this case on May 22, 1997, required the city to cease enforcement of the ordinance, institute non-discriminatory policies, and pay $175,00 in damages to the victims of the discriminatory policy and $25,000 in civil penalties to the United States.

United States v. City of Waukegan, Ill. (N.D. Ill.)

On February 19, 2008, the United States filed a lawsuit and consent order in United States v. City of Waukegan, Ill. (N.D. Ill.), resolving allegations that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by treating religious assemblies less favorably than similar non-religious assemblies in several city zoning districts.

The complaint alleged that the city had imposed and implemented zoning code provisions that are more restrictive for houses of worship than for nonreligious assemblies and institutions such as clubs, lodges and meeting halls, in violation of RLUIPA. Under the terms of the consent order, the city must amend its zoning code within 60 days so that the code does not treat religious assemblies and institutions differently from comparable non-religious assemblies or institutions. The consent order also requires the city to provide training for personnel on RLUIPA's requirements and post notices about the consent order at various locations. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. City of Wildwood (D. N.J.)

The City of Wildwood, a beach resort town located in southern New Jersey, enacted an occupancy ordinance, which unnecessarily limited the number of persons who could occupy a residential dwelling based on the size of the dwelling; portions of the local ordinance were so restrictive that it allowed only one person per bedroom in a unit. The United States claimed that the enforcement scheme was targeted against publicly-subsidized families with children, many of whom were Hispanic. At the same time, the town designed the ordinance to exclude groups that were predominantly white. Owner-occupied apartments as well as seasonal rentals, which constitute over half of the city's housing stock, were virtually exempt from the city's enforcement efforts.

The United States filed our complaint and immediately obtained an order temporarily enjoining enforcement of the ordinance. Prior to a trial, the city agreed to a consent decree, which replaced the restrictive ordinance with an occupancy standard established by a nationally-recognized building organization. The consent decree also required the city to distribute a fund of $65,000 among those persons damaged by its actions and to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

United States v. City Rescue Mission (W.D. Pa.)

On August 20, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City Rescue Mission (W.D. Pa.), an election referral from HUD. The complaint, which was filed on June 28, 2013, alleged a pattern or practice of FHA and ADA violations, including that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to allow the HUD complainant to stay in the homeless shelter with his guide dog. The consent order requires the defendants to obtain civil rights training and to adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy, including allowing occupants with assistance animals to reside anywhere in the shelter, and not just in the infirmary. The decree also contains a $5,000 civil penalty and refers to a separate monetary agreement between the HUD complainant and the defendants.

United States v. Claiborne (E.D. Cal.)

On April 21, 2004, the court entered a donsent decree resolving United States v. Claiborne (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on May 21, 2002, alleged that the defendant, the owner of two apartment complexes in Sacramento and one complex in Auburn, California, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged the defendant subjected his female tenants to a repeated and pervasive pattern of sexual harassment including: sexual comments; unwanted sexual touching; entering their apartments without permission, and refusing to let them have male guests.

Under the consent decree, the defendant will: pay a total of $92,000 to twelve female tenants who were harmed by the discrimination; pay an $8,000 civil penalty to the United States; remove judgment liens for several of the tenants; establish an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure for the apartments he continues to own and refrain from engaging in any management duties at the Auburn property and a single family home. The defendant is also enjoined from further discrimination based on gender and must keep records for future review by the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years and three months.

United States v. Clarendon Hill Towers (D. Mass.)

On December 19, 2012, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Clarendon Hill Towers (D. Mass.), alleging that Clarendon Hill Towers violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to a couple because they had three minor children. 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. William I. Cochran, III, et al. (E.D.N.C.)

On September 25, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. William I. Cochran, III, et al.(E.D.N.C.). The complaint alleges that the manager of approximately 24 single-family rental properties in Washington, North Carolina, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to African-American tenants by refusing maintenance on dilapidated properties, verbally harassing tenants with racial slurs and epithets, making other discriminatory statements, and retaliating against tenants who requested maintenance or otherwise resisted the discriminatory housing practices. The complaint alleges that the manager's conduct violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3604(b), 3604(c), and 3617, and alleges that the corporate owners of the properties are liable for the manager's conduct.

United States v. Cogan, et al. (W.D. Ky.)

On December 8, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Cogan, et al. (W. D. Ky.), a pattern or practice Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the owners, developer, and design professionals involved in the design and construction of Park Place Apartments, a multi-family housing complex in Louisville, KY with 138 covered ground-level units. The complaint, filed on August 10, 2010, alleged the defendants discriminated against persons with disabilities when they designed and constructed Park Place in violation of the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The decree provides for significant retrofits of the covered units, the public and common use areas, and the accessible routes. It contains standard injunctive relief, and it provides for $275,000 in compensation for 29 identified aggrieved victims. The United States was time-barred from seeking a civil penalty. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint and conducted an investigation.

United States v. Coldwell Banker Joe T. Lane Realty, Inc. (N.D. Ga.)

On February 9, 2010, the court entered a consent order resolving a lawsuit which originated from a complaint filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The original complaint, filed in February 2008 and amended in January 2009 was developed by testing conducted by NFHA of Coldwell Banker Joe T. Lane Realty Inc. in 2003 and 2004 and revealed that a real estate agent had steered white testers towards areas that are predominately white and away from areas that are predominately African-American because of race or color, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. According to the complaint, before showing the tester any homes, the agent told the tester that he did not know where to take the tester because he could not tell from talking on the telephone whether the tester was white. The agent said words to the effect that "I didn't’t know if you were a Caucasian or not over the phone." The complaint also alleges that Coldwell Banker Joe T. Bank Realty is vicariously liable for Mr. Foreman's conduct. The consent order requires that the Defendants Coldwell Banker Joe T. Lane Realty Inc., Coldwell Banker Bullard Realty Company Inc. and Rodney Lee Foreman, one of their former real estate agents, pay $160,000 to settle allegations that they illegally steered prospective homebuyers toward and away from certain neighborhoods based on race and color. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Collier (W.D. La.)

On September 28, 2010, the court entered judgment in favor of the United States in United States v. Collier, et al. (W.D. La.). After a two day trial, the court found that Collier implemented "a scheme or device to exclude blacks" from Camp Joy Marina and engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The court credited the testimony of one government witness who operated the marina restaurant and bar, and who testified that Collier threatened to cancel his lease if he allowed African-Americans on the property. The court also found that when a couple living at the marina tried to sell their home, Collier caused the sale to fall apart and then repossessed the house because he was afraid they would sell it to an African-American. The lawsuit, which resulted from an investigation conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleged that Collier engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by excluding African-Americans from the Camp Joy Marina, located outside Shreveport, and by interfering with the sale of a home based on the perceived race of the buyer. The court ordered Collier to pay a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to pay more than $25,000 to compensate the victims of the discrimination.

United States v. Colts Pride Homeowners Association, et al. (D. N.J.)

On October 7, 2003, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Colt's Pride Homeowner Association, et al. (D.N.J.). The complaint, filed on January 28, 2002, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation requested by the homeowner allowing him to place a window air conditioning unit in his home. The homeowner suffers from pulmonary asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and chronic "irritative" bronchitis. Under the Decree the defendants are required to: implement a reasonable accommodation policy; install and maintain a ductless air conditioning system as long as the HUD complainant owns his home; and pay the complainant $15,000.00 in damages. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and sixty days.

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. Community State Bank (E.D. Mich.)

On January 15, 2013, the United states filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Community State Bank (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which grew out of a referral from the FDIC, alleges that from 2006 to 2009, Community redlined majority-African-American census tracts in the Saginaw and Flint, Michigan metropolitan areas, including substantial portions of the City of Saginaw. Community is an eight-branch bank that is one of the five largest banks in Saginaw County, but has never operated a branch in the City of Saginaw and made only one loan in Saginaw's majority-African American census tracts during the four-year period. The consent order requires Community to open a loan production office in a majority-African-American neighborhood of the City of Saginaw and to fund a $75,000 loan subsidy program, a $75,000 community development partnership program, and a $15,000 advertising program to encourage and increase lending in the redlined tracts. The court entered the consent order on March 12, 2013.

United States v. Compass Bank (N.D. Ala.)

On February 21, 2007, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Compass Bank (N.D. Ala.), resolving claims that Compass Bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by engaging in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of marital status in thousands of automobile loans that it made through hundreds of different car dealerships in the South and Southwest between May 2001 and May 2003. Specifically, the complaint, filed on January 12, 2007, alleged that the bank charged non-spousal co-applicants higher interest rates than similarly-situated married co-applicants. This case resulted from a referral by the Federal Reserve Board. To remedy the alleged discrimination, Compass Bank will pay up to $1.75 million to compensate several thousand non-spousal co-applicants whom the United States alleges were charged higher rates as a result of their marital status.

United States v. Compton Place Associates, et al. (M.D. Fla.)

On August 6, 2003, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Compton Place Assoc., et al. (M.D. Fla.) resolving all of the United States' pattern and practice claims filed on March 4, 2003. This case, based on violations uncovered through the Section's fair housing testing program, alleged that the designers, owners and builders of three large apartment complexes in the Tampa area discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct those apartments so they are accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under the terms of the Order, the defendants must retrofit the 416 covered units and the common use areas at Compton Place at Tampa Palms, The Landings at Cypress Meadows and Sheldon Palms Apartments so that they are accessible to persons with disabilities, obtain training, and design and construct all future multi-family housing in compliance with federal law. In addition, the defendants agreed to build four hundred and twenty (420) single-family homes that are accessible to persons with disabilities, the first two hundred ten (210) of which will include roll-in showers and custom height cabinetry upon request without additional charge to the buyer. The defendant-architect agrees to provide 100 hours of free services per year for the next three years to non-profit groups in the Tampa area which work to provide accessible housing to persons with disabilities. Defendants will pay $45,000 to aggrieved persons who were harmed by the inaccessible features at the complexes and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for a minimum of seven years and six months.

United States v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (C.D. Cal.)

On December 28, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint and proposed consent order, filed on December 21, 2011 against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries Countrywide Home Loans and Countrywide Bank, alleged that between 2004 and 2008, Countrywide engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination in its residential lending activities in violation of both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The alleged violations by Countrywide include: (a) discrimination against African-American and Hispanic borrowers in the pricing of retail home loans; (b) discrimination against African-American and Hispanic borrowers in the pricing of wholesale home loans; (c) discrimination against African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers by placing them in subprime loan products when it placed white wholesale borrowers with similar credit qualifications in prime loan products; and (d) discrimination on the basis of marital status by following policies and practices that encouraged the non-applicant spouse of a married borrower applying for credit in his/her own name to execute documents transferring his/her rights in the property securing the loan to the applicant spouse. The consent order includes the establishment of a $335 million Settlement Fund to compensate victims of Countrywide's discrimination, which is being administered by an independent Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., and injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the alleged unlawful lending practices in the event Countrywide re-enters the residential mortgage lending business.

United States v. Covenant Retirement Community (E.D. Cal.)

On August 23, 2007, the United States filed a consent order and an amended complaint in United States v. Covenant Retirement Communities West, Inc. (E.D. Cal.). The original complaint was filed on December 20, 2004. The complaint, as amended, alleges that Chicago-based Covenant Retirement Communities, Inc., and its subsidiaries violated the Fair Housing Act by employing policies that: required residents of retirement communities who used motorized mobility aids to obtain personal liability insurance, demonstrate their competence at operating the motorized aid, and provide physician's certifications of need; barred residents and visitors from using mobility aids in certain common areas, including dining rooms; and steered persons with mobility impairments from independent living to assisted living. The 15 covered retirement communities are located in California, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Florida, and Michigan.

The court entered the consent order, on August 27, 2007, dismantled those policies. Residents and visitors who have disabilities will be free to use their mobility aids throughout the complexes and may not be subjected to conditions of use, including testing, proof of need, or the purchase of insurance. The Defendants will also establish a $530,000 settlement fund for persons who may have been injured by their policies, pay residents who were tested $250 (and such additional damages as they may have suffered), and pay a $30,000 civil penalty. The consent order also calls for employee training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping, and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (N.D. Ga.)

On May 18, 2009 the court entered an agreed order to modify and extend parts of the existing consent order in United States v. CBOCS, Inc., f/k/a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) filed in 2004. The order continues certain requirements for CBOCS' investigation of complaints of discrimination against customers based on race or color as well as related training and other provisions in order to fully remedy the allegations of the complaint filed by the Justice Department on May 3, 2004. The lawsuit alleged that Cracker Barrel violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American customers and prospective customers on the basis of their race or color.

The complaint alleged that Cracker Barrel allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; segregated customer seating by race; seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier; provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints. The complaint alleged that such conduct occurred in more than 30 percent of the approximately 155 Cracker Barrel restaurants in seven states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, as well as in other states.

The original consent order, entered on May 4, 2004, which covers all Cracker Barrel restaurants nationwide, required Cracker Barrel adopt and implement effective nondiscrimination policies and procedures; implement new and enhanced training programs to ensure compliance with Title II and the consent order; develop and implement an improved system for investigating, tracking and resolving discrimination complaints; retain an outside contractor to test the compliance of Cracker Barrel restaurants with Title II and the Order; and publicize the company’s nondiscrimination policies.

United States v. Crawford (N.D. Ohio)

In March 1998, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the owner of numerous rental properties in the Akron, Ohio area had sexually harassed his female tenants. The complaint detailed his alleged discriminatory actions, including several acts of sexual battery against the women. The United States also alleged that the defendant's discriminatory practices resulted in the constructive eviction of several victims, the refusal of women to rent from him because they feared harassment, and retaliation against some individuals who refused his sexual advances.

On October 26, 1999, a federal jury returned a verdict in this and two related cases finding that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act and awarded $490,000 to the victims of the harassment. The district court imposed a civil penalty of $40,000 against each of the two defendants.

United States v. Crim (N.D. Ala.)

On December 16, 2008, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Crim, (N.D. Ala.). The complaint, filed on January 30, 2008, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and/or color. The complaint alleged that Defendants Crim owned and rented a single-family home located in Decatur Alabama. The complaint alleged that Defendants made unavailable or denied a dwelling because of race and/or color; made statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race and/or color; and made representations because of race and/or color that a dwelling was not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling was in fact so available. The consent decree required standard injuctive relief and a payment of $20,000 to the complainant. 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. Croom (D. N.M.)

On November 2, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Croom (D. N.M.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the owner/landlord of four single-family houses and a four-plex in Albuquerque, New Mexico violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow his tenant, who uses a wheelchair to make certain reasonable modifications to the rental house at his own expense and by retaliating against him by terminating his lease. 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. Cunat Bros., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.)

Our complaint, filed on December 4, 2000, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct the 84 ground-floor apartments in the Prairie Trails Apartments in Woodstock, Illinois, in accordance with the Act's requirements for accessible multi-family dwellings. The violations at this complex are extensive, including bedroom, bathroom, and sliding glass doors that not sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs, environmental controls that are out of reach of persons using wheelchairs, and bathrooms and kitchens with insufficient turning space to be readily accessible to persons using wheelchairs.

The consent decree, filed on March 13, 2001, requires the defendants to retrofit the common and public use areas of the Prairie Trails Apartments to bring them into compliance with the Fair Housing Act and, during the five year term of the decree, to offer all tenants in ground floor unites the opportunity to have modifications made to their unit, at not expense to the tenant, to enhance the accessibility of the unit. The Decree also requires the defendants to pay $100,000 into an escrow fund, with up to $25,000 to be used to cover the cost of retrofitting units and $75,000 to be used to compensate aggrieved persons. Any funds remaining will be paid to an organization for the purpose of furthering fair housing for persons with disabilities. The Decree also enjoins the defendants from further violations of the Fair Housing Act and requires the defendants to train their employees in the requirements of the Act and to report to the United States periodically on matters relating to compliance with the Decree.

This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

United States v. CVP I, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On October 19, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. CVP I, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed by the United States Attorney for the Southern District on August 13, 2008, alleged that the defendants, CVP I, LLC, Downtown Manhattan Residential, LLC, Chrystie Venture Partners, LCC, and Avalon Bay Communities, Inc., and SLCE Architects, LLP, unlawfully discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct Avalon Chrystie Place and six other properties in New York City in compliance with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree establishes a Settlement Fund of $2,045,600 to compensate victims of disability discrimination at Avalon Chrystie Place, Avalon Bowery Place I, Avalon Bowery Place II, Avalon Riverview, Avalon Riverview North, Avalon Fort Greene, and Avalon Morningside Park. The settlement ensures the removal of obstacles to accessibility at 2,557 apartments by requiring the retrofitting of Avalon Chrystie Place, and the inspection and retrofitting at the remaining properties. The consent decree includes an Accessibility Project Fund in the amount of $72,000 and a civil penalty in the amount of $90,000. The consent decree also requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree further requires the defendants to design and construct any new apartments in compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The case was referred to the United States by the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) after testing was conducted at Avalon Chrystie Place.

United States v. Dalton Township, Michigan (W.D. Mich.)

On February 10, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Dalton Township (W.D. Mich.). The complaint, filed on alleged July 28, 2010, alleged that the Township violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to grant a reasonable accommodation permitting the operation of a group home for persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. Under the terms of the consent decree the sober home is allowed to operate. The decree also provides for $55,000 in damages to the owner of the property and a $7,500 civil penalty to the United States. The lawsuit arose as a result of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the owner and operator of a group home known as "Serenity Shores."

United States v. Damron (M.D. Ala.)

In this case filed on April 28, 1998, the United States alleges in its complaint, that the owner and manager of Bruner Trailer Park, in Montgomery, Alabama, had discriminated in the operation of the park. He attempted to keep African Americans from residing at the trailer park or even visiting white tenants at the trailer park. Such discriminatory conduct included: requiring white residents to promise that they would not have African American visitors; harassing and evicting white tenants who had African American visitors; steering African Americans, who inquired about vacancies at Bruner Trailer Park, to a predominantly African American trailer park; and instructing at least one of his rental agents not to rent to African Americans.

On February 16, 1999, the United States resolved this case with a consent order, in which Mr. Damron admitted that his actions violated the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires Damron to create a $10,000 fund to compensate any persons identified as victims who no longer reside in the trailer park. He is also required to make $20,000 in rental credits available to identified victims currently residing in the trailer park. Finally, the consent order provided for injunctive relief, fair housing training, record keeping, and monitoring of his rental practices.

United States v. Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, d/b/a Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (E.D. Va.)

On February 11, 2008, the United States submitted to the court a consent decree in United States v. Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, d/b/a Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (E.D. Va.), a Title II race discrimination case. The complaint, filed on September 20, 2007, alleged that the owners and managers of Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (Kokoamos) discriminated against African-American patrons in a place of public accommodation by implementing a discriminatory dress code targeting African-Americans and by applying the dress code in a discriminatory manner.

Under the terms of the decree, the Defendant Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, d/b/a Kokoamos is required to comply with federal law by not discriminating against patrons on the basis of race; to post and enforce a non-discriminatory dress code policy; to implement a system for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; and to conduct monitoring to ensure that Kokoamos' employees are acting in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.

United States v. Dawn Construction, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C.)

The United States alleges in its complaint that the developers and architect of a 232-unit condominium development in Greenville, North Carolina failed to include the features of accessible and adaptable design as required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, among other things, steps into the individual units, no curb cuts, 22 inch wide doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and inaccessible common areas.

United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.)

On May 23, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.) for failure to design and construct multi-family dwellings in a manner accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

United States v. Dawson Development Co. and Milburn Long (N.D. Ala.)

On February 17, 2006, the United States entered a partial consent order resolving, in part its lawsuit in United States v. Dawson Development Co., L.L.C. and Milburn Long (N.D. Ala.). The United States filed the complaint in this case on January 18, 2005, alleging that the defendants, the owner and manager of Park Place Apartments in Boaz, Alabama, discriminated against African-Americans in the rental of apartments at Park Place. Some of the evidence in this case was generated through the Department's Fair Housing Testing Program. In testing conducted by the Department, the manager, Milburn Long, told the African-American testers that there were no apartments available, but told the white testers who visited the apartments the same day that apartments were available. Long also failed to call the African-American testers when apartments became available but left messages with the white testers encouraging them to rent apartments at Park Place. The consent order resolves the case against the owner of the complex, Defendant Dawson Development. Among other things, the Order enjoins the Defendant from further race discrimination, requires the Defendant to adopt uniform non-discriminatory rental and application procedures, and requires the Defendant to pay up to $49,700 - $32,700 for victims of the Defendants' discrimination and a $17,000 civil penalty. Trial against the remaining defendant, Milburn Long, who no longer works at the property, took place on April 15, 2006. Trial against the remaining defendant, Milburn Long, who no longer works at the property, takes place on April 15, 2006.

On August 16, 2006, the court entered an opinion and found that the former rental manager, Milburn Long, violated sections 3604(b), (c) and (d) and entered judgment in favor of the United States. The court imposed a $10,000 civil penalty against Long.

United States v. DeAngeli (D. Nev.)

On November 2, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. DeAngeli (D. Nev.). The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Reno, Nevada attempted to evict the complainants several times because they had allowed their friend, a man with delusional disorder and personality disorder, to visit them with his support dog. This election case referral from HUD will be litigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office. 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. Decatur Federal Savings & Loan (N.D. Ga.)

This was the United States first mortgage lending action. In the complaint, filed on September 17, 1992, the Division alleged that the bank applied stricter underwriting standards to African American applicants than to white applicants. The United States also contended that the bank devised ways to avoid dealing with African Americans. Under the agreement we reached with the bank, it agreed to pay $1 million to compensate 48 victims of discrimination and to take a series of corrective measures to ensure compliance with federal fair lending laws.

United States v. Deer Run Management Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Ark.)

On September 29, 2004, the United States filed its complaint and the parties' consent decree in United States v. Deer Run Management Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Ark.), resolving the Division's case to enforce the accessible design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act and new construction requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A revised consent decree was entered on November 24, 2004. Over 4,000 ground floor apartments in 34 housing complexes in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kansas will be affected. The United States surveyed 3 of the 34 complexes and identified FHA and ADA violations in the exterior sites, apartment units, and the complexes' amenities, such as clubhouses and golf courses; defendants have agreed to conduct the same sort of survey in the remaining properties and have the violations corrected and inspected by third-party design professionals approved by the United States. The new and current tenants will also be offered some "super accessible" features, such as roll-in showers for persons who use wheelchairs.

The agreement also establishes a $1.2 million fund to compensate individuals who were injured or inconvenienced by the inaccessible housing. After individuals have been compensated, a portion of the monies remaining in the fund will be used to make accessibility modifications to the homes of individuals with disabilities in Arkansas. The defendants will also pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States. They include several the owner companies, Fugitt & Associates Architects, Inc. and Lindsey Construction Company, Inc., of Fayetteville, Arkansas, who designed, developed, and constructed the complexes, as well as site engineers Crafton, Tull & Associates and Bond Consulting Engineers, Inc.

United States v. Delta Funding Corporation (E.D.N.Y.)

The Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Trade Commission claimed that Delta Funding Corporation violated both fair lending and consumer protection laws. This lawsuit marks the first such combined action by the federal agencies. Delta is engaged in subprime mortgage lending and obtains most of its loans through mortgage brokers. Although the company operates in more than a third of the states, its business is concentrated in Brooklyn and Queens, New York, primarily in minority residential areas. In the complaint, filed on March 31, 2000, we claimed that the company violated the Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by granting loans with higher broker fees to African American females than those for white males, the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act by allowing unreasonable broker fees, and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act by engaging in asset-based lending.

The United States were able to resolve the suit with a settlement agreement, which applies to the company's operations nationwide. The agreement requires Delta, among other things, to refuse to fund loans with discriminatory or unearned broker fees and to insure that loans are not made to persons who cannot afford the payments. Monetary relief of up to $12 million will be paid to victims under a previous agreement between Delta, the New York State Banking Department, and the New York State Attorney General.

United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.)

On April 15, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) which alleged the District of Columbia violated the federal Fair Housing Act by refusing to approve four group homes for children in single family neighborhoods. Each group home would have served the needs of six abandoned or neglected children. The complaint alleges that the District unlawfully prevented Father Flanagan's Girls & Boys Town, a charitable organization, from operating the four group homes by imposing unreasonable and unlawful conditions on their building permit applications. On October 11, 2006, the Division filed a brief in support of plaintiff's summary judgment.

This case, which was consolidated with Father Flanagan's Boys Home v. The District of Columbia, et al.(D.D.C.) ended in a mistrial on December 8, 2006, due to a hung jury. The jury trial did not include the United States' claims (1) that the District violated the Fair Housing Act by denying and delaying decisions on Boys Town's reasonable accommodation and related requests for building permits based on the disabilities of the prospective residents; and (2) that the District's municipal regulations include zoning classifications on the basis of disability that violate the Fair Housing Act.

On June 29, 2007, the United States filed a motion for judgment on its non-jury claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties in United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) addressing the non-jury issues.

United States v. DKCD, Inc. d/b/a Renaissance Development, et al.(W.D. Ky.)

On April 14, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. DKCD, Inc. d/b/a Renaissance Development, et al. No. 07-cv-506 (W.D. Ky.). The lawsuit alleged that 22 defendants, including owners, developers, architects and engineers, violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the design and construction of the following 12 multifamily housing developments with over 800 covered dwelling units in Louisville, Kentucky:

1. Audubon Woods Condominiums, Cardinal Dr., Louisville, KY
2. Cooper Creek Village Apartments, Cooper Village Terrace, Louisville, KY
3. Gardens of Glenmary Village Condominiums, Bardstown Rd., Louisville, KY
4. Glenmary Village Apartments, Bardstown Rd., Louisville, KY
5. Glenmary Village Overlook Condominiums, Bardstown Rd., Louisville, KY
6. Renaissance St. Andrews Apartments, Renwood Blvd., Louisville, KY
7. Renaissance St. Andrews Condominiums, Renwood Blvd., Louisville, KY
8. Springs of Glenmary Village Condominiums, Bardstown Rd., Louisville, KY
9. Valley Farms Apartments, Valley Station Rd., Louisville, KY
10. Valley Farms Condominiums, Valley Station Rd., Louisville, KY
11. Woodridge Lake Patio Homes, Deering Rd., Louisville, KY
12. Woods of St. Andrews Condominiums, St. Andrews Woods Cir., Louisville, KY

The Division contended that the public and common use areas of these developments have steps leading to covered dwelling units, lack walkway connections to covered dwelling units, lack accessible parking, and have routes leading to covered dwelling units that are too steeply sloped to be accessible to persons with mobility impairments. Inside the dwelling units, doors and hallways are too narrow, thermostats are mounted too high, and bathrooms and kitchens lack sufficient clear floor space to be minimally accessible and adaptable for persons with disabilities.

The consent order requires the following: retrofitting includes modifying walkways, removing steps, and providing accessible curb ramps, parking, and accessible walks to site amenities, such as the clubhouses, pools, mailboxes and trash facilities. It also requires the defendants to replace inaccessible knob door hardware with levers, lower thermostats to accessible heights, and reconfigure bathrooms and kitchens. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $255,000 to compensate victims of their discriminatory design and construction and pay $25,000 in civil penalties to the government to vindicate the public interest.

This lawsuit and consent order arose as a result of a complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice after an investigation by the Fair Housing Council, then a local Louisville non-profit organization that received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Fair Housing Council ceased operations in 2007.

United States v. Douglass Management Inc., et al. (D.D.C.)

On January 30, 2006, the United States filed its complaint and consent order resolving United States v. Douglass Management Inc., et al. (D.D.C.). The court entered the consent order on February 1, 2006. The complaint alleged that the owner and manager of the Sulgrave Manor Apartments in Washington, D.C. violated the Fair Housing Act by adopting a policy and practice of not renting an apartments to persons with vision impairment who rely upon a guide dog for assistance. The facts underlying the complaint came to light as a result of an investigation conducted by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program. The defendant's representative told the tester who used a guide dog that he could not rent an apartment at Sulgrave Manor because they did not allow dogs and would not make an exception for his service animal. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants will pay $25,000 to compensate victims of discrimination at Sulgrave Manor, pay a $20,000 civil penalty, and establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Lanzce Douglass (E.D. Wash.)

On May 26, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Lanzce Douglass, et al. (E.D. Wash.). The complaint, which was filed on September 25, 2007, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the design and construction of four multifamily housing complexes in the Spokane, Wash., area in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. Under the settlement, the defendants will pay all costs related to making the apartment complexes accessible to persons with disabilities and will pay $120,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The developer will pay a $10,000 civil penalty to vindicate the public interest and most of the defendants will undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The defendants include developer Lanzce G. Douglass and companies owned and controlled by him; Beverly Neraas, as representative of the estate of the late Spokane architect Donald E. Neraas; architect Ralph W. Hoover; Independent Home Designs Inc.; the engineering firm J. R. Bonnett Engineering Inc.; and engineer Gary S. Nelson. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. The Durst Organization, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On April 16, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. The Durst Organization, et al. (S.D.N.Y.), against the designers and developers of The Helena, an apartment building in New York City. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design and construct the property so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

United States v. Dutcher (D. Nev.)

The complaint, filed on June 15, 2001, alleges that Yvonne Dutcher, the owner of a rental property in Las Vegas consisting of a single-family home and a one-bedroom apartment, violated the Fair Housing Act by making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status. This is a HUD election case brought on behalf of a couple and their minor son, alleging that Ms. Dutcher made discriminatory statements to the family in her effort to have them move from the home they had rented from her. Ms. Dutcher does not own more than three single-family homes. Therefore, our case is limited to discriminatory statements made by Ms. Dutcher. On April 26, 2002, the Division presented to the court for entry, a stipulated order of dismissal after reaching an out-of-court settlement.

United States v. Envoy Apartments Association, Inc. (S.D. Fla.)

On March 19, 2004, the court entered the consent order in United States & Edward W. Dresner v. Envoy Apts Assoc., Inc. (S.D. Fla.). The complaint filed on, November 19, 2002, alleged that the defendant, the governing body of Envoy Apartments in Hallandale, Florida, violated the Fair Housing Act when it subjected a prospective buyer with physical and mental disabilities to a more rigorous application process that it did not use with non-disabled applicants. The association ultimately rejectedthe complainant's application.

The consent order requires defendant to pay $90,000 in damages and attorney's fees to the complainant, enjoins the defendant from discriminating on the basis of disability and requires the defendant, if it checks credit, and employment, and/or landlord references for potential buyers, it shall do so in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. The case was handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.

United States v. ERGS, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.)

On July 13, 2005, the United States filed a consent order resolving United States v. ERGS, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on May 13, 2004, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability when they failed to design and construct approximately 236 ground-floor units and the public and commons areas at Silver Lake and Sierra Sage apartment complexes located in Reno, Nevada, in compliance with the accessibility guidelines of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The defendants included the developer and architect of the projects and the current owner of one complex as a party necessary for relief.

The consent order requires accessibility improvements to the apartment units and the complexes’ common areas at an estimated cost of $1.67 million. The agreement also provides: $27,500 in damages for the Reno-based Silver State Fair Housing Council (SSFHC); $250,000 to reimburse its attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; establishes a $150,000 fund to compensate individuals injured by the inaccessible housing and a $30,000 civil penalty.

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. Erie Insurance Co., et al. (W.D.N.Y.)

On December 23, 2008, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Erie Insurance Co., et al. (W.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race in the sale of homeowner’s and renter’s insurance in New York State. The case originated with complaints that the Fair Housing Council of Central New York (FHCCNY) and HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed with HUD. HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination, which was referred to the Department of Justice after the FHCCNY elected to proceed in federal district court. The consent decree, which was entered by the court on January 23, 2009, requires the Defendants to pay $225,000 to the FHCCNY; spend $140,000 on advertising targeted to African-Americans residing in redlined areas; submit regular reports to the Division; establish and follow non-discriminatory sales procedures; and undergo fair housing training.

United States v. Equity Homes, Inc. (D. S.D.)

On October 31, 2011, the court entered a partial consent order resolving United States v. Equity Homes (D. S.D.). The pattern or practice/election complaint, filed on May 6, 2009, alleged that defendants failed to design and construct five South Dakota properties with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. This is the second partial consent order in this matter. The first partial consent order, entered by the court on July 21, 2011, resolved the United States' claims for monetary damages and civil penalties with respect to the entire case, and resolved claims for equitable relief with respect to four of the five properties at issue. Under the first partial consent decree, the builder and developer of the subject properties will retrofit the properties with which they were involved, pay a total of $34,000 to three individual victims and a fair housing group, and comply with the standard training and policy requirements. The designer will establish a $12,500 retrofit fund, pay $7,500 to the fair housing group, and comply with the standard training and policy requirements. The October 27, 2011 proposed partial consent order, which still must be approved by the court, resolves issues relating to retrofits at the one remaining property. 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. Demler (E.D. Wis.)

On September 15, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Demler (E.D. Wis.). The complaint alleges that the defendant, the owner of two eight-unit rental properties in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an upper-level unit to a pregnant woman because the woman living below that unit did not want children living in the unit above hers.

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. Deposit Guaranty National Bank (N.D. Miss.)

In this case, the United States claimed that the bank had discriminated on the basis of race against African-American loan applicants in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana through the use of subjective underwriting practices. The complaint noted that those African American applicants for home improvement loans whose applications were "credit scored" were at least three times as likely to be rejected than similarly-situated white applicants.

Under the terms of the settlement, an estimated 250 African-American applicants, whose applications for home improvement loans were evaluated under the flawed underwriting system, will share in a $3 million fund. In addition, loan applications will be underwritten under a uniform and centralized underwriting policies and procedures, all applications initially recommended for rejection will receive a second level of review by senior underwriting officials, decisions to override the result indicated by a credit score can only be made by a small number of bank officials, and there will be frequent reviews and analyses of all underwriting decisions in order to ensure their consistency with fair lending requirements.

The Office of the Comptroller referred this matter to us in January 1999.

United States v. Dovenberg Investments (W.D. Wis.)

On October 28, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Dovenberg Investments (W.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of a two bedroom single-family home located on a cattle farm in Bangor, Wisconsin violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) on the basis of sex and familial status and 3604(c) on the basis of sex when they refused to rent the home to a single mother and her young son because there would be no man to shovel the snow and help them survive the brutal winters. 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. East River Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)

On December 5, 2013, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. East River Housing Corp. (S.D.N.Y.), a HUD election case alleging disability discrimination. The complainant, who has intellectual disabilities, requested a reasonable accommodation to keep a dog for emotional support. The landlord denied the request and instituted eviction proceedings.

United States v. Edward Rose & Sons, et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On September 30, 2005, the court entered the consent order (pdf) resolving United States v. Edward Rose and Sons, et al. (E.D. Mich.) which, will settle all claims the United States has against Edward Rose and Associates, and related companies, the architectural firms of Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc., Eckert/Wordell Architects P.C., Alexander V. Bogaerts & Associates P.C., SSOE, Inc., and architects Gerald Peterson and James R. Saule. Also on September 30, in the Northern District of Indiana, the United States will file a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order transferring all claims in that court, except those against architect Gary Weaver, to the Eastern District of Michigan, and will file a consent order settling all claims in this litigation against Gary Weaver. Under the consent order the former Defendants will retrofit 49 apartment complexes in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Nebraska to enhance their accessibility to individuals with physical disabilities. The agreement will affect over 5,400 ground floor apartments. The consent decree also requires the above defendants to pay $1,060,000 to a fund for those who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility features at the complexes. The consent order will remain in effect for five years.

The initial complaints were filed on January 18, 2001 (N.D. Ind.), and September 3, 2002 (E.D. Mich.), and later amended, August 31, 2002 (N.D. Ind.) and June 29, 2004 (E.D. Mich.), respectively. The complaints alleged Edward Rose & Sons, several affiliate companies, as well as individual architects and architectural firms, have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities by failing to include accessible features required the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act in a number of apartment complexes it developed in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois and Virginia. The United States alleged that approximately 4050 ground floor units in 42 apartment complexes developed and managed by Edward Rose & Sons did have accessible entrances, had kitchens and bathrooms that are not accessible to persons with disabilities, have doors that are too narrow to allow passage by persons using wheelchairs, lack reinforcement in bathrooms for the later installation of grab bars, and have thermostats and environmental controls that are not in accessible locations. The complaints also alleged that the public and common use areas, such as parking, the rental office and club house, and the recreational facilities, were not accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act and, in the case of public use facilities such as the rental office, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On February 21, 2003, the court issued a order granting the United States' for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from occupying or further constructing 19 apartment buildings at Westlake Apartments in Belleville, Michigan and Lake Pointe Apartments in Batavia, Ohio, until they could be redesigned or retrofitted to be brought into compliance with the Fair Housing Act (United States v. Edward Rose & Sons (E.D. Mich.) The court found that the complexes violated the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act because the primary entrances directly across from the parking lot could be accessed only be going down at least a half flight of steps and were, therefore, not accessible to people with disabilities. Instead, persons who used wheelchairs would, at best, be required to take a circuitous and much longer route around the back of the building to enter their unit through their back door patio. The court held that this design violated the Fair Housing Act. The court also granted the United States' Motion for Leave to File a first amended complaint and denied the Defendants' Motion to Transfer the action to the Northern District of Indiana, where an action against some of the same defendants was pending. On February 24, 2003, the court in the Northern District of Indiana, sua sponte, issued an order transferring its case to the court in the Eastern District of Michigan.

On August 25, 2004, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Circuit affirmed that the Fair Housing Act requires the common landing area between two covered dwellings to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The defendants' split-level design only provides access by way of a half-flight of stairs.

United States v. Edwards (D.N.H.)

On December 16, 2013, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Edwards (D.N.H.), alleging that the defendant discriminated on the basis of familial status by enforcing a "no children" policy in the lease against a tenant whose daughter visited him on weekends. This case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) following a determination of reasonable cause and an election by the complainant to have the case filed in federal court.

United States v. Empirian Property Management, Inc. (D. Neb.)

On March 1, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and a consent order in United States v. Empirian Property Management, Inc. (D. Neb.). The complaint alleges that Empirian Property Management, Inc. ("Empirian"), a Delaware for-profit corporation that manages numerous apartment complexes throughout the United States, including Nebraska, violated Section 535 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. § 535, by refusing to terminate at least four residential leases entered into by active duty members of the United States Air Force assigned to Offutt Air Force Base, and/or refusing to refund security deposits due, after those servicemembers received military orders for a permanent change of station and provided Empirian with copies of those orders and written notices of lease termination. The consent order, requires the defendant to pay a total of $12,500 in damages to four identified servicemembers, and up to $20,000 to compensate any additional servicemembers harmed by Empirian's actions. Empirian is also prohibited from engaging in future violations of the SCRA. The court entered the consent order on March 8, 2012.

United States v. Enclave Development, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On September 27, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Enclave Development LLC, et al. (E.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on January 12, 2009, alleged the defendants failed to design and construct the Enclave Apartments, in Washington Township, Michigan, in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. There are 200 ground floor apartments at issue in addition to the public and common areas in the complex. The consent order: (1) requires the developer to make retrofits to all 200 units and to public use and common areas that will make the complex accessible to persons with disabilities; (2) requires two defendants to pay $30,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing; and (3) requires defendants who continue to design or construct multi-family housing to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and provide periodic reports to the United States.

United States v. Fair Plaza Associates, et al. (D. N.M.)

On February 5, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Fair Plaza Associates, et al. (D. N.M.). The complaint filed on September 19, 2002, alleged the defendants, the owners and managers of El Pueblo Apartments, the Fair Plaza Apartments, and the Playa del Sol Apartments in Albuquerque, New Mexico engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and familial status (having children under 18) at these apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit alleged, among other things that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a man with a small child, that they wrongfully evicted a tenant after his African-American fiancee moved in, and that they gave different information about available units to paired testers from the local Legal Aid Society and from the Division based on the race of the testers and whether the testers had children.

Under the consent order the owners and managers will pay $25,000 to the intervening plaintiffs, contribute $85,000 to compensate any individuals who may have been injured as a result of defendants' discriminatory housing practices, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty. The defendants are also: enjoined from discriminating based on race and familial status; required to establish non-discriminatory application and tenancy procedures; attend fair housing training; maintain records, and submit reports to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for 3 years and covers all multifamily residential rental properties owned/managed by the defendants in Albuquerque, including: Fair Plaza Apartments; Casa Del Rey Norte, Sur & Este; La Hacienda Norte, Sur & Este; Playa Del Sol Apartments; Whitehorse Apartments; Grace land Apartments; and El Pueblo and El Pueblo II Apartments.

The case was referred to the Division by The Fair Housing Project of the Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque. Additional evidence was gathered through the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program.

United States v. Fairway Trails Limited, et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On January 18, 2007, the court approved the consent decree in United States & Harry Tyus v. Fairway Trails Limited, et al. (E.D. Mich.). The complaint , filed on May 8, 2006, alleged that the defendants retaliated against the complainant for having asserted his rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants retaliated against the complainant when, two days after a state court ruling in an eviction proceeding that defendants had to accommodate the complainant's disability by allowing him to pay his rent the third week of every month, they sent him a letter stating that his lease would not be renewed. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay the complainant $50,000, to attend fair housing training and to comply with record-keeping and reporting provisions for three years. 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. Falcon Development Corp., et al. (D. Nev.)

On July 30, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in a case alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at Serenade Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will pay approximately a total of $390,000 to retrofit the complex to make it accessible to persons who have been harmed by the lack of the accessible features at the complex. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The court entered the consent decree on August 2, 2002.

United States v. Falcon Development Company No. 9501, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.) (Ranchos)

On August 26, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Falcon Development Company No. 9501, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to design and construct Rancho del Rey Apartments, Rancho Serene Apartments, and Rancho Viejo Apartments, all located in Las Vegas, Nevada, in compliance with the design and construction provisions of the Act. Under the terms of the settlement the defendants will pay $150,000 to make the complexes accessible to persons with disabilities. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3 years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. Falvey (W.D. Tex.)

On April 11, 2006, the United States filed a Settlement Agreement resolving United States v. Falvey (W.D. Tex.) The complaint, filed on April 7, 2006, alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status by placing an advertisement that expressed a preference for persons without children and by refusing to rent an apartment to a Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center ("BFHC") tester who posed as a single mother with a seven year old daughter. The settlement agreement prohibits the Defendant from discriminating based on familial status, requires training, notification to the public of its non-discriminatory policies and requires the Defendants and to pay $10,750 to the Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center. The settlement agreement will remain in effect for 2 ½ years.

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. Farro (D. N.J.)

On May 12, 2005, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Farro (D.N.J.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 29, 2004, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex when the defendant, an apartment owner and manager, refused to rent to an African-American male who inquired about an apartment. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $9,000 to the complainant and to attend fair housing training. The order will remain in effect for three years.

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. Ferrante (D. Me.)

On January 14, 2013, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Ferrante (D. Me.). The complaint alleges that Rudy Ferrante sexually harassed female tenants in Portland, Maine, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order imposes a $15,000 civil penalty against Ferrante, enjoins him from further acts of discrimination, requires him to undergo fair housing training, and requires him to provide a copy of the order to his employers. This pattern or practice complaint was referred by Pine Tree Legal Assistance. The court entered the amended consent order on April 9, 2013.

United States v. Fidelity Federal Bank (E.D.N.Y.)

On July 8, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and a settlement agreement against Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB (" Fidelity ") of Glendale, California alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination in its subprime credit programs in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (" ECOA "). The complaint alleges that Fidelity discriminated based on national origin by engaging in abusive collection practices in its credit card program which harassed customers on the basis on their Hispanic national origin. It further alleges that Fidelity, through its relationship with these third parties, failed to issue credit cards in compliance with the ECOA.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, Fidelity agreed to pay $1.6 million dollars to compensate the victims of these violations and to fund a Consumer Education Program. Fidelity will implement a comprehensive Compliance and Risk Management Program and will provide fair lending training for all employees engaged in credit card program activities. Fidelity will provide the Division with records of their credit card applications and originations for a three year period.

United States v. Fifth Third Mortgage (M.D. Ga.)

August 11, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co.(M.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on August 7, 2014, alleges that Fifth Third Mortgage Company and Cranbrook Mortgage Corporation violated the FHA and the ECOA by requiring recipients of disability income to provide a letter from a doctor to substantiate their income, and that Fifth Third Mortgage Company engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The consent order provides for a $1.5 million fund to compensate victims who had been asked to provide medical documentation to prove the income they received from Social Security Disability Insurance. The bank also agreed to other injunctive relief, including employee training and the implementation of new policies.

United States v. First American Bank (N.D. Ill.)

On July 19, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving a pattern or practice lawsuit alleging that First American Bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Opportunity Act by unlawfully failing to market and provide its lending products and services to predominantly minority neighborhoods in the Chicago and Kankakee metropolitan areas, a practice commonly known as redlining. Under the terms of the consent order, First American Bank will: open four new full-service branch offices, three located in majority African-American census tracts in the Chicago area and one in a majority Hispanic census tract; invest $5 million in a special financing program for residents and small businesses in the minority communities of the Chicago/Kankakee areas; invest at least $300,000 for consumer education programs; and spend at least $400,000 to advertise its products in media targeted to minority communities.

The Division's complaint, also filed on July 13, 2004, alleged that none of First American's 34 branches are located in a minority area, and that First American defined its Community Reinvestment Act service area over time to exclude most majority-minority areas. The complaint also alleges that in 1999-2000, First American Bank made only 3.8% of its home equity loans; 2.4% of its auto loans; and 4.7% of its small business loans in minority census tracts. The complaint further alleged that of the nearly $288 million in single family residential real-estate related loans funded by the Bank between 1999 and 2001, only 4.5% went to properties located in minority census tracts. Additionally, the complaint alleged that First American officials made statements to explain the Bank's business practices which were based on racial and ethnic stereotypes.

The matter was referred to the Division by the Federal Reserve Board, and the investigation was jointly conducted by the Division and the United States Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

United States v. First Lowndes Bank (M.D. Ala.)

On September 29, 2008, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. First Lowndes Bank (M.D. Ala.). The complaint alleged that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American customers by charging them higher interest rates on manufactured housing loans than similarly situated white customers, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Under the consent order, First Lowndes Bank will pay up to $185,000, plus interest, to compensate African-American borrowers who were charged higher interest rates. The consent order also enjoins the bank from discriminating against customers on the basis of race in its home mortgage lending. In addition, the bank has agreed to implement new procedures to prevent discrimination in setting interest rates and will provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to its officers and employees who set rates for housing loans.

United States v. First National Bank of Doña Ana County (D. N.M.)

In the complaint the United States contended that the bank unfairly denied loans to Hispanics trying to purchase mobile homes by applying stricter underwriting standards to Hispanic applicants than those applied to similarly situated Anglo applicants. This was the Department's first case involving mobile home loans. Under the settlement, the bank agreed to pay $485,000 in damages, provide another $100,000 for a subsidized mobile home loan fund, and conduct a program of community outreach to inform the public of the lender's mortgage programs.

United States v. First National Bank of Gordon (D. S.D.)

This complaint, filed on April 15, 1996, concerned allegations that the bank unfairly charged higher interest rates to American Indians for consumer loans. Pursuant to the consent order, filed on May 7, 1997, the bank paid $275,000 to compensate victims of the illegal discrimination. In addition, the bank agreed to establish a program to help educate residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation on how to establish and manage credit with the bank.

United States v. First National Bank of Pontotoc, et al. (N.D. Miss.)

On November 7, 2007, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pontotoc (N.D. Miss.), the first sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The lawsuit, filed on April 27, 2006, and amended in July 2007 to include claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleged that William W. Anderson Jr., a former vice president of the First National Bank of Pontotoc, used his position with the Bank to sexually harass female borrowers and applicants for credit. Anderson’s conduct included making offensive comments, engaging in unwanted sexual touching, and requesting or demanding sexual favors from female customers in connection with the extension of credit, over a period of years before his employment with the bank ended in May 2004. The lawsuit also alleged that the bank was liable for those actions. The consent decree will require the defendants to pay $250,000 to 15 already identified victims, up to $50,000 for any additional victims, and $50,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. Under the settlement, employees of the First National Bank of Pontotoc are required to receive training on the prohibition against sexual harassment under federal fair lending laws. The agreement also requires the bank to implement both a sexual harassment policy and a procedure by which an individual may file a sexual harassment complaint against any employee or agent of the First National Bank of Pontotoc. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. First National Bank of Vicksburg (S.D. Miss.)

In this complaint, filed on January 21, 1994, the United States claimed that the bank charged African Americans higher interest rates on unsecured home improvement loans than equally qualified non-minorities. Under the consent decree, the bank agreed to pay approximately $750,000 to compensate victims, pay $50,000 in civil penalties, and take a variety of corrective measures.

United States v. First Site Commercial Inc. (C.D. Ill.)

On May 14, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in this case.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act's accessible design requirements when they designed and constructed a student housing complex in Decatur, Illinois, named The Woods Apartments. The defendants are First Site Commercial Properties, Inc., The Woods, LLC, Jeffery Tinervin, BLDD Architects, Inc., and Millikin University. None of the 44 ground floor covered units complied with the Fair Housing Act; among other problems, they were sunken into the ground such that they are accessed only by climbing down a half flight of stairs, failed to have usable bathrooms, and lacked accessible doors.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $120,000 in damages and penalties, retrofit the elevator located in the common use building at an estimated cost of $65,000, and build two new elevator-equipped buildings with a total of 24 units that all comply with the technical specifications of ANSI 1998. In addition, all the ground floor units in the new buildings must provide roll-in showers that comply with the technical specifications in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The consent decree also requires BLDD Architects to provide 400 hours of community service, requires the University to appoint an ombudsman to counsel students on accessible housing issues, and establishes a compliance certification process for any new construction the defendants engage in.

United States v. First United Security Bank (S.D. Ala.)

On September 30, 2009, the United States filed a complaint and Agreed Order for Resolution in United States v. First United Security Bank (S.D. Ala.), alleging discriminatory pricing and redlining in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. On November 18, 2009, the court entered the Agreed Order for Resolution. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) initially referred this matter to the Department of Justice based on its finding of pricing discrimination in home mortgage lending, and the Division investigated and added redlining claims regarding both the bank's home mortgage lending and its small business lending services. Under the settlement, First United will open one new branch and expand existing operations in majority African-American areas of west central Alabama. The bank will also invest $500,000 in a special financing program, and spend more than $110,000 for outreach to potential customers, promotion of its products and services and consumer financial education in these areas.

United States v. Thomas J. Fischer and Dawn Fischer (D. Minn.)

On October 23, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Thomas J. Fischer and Dawn Fischer (D. Minn.) The complaint, filed August 12, 2005, alleged that the defendants, the owners of several residential rental properties in Red Wing, Minnesota, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. The complaint alleged the conduct included unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, and entering the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice. The lawsuit also named Fischer's wife, Dawn Fischer, who co-owned the properties and alleged that as an owner she was liable for Fischer's discriminatory conduct.

The consent decree, requires the defendants to pay $210,000 to six former tenants whom Fischer sexually harassed and $30,000 in a civil penalty to the United States as well as injunctive relief. The agreement also prohibits the Fischers from engaging in future discrimination and requires them to retain an independent manager to manage their rental properties. The consent order remains in effect for five years.

United States v. Fitchburg Housing Authority, et al. (D. Mass.)

On July 9, 2010, the court entered a consent order resolving all claims in United States v. Fitchburg Hous. Auth. (D. Mass.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging disability discrimination. The complaint, filed on May 1, 2009, alleged that the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act by denying a reasonable accommodation to the complainant, who requested to move to a different apartment because of her disabilities. The defendants had adopted and implemented policies that denied tenants with disabilities other than mobility impairments the opportunity to transfer between apartments within Fitchburg’s public housing neighborhoods. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants must establish a $65,000 settlement fund to compensate persons who may have been injured by their alleged discriminatory conduct. The settlement also requires employees of the Fitchburg Housing Authority to receive training on the prohibition of disability discrimination under federal fair housing laws. Additionally, the Fitchburg Housing Authority must implement nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, and a procedure by which tenants may file a disability discrimination complaint against an employee or agent of the Authority. This case originated when a former resident of the Fitchburg Housing Authority filed a discrimination complaint with HUD. HUD conducted an investigation and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The former resident resolved her claims against the Fitchburg Housing Authority in an out-of-court settlement.

United States v. Flagstar Corporation and Denny's (N.D. Cal.)

On March 26, 1993, the United States filed a complaint claiming that Flagstar Corporation, at the time the fourth largest food company in the country and the operator of Denny's Restaurants and three other large restaurant chains, violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by treating black persons less favorably than white persons and seeking to discourage black persons from patronizing the restaurants. The United States alleged that these policies and procedures, that were not applied to white persons, included requiring black customers to prepay for their meals and pay a cover charge, requiring identification of black customers, denying free "birthday meals" to black customers, and forcibly removing black customers from the restaurants.

The United States were able to resolve our Title II action, filed in California, along with two private lawsuits against Denny's (filed in California and Maryland), with two almost identical consent decrees under which Denny's paid $45 million in damages and implemented a nationwide program to prevent future discrimination. The decrees required Denny's to undertake activities such as retaining an independent civil rights monitor with broad responsibilities to monitor and enforce compliance with the decrees; educating and training current and new employees in racial sensitivity and their obligations under the public accommodations act; implementing a testing program to monitor the practices of its company and franchised-owned restaurants; and featuring African-American and members of other racial minority groups as customers and employees in advertising to convey to the public that all potential customers, regardless of their race or color, are welcome at Denny's. The decrees are scheduled to expire in November 2000.

United States v. Flanagan (N.D. Ill.)

On January 19, 2011, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Flanagan (N.D. Ill.), a pattern or practice race discrimination case based on evidence generated by the Department’s fair housing testing program. The complaint, filed on November 23, 2009, alleged that the defendant, Terrence Flanagan, discriminated on the basis of race in connection with the rental of a single-family home in Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Under the terms of the consent order, the Defendant will pay a total of $35,000 in damages and penalties and will be enjoined from personally renting properties for the term of the Decree. The Defendant admits making statements to testers indicating that he preferred not to rent the house he had advertised for rent to African Americans. The settlement also prohibits the defendant from personally managing or renting any properties for its five-year term.

United States v. Fleet Mortgage Company (E.D.N.Y.)

On May 6, 1996, the United States filed a complaint against Fleet Mortgage Company claimed that the company charged African American and Hispanic borrowers higher prices for home mortgage loans than whites. Under the agreement, which was filed along with the complaint and entered on June 7, 1996, the company agreed to pay damages of $3,800,000 to 599 victims of discrimination and to contribute $200,000 to a fair lending outreach campaign.

United States v. Fleetwood Capital Development, L.L.C., et al. (C.D. Ill.)

On April 12, 2007, the court approved and entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Fleetwood Capital Development, L.L.C., et al. (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on November 16, 2005, alleged that the Defendants refused to sell property located in the Village of Sherman, County of Sagamon, Illinois to the HUD complainants because the planned use for the property was as a group home for adults with developmental disabilities. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $50,000 to the group home operator, and $10,000 to the government as a civil penalty and submit to injunctive relief. (the individuals with disabilities who would have lived in the home intervened in the case through private counsel and settled separately). The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years.

United States v. Fort Davis State Bank (W.D. Tex)

On January 2, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Fort Davis State Bank (W.D. Tex), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act case. The complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2013, alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin in unsecured consumer loans. The consent order requires the bank to pay $159,000 to affected borrowers, maintain uniform pricing policies, and conduct fair lending training for its employees. This matter was referred to the Civil Rights Division by the FDIC.

United States v. Fountainbleau Apartments (E.D. Tenn.)

On November 9, 2009, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Fountainbleau Apartments L.P., et al. (E.D. Tenn.). The complaint, filed on April 27, 2006, and amended on August 11, 2009 against the owner and resident manager of the Fountainbleau Apartments, located in East Ridge, Tennessee alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing to rent apartments to persons with children and by steering them to another apartment complex. On June 19, 2008, the court granted the United States' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. Under the consent decree, filed in federal court in Chattanooga, Tenn., defendants Fountainbleau Apartments L.P., Clark W. Taylor Inc., Clark W. Taylor, Jane McElroy, Elizabeth Foster and CWT Management Inc. will pay $116,500 in monetary relief to 15 identified victims and a civil penalty and the United States. The settlement also calls for numerous corrective measures, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The evidence was developed by the Section's testing program.

United States v. Fountain View Apartments, Inc., et al. (M.D. Fla.)

On March 10, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Fountain View Apartments, Inc., et al. (M.D. Fla.). James Stevens, his company Fountain View Apartments Inc., and his former rental manager, Mildred Chastain, have agreed to pay $415,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties to settle a Fair Housing Act lawsuit alleging that they discriminated against African-Americans and families with children at Fountain View Apartments, a 42-unit apartment complex in Orange City, Fla. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $175,000 to nine individuals identified by the United States as victims of defendants’ discriminatory conduct, $140,000 to three plaintiff-intervenors, and $100,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the consent decree prohibits the defendants from engaging in discrimination and requires Fountain View Apartments Inc. to retain an independent manager to manage the property. The Department became aware of the case when an African-American woman filed a HUD complaint asserting that she had been denied the ability to apply for an apartment at Fountain View Apartments and had been handed an application containing the notation "ADULTS ONLY." A local television station’s subsequent series of fair housing tests corroborated the HUD complainant’s assertions, finding that defendants were providing more information and better treatment to white persons than to African-American persons. The Department filed the lawsuit in June 2008, alleging discrimination on the basis of race or color and familial status. In December 2009, the court, ruling on a motion filed by the United States, found that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children.

United States v. Dennis Fournie and Patrick Daniels (S.D. Ill.)

On October 20, 2000, the United States filed a fair housing complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her race and color by refusing to rent her an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. The Defendant owns a four unit apartment building located in Belleville, Illinois. The complainant filed a complaint with HUD who found reasonable cause and issued a charge of discrimination.

The consent order, filed on August 23, 2001, requires the defendants to pay $30,000 to the complainant, requires defendants and their employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act, and provides for other injunctive relief to ensure that the defendants and their employees comply with the Fair Housing Act in the future.

United States v. Foxcroft Partnership, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

The complaint alleges that the developers and builders of an apartment complex in Naperville, IL violated the design and construct provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, in part, steps into individual covered units, inaccessible routes in the public and common use areas, doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, lack of adequate clear floor space in the unit kitchens and bathrooms, and electrical outlets and thermostats placed at inaccessible levels. The case arose from the Division's testing program.

United States v. Fox Point at Redstone Ass'n, Inc. (D. Utah)

On February 27, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Fox Point at Redstone Ass'n, Inc. (D. Utah). The complaint, filed on November 21, 2011, alleged that the Fox Point at Redstone Association, Property Management Systems and on-site property manager Derek Peterson refused to grant a reasonable accommodation so that the complainant, a disabled combat veteran of the first Gulf War, could keep a small dog in the condominium he rented to help him cope with the effects of depression and anxiety disorder. The lawsuit further alleged that the defendants refused to waive their pet fees and insurance requirements and issued multiple fines that eventually led to the non-renewal of his lease. The complaint also contained a pattern or practice count. Under the consent decree, the defendants will pay $20,000 in monetary relief to the complainant. Additionally, the defendants will attend fair housing training; implement a new reasonable accommodation policy that does not charge pet fees to owners of service or assistance animals and does not require them to purchase liability insurance; and comply with notice, monitoring and reporting requirements. 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. Fransway (E.D. Wis.)

On October 21, 1994, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint against the developers/owners and architect alleging that they failed to design and construct Springbrook Cercle Apartments in compliance with the Fair Housing Act’s requirements for accessible multi-family housing. Our complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Act by failing to include features which would make the complex's common areas and 176 apartments accessible to persons with disabilities.

The court entered a consent decree on March 5, 2001, which requires the defendants to retrofit the complex including: making the clubhouse accessible to wheelchair users; removing steps; replacing sidewalks that are too steep with more level walkways and/or adding handrails; replacing round doorknobs with lever handles; adding accessible parking spaces; widening bedroom, bathroom and closet doorways; moving thermostats and air conditioning controls to accessible heights; and reconfiguring bathrooms so that sufficient space exists for wheelchair users. The agreement also requires the defendants to pay a total of $8,000 to further fair housing for people with disabilities in the Milwaukee area, to train their employees in the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, to design and build future housing in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, and to report to the Department on both the retrofitting and future construction.

United States v. Freeway Club (N.D. Ala.)

On May 13, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama resolving the United States’ claim that the Freeway Club, a night club in Decatur, Alabama violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by discriminating against African-American patrons.

In the complaint, the United States alleges that the Freeway Club and its manager Robert Watkins engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination by refusing to admit African Americans to the club on the same terms and conditions on which whites were admitted, including, but not limited to, requiring two forms of picture identification from blacks but not whites, and otherwise discouraging African-Americans from attending the club.

The consent decree requires the owner and manager of the Freeway Club to take steps to prevent any future discrimination. Among other requirements, the defendants must obtain training for themselves and their staff about the non-discrimination requirements of Title II and other federal, state, and local civil rights laws; post notification and issue affirmative advertising making clear that the Freeway Club is open to all patrons regardless of race, color, national origin, or religion; and report any future written or oral complaints of discrimination. Several private complainants who were subjected to the racially discriminatory two picture ID admissions policy at the Freeway Club have filed their own separate suit in federal court seeking monetary damages.

United States v. Gainesville Housing Authority, et al. (N.D. Fla.)

On January 10, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Gainesville Housing Authority, et al. (N.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on November 28, 2005, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to grant the reasonable accommodation requests of a husband and wife, both of whom are disabled. The complaint alleged that, for nearly two years, the defendants refused the complainants' requests to move from a second to a first-floor unit to accommodate their disabilities. The complaint further alleged that defendants retaliated against the complainants by threatening to evict them and to terminate their section 8 eligibility.

The consent decree will remain in effect for three years, requires the defendants to pay the complainants $50,000 in compensatory damages, 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. Gambone Brothers Development Company, et al. (E.D. Pa.)

On July 23, 2007, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., et al. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed March 31, 2006, was later amended on September 11, 2006, and alleged that the owners, developers, builders, architects, and engineers of five apartment complexes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct 300 covered ground floor units as well as public and common use areas in accordance with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The violations included doors that were too narrow for wheelchairs, steps and steep sidewalks that were barriers to access, kitchens that did not have enough space to allow persons in wheelchairs to use them, and inaccessible rental offices/model units.

The consent order provides for extensive retrofitting of the complexes, including widening doorways, removing steps and adding new accessible sidewalks and curb ramps, replacing round door knobs with lever hardware, moving light switches and thermostats to accessible heights, and reconfiguring kitchens and bathrooms. Accessible features also must be added to the rental offices and requires training and monitoring of all defendants.

The consent order also requires the owners and developers to establish a $307,000 fund to compensate persons aggrieved by inaccessibility at the complexes and pay a $25,000 civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. Garden Homes Management Corp. (D.N.J.)

In this case, based on testing evidence uncovered by our testing program, we claim that the owners and managers of three apartment complexes discriminated on the basis of race.

The company manages a number of rental properties, including three apartment complexes in Parsippany, New Jersey totaling 458 units. The United States contend, in our amended complaint, that the defendants discouraged African American testers from renting units and told them that there was a long waiting list for apartments, while white testers were encouraged to rent units. In addition, African American testers were falsely told that apartments were unavailable, while white testers were told of, and shown, available apartments.

United States v. Gardner (D. Idaho 1998)

The United States filed this case on November 16, 1998, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owner of a four-unit building violated the Fair Housing Act by including the words "no children " in an advertisement for a vacancy in his building and made statements that occupancy by children was prohibited or restricted.

The United States were able to resolve this matter by the time we were ready to file the complaint. The consent order requires future compliance with the Fair Housing Act, including advertising in compliance with the Act.

United States v. General Properties Company, et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On August 29, 2007, the court entered a consent order for $725,000 resolving United States v. General Properties Development, LLC (E.D. Mich.) The complaint, filed in 2006, alleged that the owners and operators of Apple Ridge Apartments (formerly known as Whispering Woods) in Livonia, Mich. have discriminated against African Americans seeking to rent apartments at the complex. The complaint, which was handled jointly by attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office, was consolidated with a suit filed by the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit.

The complaint alleged that General Properties Company, d/b/a Whispering Woods and now Appleridge Apartments, and one of its owners, Elliott C. Schubiner, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American applicants for tenancy. The consent order requires the defendants: $330,000 in damages to twenty-one persons who were discriminated against because of their race at Whispering Woods/Appleridge Apartments; pay $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees to the Fair Housing Center; pay $45,000 in a civil penalty to the United States, and use and independent property management company to handle the rental and application process. The consent order will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Genesis Designer Homes, et al. (S.D. Ga.)

On October 26, 2011, the court entered a partial consent order with Thomas & Hutton Construction Co., the site engineer in United States v. Genesis Designer Homes, et al. (S.D. Ga.). The complaint, which was filed on September 26, 2007, and amended on November 12, 2008, was consolidated with private litigation brought by Savannah-Chatham County Fair Housing Council, Inc. The cases challenge the failure to design and construct two multifamily housing developments to be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act. The partial consent order with Thomas & Hutton requires the defendant to fund and provide an array of services to retrofit the public and common use areas of both properties, including $2,000 to LIFE, Inc., a non-profit advocacy organization for persons with disabilities, to administer the oversight of the public and common use area retrofits; pay $227,500 into a retrofit fund to fund selected retrofits for approach walks to units at the two properties; and pay $50,000 to named aggrieved persons and $158,375 in monetary damages to SCFHC. In addition, Thomas & Hutton agrees to standard injunctive relief including, non-discrimination in future construction, training and reporting requirements. The consent order is in effect for three years. On June 13, 22 and 30, 2011, the court entered partial consent orders resolving the United States' remaining claims against the three other defendants: Genesis Designer Homes, Inc., Malphrus Construction Co. and Genesis Real Estates Group, LLC, respectively. All three entities are no longer in business. Each of the three prior partial consent orders, which is in effect for five years, provides that if any defendant re-enters the business of designing and constructing multi-family housing, it agrees to standard injunctive relief and employee training and reporting requirements.

United States v. Geneva Terrace Apartments, Inc., et al. (W.D. Wis.)

On November 30, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Geneva Terrace, et al. (W.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed October 26, 2011, alleged that Nicolai Quinn, the manager of the apartment complex, told prospective African-American renters that apartments were not available when they were, while telling prospective white renters that there were apartments available. The complainants contacted the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council (MMFHC), and they conducted testing that supported the allegations. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $47,500 to two HUD complainants and $10,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. The defendants will also undergo fair-housing training, and comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Metro Fair Housing, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. A pattern of practice claim was later added.

United States v. Georgian Manor, et al. (N.D. Ga.)

On November 12, 2010, the court entered a partial consent order in United States v. Georgian Manor, et al. (N.D. Ga.). The order requires realtors Harry Norman Realtors (HNR) and Jennifer Sherrouse to collectively pay $5,000 to the complainant fair-housing group, $30,000 to a settlement fund, and a $25,000 civil penalty. It also requires injunctive relief, including training and reporting. The pattern or practice/election lawsuit charged that the realtors advertised a "no-child policy" at a unit for sale in the Georgian Manor Condominiums in Atlanta and that they refused to show the unit to potential buyers with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. A prior partial consent order entered on April 8, 2010 with the unit owners who followed the discriminatory rules of the condominium association required them to pay $7,500 to the complainant, $2,500 civil penalty to the United States and abide by a general injunction. The Division is continuing to litigate claims against the Georgian Manor Condominium Association which published the discriminatory rules for allegedly having maintained policies for 20 years that discouraged families with children from living in the building. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Metro Fair Housing, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.)

On August 27, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 2, 2012, alleged that GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc. ("GFI") violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating against African-American and Hispanic borrowers in the pricing of home-mortgage loans. Specifically, the United States alleges that from 2005 through at least 2009, GFI charged African-American and Hispanic borrowers significantly higher interest rates and fees than it charged to similarly-situated white borrowers for home loans, resulting in thousands of dollars in overcharges to minority borrowers because of race or national origin. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $3.5 million in compensation to approximately 600 African-American and Hispanic GFI borrowers identified by the United States as paying more for a loan based on their race or national origin, and it requires GFI to pay the maximum $55,000 civil penalty allowed by the Fair Housing Act. The settlement also requires GFI to develop and implement new policies that limit the pricing discretion of its loan officers, require documentation of loan pricing decisions, and monitor loan prices for race and national origin disparities not justified by objective borrower credit characteristics or loan features. As part of the settlement, GFI admits that an analysis of the note interest rates and fees that it charged on mortgage loans to qualified borrowers showed statistically significant disparities between non-Hispanic white borrowers and both African-American and Hispanic borrowers that could not be explained by objective borrower characteristics or loan product features. The company also admitted that it provided financial incentives to its loan officers to charge higher interest rates and fees to borrowers and that it did not have fair lending training and monitoring programs in place to prevent those interest rate and fee disparities from occurring. The settlement came after the United States had filed its opposition to GFI's motion to dismiss the case and the court had stated it was "skeptical" of GFI's argument that federal law allows lenders to price loans in a way that produces such disparate impacts on minority borrowers.

United States v. Gumbaytay, et al. (M.D. Ala.)

On July 5, 2011, the court entered two partial consent decrees resolving United States' claims against two of the remaining defendants in United States v. Gumbaytay, et al. (M.D. Ala.). The consent decrees require defendants Woody Franklin Sr. and Terrill Jorgensen to each pay $9,500 to a victim fund to compensate women and a $500 civil penalty to the United States. The defendants shall also abide by standard injunctive relief. The complaint, which was filed on July 17, 2008, and amended on April 26, 2010, alleged Jamario K. Gumbaytay (aka Laurence E. Lamar) d/b/a Elite Enterprises Consultant Group subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal and physical sexual advances; granted and denied tangible housing benefits based on gender; and took adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his advances. On May 12, 2011, the court entered a partial consent decree settling the United States' claims against Lori Williams and Todd Chamelin. The partial consent decree requires defendants Williams and Chapelin to contribute $33,000 into a victim fund to compensate women and $2,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. Should the defendants continue to engage in the rental of residential property, they must establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government. This lawsuit arose from an investigation conducted after the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center who alerted the Civil Rights Division to Gumbaytay's discriminatory activity. Five defendants remain in the case.

United States v. Grand Canyon Enterprises, et al. (D. Nev.)

On February 8, 2006, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Grand Canyon Enterprises, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on February 7, 2005, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of race and disability they refused to rent an apartment to the complainants in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complainants intervened in the complaint and had private legal counsel. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the three complainants $40,000, inclusive of attorney's fees, and also contains 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. Gulf Shores Apts (S.D. Ala.)

On June 5, 2014, court entered a consent order in United States v. Gulf Shores Apts (S.D. Ala.). The consent order includes $90,000 in monetary damages and attorney's fees for the HUD complainant, who intervened in the case, as well as injunctive relief. The complaint, which was filed on October 30, 2013, alleged that the owners and managers of a 50-unit apartment complex in Gulf Shores, Alabama discriminated against a woman with a seizure disorder, limited mobility and mental disabilities on the basis of disability and sex.

United States v. GuideOne Mutual Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Ky.)

On September 18, 2009, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. GuideOne Mutual Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Ky.), a Fair Housing Act election case referral from HUD. The complaint alleges discrimination on the basis of religion because the defendants, an insurance company and two independent insurance brokers, provided insurance benefits for certain losses related to church activities. Two individual complainants and a local fair housing group filed complaints with HUD and elected to proceed in federal district court. The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of persons. Under the settlement, the defendants must pay a total of $29,500 to three victims of discrimination, an additional $45,000 to the government as a civil penalty and stop the alleged discriminatory practices. The settlement requires GuideOne to train insurance agents on their responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. The consent decree was entered by the court on October 1, 2009. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Guntharp (D. N.M.)


On December 1, 2009, District Judge Frank Johnson entered a consent order resolving United States v. Guntharp (D. N.M.). This is an election case where we alleged that a husband and wife, the owners of an Albuquerque apartment complex, discriminated against the complainant, a person with a disability, by making statements indicated that they preferred not to rent to persons with certain mental disabilities, which amounted to a refusal to show the complainant an apartment. The charge of discrimination also names the complainant’s mother, as an aggrieved person. The defendant husband has died and been dismissed from the action. The complainants voluntarily expressed a wish not to receive any monetary compensation in the action. They requested that the surviving defendant make charitable contributions to organizations serving persons with disabilities instead. In accordance with their wishes, the consent order requires defendant to contribute a total of $3000 to a homeless shelter and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Santa Fe. Standard injunctive relief is also included in the consent order. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

United States v. Gustafson (D. Minn.)

On December 31, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota filed a consent decree with the court resolving United States v. Gustafson (D. Minn.). The complaint, filed August 12, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the developers of a subdivision in Harris, MN, discriminated on the basis of disability when they refused to permit construction of a residence, which was to be used as a four person group home for a former sheriff who was paralyzed following a shooting and a stroke and three other persons with disabilities. The home was to be operated by his parents and his sister and brother-in-law who also planned to build homes in the subdivision. The complaint alleged that the developers withdrew permission to the proposed builder to be the exclusive builder of the 10 home subdivision, when they found out the group home was to be located across from the new home the developers were constructing for themselves. When the developers learned about his disability and the group home, they attempted to change the restrictive covenants to prohibit group homes in the subdivision and refused to let the builder construct any other homes in the development.

Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants agree to pay $250,000 to the aggrieved parties and to sell three lots in Whispering Pines in order to facilitate the construction this spring of a home in the subdivision that will be accessible to persons with disabilities. The Decree also enjoins the Gustafsons from discriminating in the sale or rental of housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act and prevents the Gustafsons from retaliating against the aggrieved parties. The settlement also provides for federal monitoring for three years to assure compliance with all federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

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. Habersham Properties, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga.)

On May 18, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in the United States v. Habersham Properties Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the company that manages the Crescent Court apartment complex, which is located in Decatur, GA, as well as 28 other complexes in Georgia, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race against prospective renters. The owners of the apartment complex, Peachtree Battle Investors II, LLC, as well as the rental manager at Crescent Court, Suzanne Monner, were also named as defendants. The complaint alleges that the rental agent allowed white applicants to inspect apartments and gave them the opportunity to rent them, while falsely telling black applicants that there were no apartments available for inspection or for rent.

The consent decree requires the defendants to: adopt uniform, non-discriminatory standards, policies and procedures; provide training for employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; submit to compliance testing, and maintain records and submit reports to the Division. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $180,000 in damages, including: $170,000 in damages for aggrieved persons and a $10,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

This case was developed through the Division's testing program.

United States & FHCO v. Hadlock (D. Or.)

On October 6, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States & FHCO v. Hadlock (D. Or.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by HUD. The complaint, filed on July 9, 2008, alleged that Virginia Ruth Hadlock, the owner and manager of several single-family homes in Klamath Falls, Oregon, discriminated against testers sent by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) on the basis of familial status. On January 27, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment as to Ms. Hadlock's liability under sections 3604(a) and (c). The consent decree requires the representatives of Ms. Hadlock's estate to retain a professional management company if they continue to rent out dwellings, to obtain fair housing training and to pay $30,000 in damages and $56,875.68 in attorney's fees to FHCO.

United States v. Hagadone (D. Idaho)

On December 24, 1997, the United States filed a complaint after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in the operation of Lake Villa Apartments, a 256-unit apartment building in Coeur d'Alene. The United States also included a claim that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Act. The complex imposed an occupancy standard, which limited occupancy of two-bedroom apartments to two persons as well as rules and regulations unreasonably restricting use of facilities by children.

On July 7, 1999, the United States resolved this matter through a consent decree, which required a total payment of $105,000, of which $70,000 is divided among the three families, $5,000 will go to the Idaho Fair Housing Council, and $30,000 will be placed in a fund to be divided among claimants who respond to advertising for victims, which will be published by the defendants. The consent order also required that the defendants and their employees attend fair housing training as well as imposing record-keeping and reporting requirements.

United States v. Haislet (N.D. Ill.)

On December 30, 2003, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Petition to Enforce a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Subpoena in United States v. Haislet (N.D. Ill.). The administrative complaint filed with HUD in 2001, alleges the respondent discriminated on the basis of familial status when she refused to rent a three-bedroom apartment, located in Blue Island, Illinois, to a married couple with four children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The couple allege the respondent told them that there were too many children to live in the unit. The subpoena sought access to the subject unit, to allow the HUD investigator to measure the relevant rooms to assess the legitimacy of the respondent's proffered justification that she was acting in accordance with the local occupancy code.

United States v. Hall, et al. (D. Idaho)

On August 10, 2005, the court entered the consent decree resolving United States v. Bruce W. Hall, et al. (D. Idaho). The United States complaint, filed on July 7, 2004, alleged that the property manager discriminated on the basis of gender when he refused to rent a single family property to a single mother, her children, and a female friend, because there would be no adult male to provide lawn care and other maintenance. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to the aggrieved persons, asked the defendants to admit that their conduct violated the Fair Housing Act. Under the Decree, the property manager issued a written apology to the aggrieved persons. The agreement also requires the defendants to amend their application materials so that they no longer seek "husband's employment" and "wife's employment". The revised applications may seek "applicant's employment" and "if appropriate, spouse's employment." The Decree will remain in effect for three years.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Legal Aid of Western Missouri, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Hallmark Homes, et al. (D. Idaho)

On February 27, 2006, the court entered the consent decree resolving all claims in United States v. Hallmark Homes, Architects West, and Kevin W. Jester (D. Idaho). The complaint, which was filed August 22, 2001, alleged that the defendants, who were the contractor and architects, failed to design and construct the Creekside Meadows Apartment Complex, located in Couer D'Alene, Idaho, so that it meet the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

Under the terms of the decree, the defendants are to pay $115,000 into a retrofit fund and the owner of the property is to oversee a variety of retrofits to the public and common use areas and to the covered units during the upcoming year. In addition, the defendants will make a payment of $2,000 to a local fair housing organization. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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. Halvorsen, et al. (E.D. Wis.)

On February 29, 2008, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Halvorsen (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed in October 2006, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused to negotiate for the sale of a single family house to the homebuyer (complainant 1), an African American woman, who is a principal in the Milwaukee public schools. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Defendant Halvorsen asked the real estate agent (complainant 2) who was attempting to help the homebuyer (complainant 1) find a house, whether her client was black and told the agent that she did not want to sell her house to black persons. The complaint alleged that Ms. Halvorsen also told Defendant Hasenstab, the real estate agent with Defendant RE/MAX 100 whom she retained to list her home, that she did not want to sell her home to black persons. When the Defendants learned that the agent (complainant 2) was attempting to schedule an appointment to show the home to her client (complainant 1), they amended the listing agreement to exclude the agent from showing the home. The agent (complainant 2) was not able to show the home to the homebuyer (complainant 1), and the Defendants sold the home to a white person.

Under the consent order, the Defendants will pay $30,000 to homebuyer (complainant 1) and $5,000 to the real estate agent (complainant 2). The order also enjoins the Defendants from further discrimination, requires Defendant Hasenstab to receive fair housing training, and requires Defendant RE/MAX 100 to train its agents and report discrimination complaints to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. Harlan (D. Idaho)

On November 17, 1997, the United States filed a complaint in this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owners and operators of the Golden Gate Mobile Home Park had discriminated on the basis of national origin. After the matter was referred to us, we added a claim that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination. Our complaint alleged that the defendants refused to allow a white resident at the park to sell his unit to Hispanic persons; told a manufactured home sales agent that she could not sell the unit to Hispanic persons; and made derogatory statements about Hispanics to several persons, including the HUD investigator.

The defendants agreed to resolve this matter prior to trial. The consent decree, filed on August 16, 1999, provided $92,500 in monetary relief ($75,000 for the complainants, a $10,000 civil penalty and $7,500 in attorney's fees), fair housing training for the defendants, and reporting and monitoring requirements for the period of the decree.

United States v. Harris, et al. (E.D. Mo.)

On November 30, 2011, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Harris (E.D. Mo.). The United States' Fair Housing Act election/pattern or practice complaint, filed in November 2009, and amended on October 10, 2011, alleged that Mr. Harris, the property manager of a federally subsidized property in Rolla, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of race and sex, sexually harassed female tenants, and retaliated and intimidated tenants who reported his unlawful conduct. The suit also named as defendants Hediger Enterprises Inc., Carroll Management Group, Forum Manor Associates L.P. and Forum Manor LLC, which jointly owned and managed the subject property, Forum Manor. Under the terms of the consent decree, Mr. Harris' employment was terminated, he has been permanently enjoined from managing federally subsidized properties, and corporate defendants will undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, implement non-discrimination policies and procedures, and report periodically to the Department. The defendants are also required to pay $260,000 to the aggrieved persons and $35,000 to the United States in civil penalties. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints by four tenants, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States and the North Carolina Fair Housing Center v. Vickie Harris, Thetford Properties IV L.P., et al. (E.D.N.C.)

On March 31, 2005, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States and the North Carolina Fair Housing Center v. Vickie Harris, Thetford Properties IV L.P., et al. (E.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on October 3, 2003, alleged the owners and managers of Glendale Court Apartments, Pitt County, North Carolina, violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against African-American tenants, their guests, and their children over the course of four years. The consent decree requires mandatory training for the property management company, corporate defendants and rental manager; notice to the public of non-discriminatory policies; record keeping and reporting; implementation of a complaint intake procedures and implementation of tenant grievance procedures. In addition, the consent decree requires the Defendants to pay the intervening complainant, North Carolina Fair Housing Center, $21,200 for its frustration of mission/diversion of resources claims. The consent decree will remain in effect for 5 years for the corporate defendants and 3 years for the manager who no longer works at the property.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the North Carolina Fair Housing Center, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Hartland Realty Inc. and Kristi Taylor (W.D. Tex.)

On December 23, 2008, the United States voluntarily dismissed the case because the respondents complied with the subpoena. HUD had initiated an investigation of housing discrimination of Hartland Realty Inc. and Kristi Taylor based on the administrative complaint from HUD. The complaint alleged the complainants were denied the opportunity to rent because of their race. The defendants have refused to cooperate with HUD's request for documents. On October 30, 2008, the Department of Justice filed a petition to enforce a subpoena issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

United States v. Hasse (D.S.D.)

On April 16, 2007, the court approved and entered a consent decree in United States v. Hasse (D. S.D.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2006, alleged that the Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of refusing to negotiate with the HUD complainants because they had children. The complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated on the basis of familial status by advertising a two bedroom apartment for rent in a local paper in Bismark, North Dakota "no smokers, pets, minors..." and by otherwise stating and implementing a policy of not renting apartments to families with children. Under the consent decree, the Defendant must pay $1,150 to Fair Housing of the Dakotas, $4,000 to a victim's fund, and $4,000 to the government as a civil penalty.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Fair Housing of the Dakotas, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States, et al. v. Hawthorne Gardens Associates, et al. (D. N.J.)

On May 6, 2004, the court entered a consent order in United States, et al. v. Hawthorne Gardens Associates, et al. (D. N.J.). The complaint, filed on February 20, 2003, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children at four rental properties with approximately 490 units located in Northern New Jersey. Specifically, the complaint alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining and enforcing a policy that prohibited children under ten years of age from living in second-floor apartments at their complexes. The action was brought on behalf of six individual complainants who were rejected for housing on the basis of familial status at the defendants' apartments and on behalf of the Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey, which had conducted fair housing testing at the defendants' properties.

The consent order provides for injunctive relief including: fair housing training; notification of non-discrimination policies; record keeping and reporting; revised rental application provisions and compliance testing. In addition, the consent order requires the defendants to pay $168,000 in compensatory damages to the individually-named complainants, $20,000 for a victims' fund and a $4,000 civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. HBE Corporation d/b/a Adam’s Mark Hotels (M.D. Fla.)

In this case, the United States claimed that the HBE Corporation, which operates 21 Adams’ Mark Hotels and Resorts throughout the country, violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating on the basis of race or color. The United States ’complaint alleges a pattern or practice of resistance to, and denial of, the full and equal enjoyment by non-white persons of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by the Adams’ Mark hotels throughout the country.

The United States initiated the investigation based on events surrounding the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, Florida held in April 1999. Our action followed a private class action lawsuit filed against the company claiming violations of Title II and other civil rights statutes. In addition, the State of Florida intervened in the private lawsuit against the company for violations of state unfair trade practices and civil right statutes.

On November 6, 2000, the court entered a revised settlement decree between the United States and HBE. The injunctive provisions outlined in the four year consent decree include, among other things, quarterly reporting requirements, establishing and implementing a complaint investigation procedure, testing, advertising targeting minority markets, and adopting nondiscrimination customer service statements and policies.

On December 3, 2001, the private plaintiffs, the State of Florida and HBE Corporation d/b/a Adam’s Mark Hotels settled their case, Gilliam et al. and State of Florida v. HBE Corporation d/b/a Adams’ Mark Hotels. Under the agreement, Adams’ Mark will pay $400,000 as compensation to 1999 Black College Reunion attendees; make a contribution of $600,000 to Florida’s four historically black colleges (Florida A&M University, Bethune-Cookman College, Edward Waters College, and Florida Memorial College) to develop tuition scholarships, internships and cooperative education programs in hotel and hospitality management or business administration.

United States v. Henrico County (E.D. Va.)

On September 6, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and a consent order with the court in United States v. Henrico County (E.D. Va.), a religious discrimination case brought under RLUIPA alleging that the county discriminated against an Islamic group seeking to construct a mosque by denying the group's application for rezoning. The order requires the county to conduct RLUIPA training, report to the United States, retain records, and expedite other permitting needed for the Islamic group to construct the mosque. The court entered the consent decree on September 12, 2011.

United States v. Hialeah Housing Auth. (S.D. Fla.)

On April 19, 2010 Judge Alan Gold granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in United States v. Hialeah Housing Auth. (S.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed August 26, 2008, alleged that the defendant public housing authority insisted on transferring the complainant and his family to a unit which was less accessible than the one they were occupying. The court held that no reasonable jury could find that, at the time of the transfer, the complainant had put the defendant on notice that he was claiming to be disabled. In May 2009, the court denied in part and granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court ruled that the United States had stated a claim that the complainant had a disability by alleging that his ability to climb stairs was impaired and that he received Social Security disability benefits. The court had also ruled that defendant had denied the request for a reasonable accommodation even though the complainant moved out of public housing rather than accepting defendant’s offer to put him on a waiting list for an accessible unit. The court dismissed the United States’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because injunctions that simply require compliance with the law are impermissible in the Eleventh Circuit and there was no reason to think that there was a threat of future injury to the complainant. The court had ruled in a prior order that it had subject matter jurisdiction even though HUD had taken over two years to conduct its investigation, and that the case should not be dismissed based on res judicata or collateral estoppel. On August 9, 2010, the Division filed a brief for the United States as appellant in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On March 22, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision. The court summarily and per curiam, reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that there were issues of fact concerning whether HHA knew about Mr. Rodriguez's disability and request for an accommodation, and whether the HHA refused to provide an accommodation.

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, filed on August 13, 2013, alleged that defendants discriminated against Somalis in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Evidence developed by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program 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.

United States v. Hillebold (N.D. Ill.)

On July 26, 2007, the court entered a consent decree in United States & South Suburban Housing Center v. Hillebold (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, which was filed on November 8, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a 12-unit apartment building in New Lenox, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race against a HUD complainant and the South Suburban Housing Center. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay a total of $42,000, consisting of $25,000 for the individual complainant and $17,000 for the South Suburban Housing Center (including attorneys fe’es). The three-year decree also contains training, notice and record keeping requirements.

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. Henry (E.D. Va.)

Virginia Beach landlord Dr. John Crockett Henry and Henry LLC, have agreed in a consent decree to pay up to $361,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree, entered on May 13, 2008, calls for training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. In addition, the defendants will pay $84,000 to compensate three former tenants of the defendants, and will establish a $235,000 fund to compensate any additional victims subsequently identified by the United States. The defendants will also pay $42,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. Five other individual victims intervened in the lawsuit, and have reached a separate monetary settlement of their claims against the defendants. The initial lawsuit, filed in July 2007, alleged that Dr. Henry and Henry LLC, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to families with three or more children. The defendants imposed more restrictive rules and regulations on African-American tenants than other tenants; verbally harassed African-American tenants with racial slurs and epithets; and evicted tenants by enforcing a limit of two children per family at the premises.

United States v. Hillman Housing Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On October 27, 2004, the court entered the consent decree resolving United States v. Hillman Housing Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on January 25, 2002, alleged that the defendants discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race, color, national origin, and/or religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by not approving their application to purchase an apartment in a cooperative housing development owned and operated by the defendants in New York, New York. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $130,000 to the complainants and submit to standard advertising, record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for 2 ½ years. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorneys’ Office.

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. Hilltowne Apartments, et al. (N.D. Cal.)

The United States has reached a settlement in this case.

On January 19, 2001, the United States filed a fair housing complaint in this case, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainants on the basis of their race and familial status. The United States allege that the defendants enforced swimming pool rules that discriminated against families with children, including the complainants ’ families, at the Hilltowne Apartments complex in Hayward, California. In addition, the United States allege that the defendants enforced the swimming pool rules selectively in a manner that especially limited access to the pool for black children, including the child complainants; the defendants also treated the complainants differently on account of race in other aspects of their tenancy. The United States complaint also alleges that the defendants sought to evict one of the families in retaliation for their having filed a HUD complaint.

The consent order, filed on September 26, 2001, provides that the defendants will pay a total of $17,500 to two families. The injunctive provisions of the consent order include: training for the defendants ’ employees; the dissemination of information about tenants’ Fair Housing Act rights to all tenants and prospective tenants; and other monitoring and advertising provisions.

United States v. Homestead Bldg. and Dev., Inc. (D. N.H.)

On November 13, 2008, the United States Attorneys’ Office for the District of New Hampshire filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(b)(2) for breach of a HUD conciliation agreement in United States v. Homestead Bldg. and Dev., Inc. (D. N.H.). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached a conciliation agreement entered into through HUD's conciliation process by paying only $25,000 of the agreed $35,000 to complainants and their minor children. The complaint asks the court to enforce the conciliation agreement, award monetary damages to the complainants and assess a civil penalty. HUD referred this matter to the Division pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(c). On November 18, 2008, the court entered a consent decree resolving the complaint. The defendants’ agreed to pay $10,407.66 plus interest accruing at the applicable judgment rate on any amount not paid on the effective date of this consent decree.

United States v. Allan Horsley and Horsely Construction (D. Idaho)

On February 1, 2001, the United States filed a complaint against the owner of an apartment complex in Pocatello, Idaho, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act’s requirement that new multi-family housing be accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint charges the defendants with violating the Act by failing to include certain features in 12 ground-floor units that would make them accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint alleges that the ground-floor units are inaccessible in many respects, including that they have steps at apartment entrances, doors that are too narrow for a wheelchair to pass through, and kitchens and bathrooms that are too small for wheelchair access. This matter was referred to the Department by HUD after HUD's’ investigation of a complaint received from the Intermountain Fair Housing Council alleging that the apartments did not meet the requirements of the Act.

On January 16, 2002, the parties entered into a consent decree to resolve the case. The terms of the consent decree require defendants, inter alia, to: (a) pay $10,000 to compensate an individual using a wheelchair who sought to live at the Elms and was unable to do so; (b) pay $4,000 to Intermountain Fair Housing Council; (c) pay $14,000 to compensate additional victims of discrimination at the Elms; (d) pay $10,000 to increase the availability of accessible housing in Idaho for people with disabilities; (e) pay $4,000 to the United States in civil penalties; and (f) build sixteen (16) units of accessible housing in Pocatello, Idaho.

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Aurora (D. Colo.)

On December 21, 2000, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the Aurora Housing Authority violated Title VIII by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation request from a site-based Section 8 tenant. The complainants are a mother and her nine-year-old son. The son was taken hostage in their Section 8 apartment when he was four years-old by a man wanted for murder who ended the police standoff by attempting suicide in the son's presence. Both mother and son developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the incident. Their therapists urged that they be allowed to transfer out of the apartment where the tragedy occurred and not return to the same apartment. The private landlord refused to allow the family out of their lease and refused to relieve the family of responsibility for the damage caused during the hostage taking. The family requested that AHA transfer them from the site-based Section 8 program to the Section 8 certificate program. AHA refused to allow the transfer citing continued obligations between the complaints and their Section 8 private landlord, a separation of the two Section 8 programs, and non-participation by the family in the site-based Section 8 program since the family refused to return to the same apartment and discontinued paying rent. AHA also claims that the family failed to notify AHA that they had disabilities, that the mother and son are not persons with disabilities protected pursuant to Title VIII, that the request was not reasonable, and that the private landlord was solely responsible for accommodating the family, not AHA.

The consent decree entered on June 12, 2001, provides for injunctive relief, including a requirement for training and a requirement that AHA develop and implement procedures for handling reasonable accommodation requests. The decree also requires on-site monitoring and a requirement that AHA notify the United States whenever they refuse to grant a reasonable accommodation request.

United States v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, et al. (W.D. Tex.)

On March 28, 2006, the court incorporated the terms of the parties' settlement and release agreement in granting the joint motion for an order of dismissal in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on June 3, 2005, alleged that the owners and managers of the Westminster Square Apartments, a Section 202 complex in San Antonio, Texas, violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused repeated requests by the complainants to transfer to a first floor unit. The complainant, a double leg amputee who uses a wheelchair, and his wife, who is also disabled, asked on several occasions to move from their third floor unit to a first floor unit so that they would not be dependent on the elevators and would not have to travel as far to get to their unit. The complaint alleged that the defendants denied the requests despite the availability of two first floor units. The settlement requires defendants to transfer the complainants to a first floor unit, to pay $125,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees to the complainants and a fair housing organization that assisted them, to implement a comprehensive reasonable accommodation policy, to attend fair housing training and to submit 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.

United States v. Housing Authority for the City of Eastman, Georgia (S.D. Ga.)

On September 7, 2010, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Eastman (S.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The complaint alleges that the Eastman Housing Authority (EHA), a public housing authority that oversees eight housing complexes in Dodge County, Georgia, violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining racially segregated housing complexes and steering applicants to housing complexes according to race. The consent decree, which was entered by the court on October 18, 2010, provides for a settlement fund of $320,000 to compensate victims of the EHA's discriminatory conduct. The consent decree also requires the EHA to develop and implement nondiscriminatory practices and procedures, provide Fair Housing Act training for its employees, and submit to record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Royston (M.D. Ga.)

On September 27, 2010, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Royston (M.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The complaint alleged that the Royston Housing Authority (RHA), a public housing authority that oversees seven housing complexes in Royston, Georgia, violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining racially segregated housing complexes and steering applicants to housing complexes according to race. The consent decree, which was approved by the court on September 29, 2010, provides for a settlement fund of $270,000 to compensate victims of the RHA's discriminatory conduct. The consent decree also requires the RHA to develop and implement nondiscriminatory practices and procedures, provide Fair Housing Act training for its employees, ensure that new units are located in areas that do not further racial segregation, provide tenants who have been discriminated against the option to transfer to another unit or complex, and submit to record keeping and reporting requirements.

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Ruston(W.D. La.)

On September 30, 2013, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Ruston (W.D. La.), alleging that the Housing Authority has engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in the placement of new residents in its public housing complexes and in the granting of transfers to residents of the authority's properties. The complaint alleges that the result of these discriminatory policies has been the preservation of the original de jure segregation in effect when the authority began operating in the 1950s.

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura (C.D. Cal.)

On June 26, 2004, the court entered the consent decree resolving United States v. Housing Authority for the City of San Buenaventura (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 27, 2002, by the United States Attorneys’ Office for the Central District of California alleged the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura discriminated against an former tenant who is mobility impaired and required the use of a walker, when it refused to grant a reasonable accommodation at a housing complex it owns and manages. The former tenant requested that one of two accessible parking spaces be assigned to her rather than to a tenant who did not own a car and a tenant who moved to the complex after she did. After the housing authority failed to grant the accommodation, she tripped and fell to the ground upon exiting her vehicle causing her to need emergency medical assistance and to decide to move out of the complex. Under the terms of the agreement the defendants are required to: pay $75,000 to the complainant; implement a comprehensive reasonable accommodation policy; attend fair housing training and submit 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.

United States v. Housing Authority of the Town of Milford (D. Conn.)

In our complaint, filed on April 24, 1997, we claimed that the Town of Milford, whose population is virtually all white persons, and the local housing authority violated the Fair Housing Act when they withdrew from a scattered-site, affordable housing program that the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] had already funded. The town is located between the Cities of Bridgeport and New Haven. Our complaint contended that officials of the city responded to neighborhood opposition, motivated in significant part by fears that the subsidized housing would be occupied by persons from those two cities, the majority of whom are minority group members, and pressured the housing authority to cancel the project.

On October 5, 1998, the United States were able to resolve our claims against the housing authority through a consent decree, which requires it to acquire 28 new units of family public housing over the next three years and to market these units in Milford and surrounding communities, including the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport.

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Winder, Georgia (N.D. Ga.)

On September 26, 2008, the United States filed a lawsuit and consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority for City of Winder (N.D. Ga.). The settlement, which was approved by the court on September 29, requires the Housing Authority for the City of Winder, Ga., (WHA) to pay up to $490,000 to resolve allegations that it engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American tenants and housing applicants. The WHA is a public housing authority that provides housing for persons of low income in Barrow County, Ga. Currently, the WHA owns and maintains nine public housing complexes in the city of Winder, and the neighboring towns of Statham and Braselton, Ga. The complaint, alleged that the WHA maintained racially segregated housing by assigning applicants to vacant units based on race, rather than in order of their placement on WHA’s waiting list. The complaint also alleged that the WHA subjected African-American tenants to inferior terms and conditions of rental.

United States v. Housing Management Services (W.D. Wis.)

On September 22, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Housing Management Services Inc. (W.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on September 28, 2007, alleged that the owners and property managers of a Section 8 apartment complex in Hudson, Wisconsin violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to a complainant and subsequently evicting her. On April 7, 2008, the court granted the HUD complainant's and State Farms’ motions to intervene and denied State Farm's motion to bifurcate and stay the case. The courts’ order allowed State Farm to intervene in the case in order to obtain a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants in this case. The consent decree provides for $30,750 in damages to the complainant and her children and requires the defendants to attend fair housing training, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and submit to record keeping and reporting requirements.

United States v. Huntington Mortgage Company (N.D. Ohio)

In our complaint we claimed that the bank charged African Americans higher up-front fees on home mortgages, known as overages. Under the agreement that we signed on October 18, 1995, with Huntington, the company agreed to create a $420,000 fund to compensate victims and change its policies to ensure uniform pricing.

United States v. Hurley (E.D. Tenn.)

On August, 12, 2005, the court entered the consent decree resolving United States v. Bruce Hurley, et al. (E.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The consent decree provides that the Defendants will pay the complainant $10,000 and provide him a reference letter for future housing. The agreement also requires the Defendants to fulfill various training, reporting and monitoring requirements as well as to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy.

The complaint, filed on September 14, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of a rental complex discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to provide him with an accessible parking space close to his unit and by retaliating against him after he filed his HUD complaint.

United States v. Hurt (E.D. Ark.)

On November 19, 2010, after a four day trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that the defendants had not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in United States v. Hurt (E.D. Ark.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging sexual harassment. The court entered judgment for the defendants on November 29, 2010. The complaint, filed on March 13, 2009, alleged by Bobby L. Hurt, the former property manager for numerous mobile homes in and around West Memphis, Arkansas, entered the dwellings of female tenants without permission or notice, touched female tenants in an unwelcome sexual manner, made verbal sexual advances, and threatened to and took steps to evict female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The complaint also named Bobby L. Hurts wife, Sue Hurt, as a defendant, alleging that while engaging in this harassment, Bobby Hurt acted as the agent for Sue Hurt, the former owner of the mobile homes. Following trial, the district court, holding that the United States had presented credible claims for 4 of 10 victims, also awarded the defendants 60% of their attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC 2412. On April 12, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's award of attorneys' fees. The Court of Appeals held, among other things, that in awarding fees the district court erred by evaluating the United States' case as presenting separate claims, rather than a single pattern or practice claim.

United States v. Mahmoud Hussein (D. Conn.)

On June 2, 2008, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Hussein (D. Conn.). The lawsuit, filed on August 1, 2007, alleged that Mahmoud M. Hussein refused to grant a reasonable accommodation from his no-pets policy so that his tenant's minor daughter could work with an assistance dog to help with her cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and depression. The lawsuit further alleged that Hussein retaliated against the mother and daughter after they attempted to exercise their rights under the Fair Housing Act by refusing to renew their annual lease and beginning eviction proceedings. The tenant and her daughter filed a separate lawsuit that also will be resolved by the consent decree.

Under the consent decree, the defendant will pay $115,000 in monetary relief, including $102,000 to compensate the tenant and her daughter and $13,000 in attorneys fees. Additionally, the defendant will attend fair housing training; implement a reasonable accommodation policy; and comply with notice, monitoring and reporting requirements.

United States v. Hylton (D. Conn.)

On October 7, 2011, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Hylton (D. Conn.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the Hyltons, a black married couple, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a mixed-race couple to sublet their unit to a black woman with children because they did not want "too many blacks" at the property.

United States v. Ibbotson (E.D. Ark.)

On November 19, 2001, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of a married couple, against Earcle Ibbotson. The complaint alleged that Earcle Ibbotson, the owner of a rental property consisting of a single-family trailer home, violated the Fair Housing Act by making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Ibbotson threatened the complainants with eviction and intimidated them because they permitted an African American man to visit Mr. Ibbotson's rental property.

Under the terms of the decree, filed on February 7, 2002, the Ibbotsons will pay $18,000 in compensatory damages to the couple and their visitor. In addition, the Ibbotsons will be required to participate in fair housing training and are prohibited from making discriminatory statements with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling; he is also prohibited from coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with persons in their right to equal housing.

This case arose after the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a determination of reasonable cause and filed a charge of discrimination and one of the parties elected to have the matter resolved in federal court.

United States v. Vincent Incopero (N.D. Ill.)

On December 26, 2002, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(b)(2) alleging a breach of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conciliation agreement in United States v. Vincent Incopero (N.D. Ill.). The Department alleges that the defendant, the owner of a single family rental house in Forest Park, Illinois, breached a conciliation agreement entered into through HUD's’ conciliation process by failing to make several urgently needed repairs, including repairs to a non-functional toilet and bathtub. The complaint asks the court to enforce the conciliation agreement and require the defendant, Vincent Incopero to make the repairs, enjoin the defendant from violating the Fair Housing Act, award actual and punitive damages to complainant, and assess a civil penalty.

The case originated when the complainants filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which alleged the defendant had discriminated against them based on disability.

United States v. Incorporated Village of Island Park, et al. (E.D.N.Y.)

On March 25, 2014, the court entered a consent decree and judgment in United States v. Incorporated Village of Island Park (E.D.N.Y.). This False Claims Act and Fair Housing Act case, filed by the United States Attorney's Office in 1990, alleged that the Village committed fraud against the United States and discriminated against African Americans in the administration of a single family housing program funded by HUD. The consent decree contains an admission of liability under the False Claims Act and the Fair Housing Act, permanently enjoins the Village from discriminating and requires the Village to adopt a fair housing resolution, participate annually in a fair housing training program and retain an independent third party to act as its fair housing administrator. The fair housing administrator is required to implement an affirmative marketing plan. The Village is required to pay $1,961,100 in monetary relief: (1) $300,000 to fund the fair housing administrator; (2) $568,000 to pay the United States under the False Claims Act; and (3) $1,093,100 over the next six years to fund the other injunctive relief.

United States v. Indigo Investments, LLC, et al. (S.D. Miss.)

On January 18, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Indigo Investments, LLC, et al. (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, filed on June 19, 2009, alleged that Indigo and its former employees, Barbara A. Hamilton and Edward L. Hamilton, discriminated against African-American residents and members of interracial households at Homestead Mobile Home Village in Gulfport, Miss., which Indigo formerly owned and the Hamiltons formerly managed. The complaint alleged that the defendants refused to rent or negotiate for rental based on race, discriminated in the terms and conditions of rental based on race, and intimidated, threatened, or interfered with tenants’ exercise or enjoyment of rights protected by the Fair Housing Act. Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants are required to pay $50,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties to the United States. The case that was referred to the Department after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Inland Empire Builders (D. Nev.)

On March 31, 1998, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the architects and builders of a condominium complex and four apartment buildings violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct them so that they were accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

On September 1, 1999, the United States was able to resolve our concerns regarding the apartment buildings with a consent decree which requires the defendants to modify both the common areas and the individual units of the four apartment complexes to provide accessibility to persons with disabilities. In addition, the company must examine their seven apartment complexes in Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona to determine whether they comply with the Act, and undertake the necessary modifications of the common areas and individual units at those properties, if they do not. The tenants who were injured as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act will share in a $50,000 fund and the defendants will pay a $35,000 civil penalty to the United States. Additionally, the order requires that the architects donate 300 hours of free technical assistance to non-profit organizations and receive training in the Fair Housing Act. In a separate consent decree, one architect agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty. The portion of the lawsuit concerning the Echo Bay Condominiums remains in litigation.

United States v. Jacksonville Housing Authority and City of Jacksonville (M.D. Fla.)

In this case, which stemmed from complaints referred to the Department by HUD in 1998, we allege, in our complaint, that the City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Housing Authority have engaged in intentional discrimination based on race in the siting of public housing in Duval County. The United States allege that the City and Housing Authority violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to implement a plan to site new public housing units in non-minority neighborhoods when building replacement units after the demolition of the Blodgett Homes project. This included abandoning a plan to purchase a privately owned property on the west side of Jacksonville for use as a public housing site in response to public opposition from white neighbors. The United States also allege that the City engaged in unlawful race discrimination when it passed a 1994 amendment to its zoning code which required a special permit for public housing that was not required for private housing. The amendment, which has since been repealed, allowed the City Council to veto the Housing Authority's decisions regarding the siting of public housing, which has a majority African-American tenant population, and prevent the construction of public housing units in white neighborhoods.

The consent decree requires Defendants to create 225 new public housing units in designated areas of Duval County where public housing had not previously been built; to have all new units ready for occupancy within 6 years from the date the agreement is signed by the court, to develop and operate a Section 8 mobility counseling program to provide housing counseling services and moving expenses to families living in Northwest Jacksonville who currently receive Section 8 rent vouchers and are interested in living in other areas of Duval County; to implement a fair housing training program for certain City and Housing Authority officials and employees; to submit quarterly reports detailing progress in complying with the Decree and participate in quarterly meetings with DOJ; to consent to the appointment of an independent monitor if all parties are not satisfied with Defendants' progress after one year; and to pay a total of $380,750.00 in damages to the four individuals who filed complaints with HUD.

United States v. Ersil James, et al. (W.D. Mo.)

On April 3, 2008, the the court entered a consent decree in United States v. James (W.D. Mo.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging sexual harassment by Ersil James, who was a maintenance person at several apartment complexes. The lawsuit alleged that Action Management & Consulting Services LLC, which manages the subject properties, and its on-site manager Dan Miller discriminated by failing to take action to prevent defendant James from continuing to harass female tenants. The lawsuit also alleged that the owners of some of the complexes, Missouri Rural Housing of Platte City L.P. and its general partner, MACO Management Co. Inc., were liable for those actions. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $75,000 to four victims and $20,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, defendants will be enjoined from further illegal discrimination and must establish a sexual harassment policy and provide training to employees.

United States v. JDL Management Co. (N.D. Ill.)

On November 24, 1997, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the architect and developer engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities. On June 11, 1999, the United States settled this case with a consent decree. Pursuant to the decree, $92,000 will be used to retrofit non-compliant units at Acorn Glen over a 10 year period. The remaining money will go towards retrofitting the public use and common areas of Acorn Glen.

This case was based on evidence developed through our testing program.

United States v. Jensen, et al. (D. Minn.)

On December 13, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Jensen (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, which was filed on September 26, alleges that the property manager of a mobile home park in Albert Lea, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), by making discriminatory statements to the complainant about Mexicans during the rental application process. The consent order requires fair housing training and a $20,000 payment to the complainant. 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. Johnson et al. (S.D. Ala.)

On April 10, 2002, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Johnson et al. (S.D. Ala.). The complaint, filed on June 27, 2001, alleged that Johnson, the owner of the Carriage Inn Apartments in Mobile, Alabama, and Dawn Stockton, a former manager of the complex, engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination based on race and familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Johnson instructed his employees not to rent to black persons or families with young children and that his employees carried out these instructions by denying apartments to persons because of their race or familial status. Under the terms of the consent order the defendants were required to pay a total of $340,000 to compensate more than thirty known victims of the Carriage Inn's allegedly discriminatory practices; to pay $20,000 to the Mobile Fair Housing Center, Inc. to promote fair housing in the Mobile area; to hire an independent management company to run the Carriage Inn for one year; to adopt and implement uniform, non-discriminatory rental policies at the Carriage Inn and at all of Defendants' other apartment complexes; to receive fair housing training; to require employees to undergo training; to publicize the Carriage Inn Apartments' non-discriminatory policies through signs and newspaper advertisements; and to report to the Justice Department on compliance with the Fair Housing Act for four years.

United States v. Joyce, et al. (M.D. Pa.)

On March 25, 2010, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Joyce, et al. (M.D. Pa.), a pattern or practice lawsuit in Scranton, Pennsylvania alleging discrimination against families with children. Under the terms of the consent order, defendants Gerard Joyce, Katie Joyce, Daniel Joyce, Normandy Holdings, LLC, Lofts at the Mill, LP, and Lofts GP, LLC, are required to $15,000 to a mother and father who were denied housing because they had a one-year old daughter. The defendants must also pay an additional $20,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The settlement calls for numerous corrective measures, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The Department’s complaint, filed on June 23, 2008, originated from an investigation by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging that the owners, property managers, and management company for "The Mill" luxury apartments violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to persons with children and by advertising discriminatory, "21 yrs. or older," tenant policies in multiple Scranton newspapers. A subsequent series of tests undertaken by a local fair housing organization, in coordination with HUD, revealed that the Joyces regularly communicated a preference for tenants without children to housing applicants. On November 16, 2009, the court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment on liability.

United States v. Joyner, et al. (E.D.N.C.)

On September 30, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Joyner, et al. (E.D.N.C.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges the defendants' failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Greenville, North Carolina so that it is accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the consent order, the defendants will retrofit the interiors of 73 ground-floor of the Meridian Park Apartment complex, as well as sidewalks, mailboxes, tennis courts, and other exterior spaces. The defendants will also construct several apartments with accessibility enhancements that are not required by federal law in future phases of construction. The Farrior defendants will pay $95,000 into a retrofit fund used to pay a portion of the costs of retrofitting the covered ground floor units and the public and common use areas in Phase 1 at Meridian Park. The Joyner-Tozer-Janowski defendants will also pay $26,000 to compensate individuals who experienced harm at the complex due to non-compliance, and $10,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. The consent order has other provisions of injunctive relief, such as non-discrimination in future design and construction, document retention, educational training and reporting requirements. The court entered the consent order on October 11, 2005. The consent order will last for a term of five years.

United States v. JPI Construction, LP, et al. (N.D. Tex.)

On June 25, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. JPI Construction, LP (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on March 4, 2009, alleged that the defendants designed and constructed multifamily housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $10.25 million to establish an accessibility fund to increase the stock of accessible housing in the communities where defendants' properties are located, including providing retrofits at defendants' properties. It is the Division's largest-ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement fund. The defendants are also required to pay a $250,000 civil penalty and, in the event they reenter the multifamily development or construction business, to construct all future housing in compliance with the FHA and ADA and comply with training and reporting requirements.

United States v. Kaemmerer (S.D. Ill.)

On August 15, 2006, the court entered the consent order resolving United States v. Kaemmerer (S.D. Ill.), The complaint, filed on September 13, 2005, alleged that Cletus and Billie Kaemmerer, the owners of a three-unit rental building in Belleville, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of sections 3604(a) and 3604(c) of the FHA by evicting HUD complainant Melody Sue Rachels from her one-bedroom loft apartment in her ninth month of pregnancy on the grounds that their insurance company refused to insure the loft apartments if children were allowed to live in them. The consent order prohibits defendant Cletus Kaemmerer from discriminating against families with children, requires him to keep records and to implement non-discriminatory standards for rentals and requires him to pay $7,500 to Ms. Rachels.

United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.)

On October 6, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.), an election case referred by HUD. The complaint alleges 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 alleges that defendant Katz threatened to evict the tenant for seeking the return of the deposit, and to charge her $100 an hour for time spent responding to allegations of discrimination, and that these threats constituted a violation of sec. 818 of the FHA. Besides the tenant, the complaint was filed on behalf of Montana Fair Housing, an organization that assisted the tenant in dealing with defendants.

United States v. Kelly, et al. (S.D. Miss.)

On March 20, 2012, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Kelly (S.D. Miss). This case is a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race and color when the property manager, while acting as agent for the owners of an apartment complex in Vicksburg, MS, refused to renew the lease of a white tenant because of her biracial daughter and her association with African Americans. The defendants deny any violation of the Fair Housing Act, and allege that the eviction was for reasons other than race and color. The entry of the consent decree resolves all issues in the case.

United States v. Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation (S.D. W. Va.)

On August 10, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation (S.D. W. Va.). The complaint alleged that the defendant, the owner of a cooperatively owned apartment complex in South Charleston, West Virginia, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to its no-pet policy for a woman with an emotional disability who needed a support animal in order to allow her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her apartment. The defendant required that the animal be trained and certified and that the complainant provide authorization from a physician specializing in her specific disability.

Under the consent decree, the defendant will amend its rule so as to allow an emotionally disabled person to keep an animal on the strength of a statement from a licensed mental-health professional that the person is disabled and would derive therapeutic benefit from having the animal. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio)

On September 8, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD alleging that Kent State University, its Board of Trustees, and four individual university officials violated the FHA by treating students with psychological and emotional disabilities less favorably than students with other types of disabilities and by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to a student needing to live with an assistance animal. The complaint also alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination and/or a denial of rights to a group of persons.

United States v. Kleinpeter (S.D. Miss.)

On March 10, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Kleinpeter (S.D. Miss.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed in July 2008, alleged that defendants Lemmy Kleinpeter and Dennis O’Brien, the owner and property manager of a four-unit rental property in Long Beach, Mississippi, violated sections 3604(c) and 3617 of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a male tenant and by taking steps to evict him and his roommate in retaliation for his resistance to the harassment. Under the consent decree, the defendants are permanently banned from having any contact with the complainants and must obtain fair housing training and adopt a sexual harassment policy if they reenter the rental housing business. Judgment of $30,000 is issued against the defendants, but it will be satisfied if each defendant pays $100 per month until each has paid $6,000. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. John Koch (D. Neb.)

On December 9, 2004, a jury in the case of United States v. John Koch (D. Neb.), returned a verdict against the defendant. The United States' complaint, filed October 2, 2003, alleged that John Koch, a landlord in Omaha, Nebraska, sexually harassed his female tenants, offering among other things, to exchange rent for sex. Following a two-week trial, the jury found that Mr. Koch had engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment and ordered him to pay $69,152 in damages to ten women who the jury found were injured by Mr. Koch's harassment. On December 27, 2004, the United States filed a motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for addition to increase the amount of damages awarded to the victims. On March 29, 2005, the court denied the United States' motion for a new trial or additional compensation for the victims and granted the United States motion for a civil penalty and injunctive relief and ordered the defendants to pay $40,000.

United States v. Krause, et al. (W.D. Wash.)

On October 21, 2010, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree in United States v. Krause, et al. (W.D. Wash.), alleging that the owners and manager of Mountain View Apartments engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. During tests conducted by the Housing Section’s Testing Unit, the rental manager stated that there were one or more buildings at Mountain View where children were not allowed to reside, and that the reason children were not allowed in those buildings was because of the perception that children were too noisy, and out of consideration for older residents who did not want to live near young children. On December 16, 2010, the court entered the consent decree which contains provisions for injunctive relief and a $12,500 civil penalty.

United States v. Robert L. Kreisler, Jr., a/k/a Bob Peterson, et al. (D. Minn.)

On August 29, 2006, the court approved and entered a consent decree in United States v. Kreisler, Jr., a/k/a Bob Peterson, et al. (D. Minn.). The United States' pattern or practice complaint, filed on July 9, 2003, alleged, inter alia, that Kreisler violated the Fair Housing Act when he discriminated against black tenants at two apartment complexes which he owns and manages by: evicting blacks while not evicting similarly situated non-blacks, requiring black tenants to vacate their apartments permanently due to "renovation work"while not requiring non-black tenants to do so, and failing to provide necessary and requested maintenance to black tenants while providing such maintenance to non-black tenants.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the Defendants must pay $525,000 to 19 households, hire an independent management company to operate the rental properties, post and publish a nondiscrimination policy, and correct the rental records of several former tenants against whom Defendants filed unlawful detainer actions. The Defendants will also pay a $50,000 civil penalty.

United States v. Krueger (E.D. Wis.)

On June 30, 1999, the United States obtained a consent decree, which resolved our long-standing litigation against the defendant who had repeatedly made sexual comments to his tenants. The case began with one individual who filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. In 1995, an administrative law judge held that he had sexually harassed a former tenant, and ordered him to pay $32,000 in damages and civil penalties. The United States successfully defended the ALJ's opinion in the court of appeals. In 1998, we filed a complaint in district court alleging that Krueger had breached a HUD-approved Conciliation Agreement, which resolved a claim of sexual and racial harassment filed by a second tenant. The United States later amended the complaint to allege that defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against other female tenants. Under the consent decree, the defendant will not manage any residential rental properties for a period of six years. In addition, he will pay the $32,000 judgment, plus applicable interest, due as a result of the initial ALJ proceeding, the $2,000, also plus interest, due under the conciliation agreement, and will pay $2,000 to a third victim.

United States v. Lake County Board of Commissioners, et al. (N.D. Ind.)

On May 25, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Lake County Board of Commissioners, et al. (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 7, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the Lake County Board of Commissioners and Lake County Redevelopment Commission, violated the Fair Housing Act by retaliating against two County employees for supporting a new housing development in which African-Americans may have purchased homes and for assisting the Division in an earlier fair housing lawsuit against the City of Lake Station, Indiana.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay a total of $350,000 to the two complainants. The payment includes fees for the attorney representing one of the complainants, who intervened in the action. It also requires the defendants to document their contention that they presently have a fair housing policy, conduct training for employees, and post a fair housing sign, and to continue those practices. The court retains jurisdiction over the case for two years.

United States v. Landings Real Estate Group, et al. (D. Conn.)

United States v. Landings Real Estate Group, et al. (D. Conn.) On December 6, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Landings Real Estate Group, et al. (D. Conn.). The complaint, which was filed on December 20, 2011, alleged that defendants, owners and managers of a 156-unit rental property, discriminated on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent a two-bedroom apartment to a mother and her four children. The complaint alleges that as applied in this case, defendants' two-person-per-bedroom occupancy limit is more restrictive than state and local law, and unreasonably limits the ability of families with children to rent at the property. The consent order requires defendants to pay $40,000 to the complainant and requires that they not maintain or enforce an occupancy policy at the property that is more restrictive than the applicable local code. The agreement also requires defendants to undergo training and imposes reporting and record-keeping requirements. 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. Larkspur, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On January 26, 2012, the court entered the last remaining partial consent decree in United States v. Larkspur, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a pattern or practice case alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act's accessibility provisions. The complaint, filed on September 9, 2011, alleged the developers and architect violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the 115 unit residential development located in Manhattan so that they are accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. The partial consent decree is between the United States and the architect of the Larkspur. The architect decree provides for standard injunctive relief and a $20,000 civil penalty. Another partial decree with the developers was entered October 5, 2011, which provides for standard injunctive relief, a $65,000 settlement fund and a $35,000 civil penalty.

United States v. The Latvian Tower Condominium Association, Inc. (D. Neb.)

On March 3, 2010, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Latvian Tower Condominium Association, Inc. et al. (D. Neb.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status. The complaint, filed on October 29, 2008, alleged Latvian Tower Condominium Association, Inc. (LTCA) and its president, Karl Tegtmeyer, violated the Fair Housing Act by interfering with the sale of a home because they did not want the owners of the unit to sell the condominium to a family with children. The lawsuit also alleged that the condominium association maintained rules that barred the sale or rental of condominiums to families with children. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $112,500 to victims of discrimination and an additional $15,000 to the government as a civil penalty.

United States v. Lawrence Properties, Inc., et al. (M.D. Ala.)

On September 10, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Lawrence Properties, Inc., et al. (M.D. Ala.) against the owner and operator of the Heritage Point mobile home park in Montgomery, Ala., alleging that the companies and their employees or officers discriminated against African-Americans. The complaint, names several defendants, including Lawrence Properties Inc., which manages Heritage Point, William Bounds, the district supervisor for Lawrence Properties, Lawrence at Lakewood LLC, which owns the property and Michael Lawrence, the president of the Lawrence at Lakewood, LLC. The complaint alleges that Lawrence instructed property managers not to rent to African-American applicants at Heritage Point or other mobile home parks managed by Lakewood throughout Alabama and Georgia. 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. A pattern or practice claim was later added to the complaint.

United States v. LCW Family Limited Partnership (D. Neb.)

On July 30, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. LCW Family Limited Partnership, et al. (D. Neb.), a Fair Housing election and pattern or practice case, filed on November 25, 2013, alleged discrimination because of disability because of defendants refusal to waive a "no pets" policy for assistance animals. The consent order requires the defendants to adopt a reasonable accommodation and service animal policy, pay $8,000 to the aggrieved person, and pay $1,000 in a civil penalty to the United States.

United States v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. & Lee Publications, Inc., d/b/a Elko Daily Free Press (D. Nev.)

On November 15, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. & Lee Publications, Inc., d/b/a Elko Daily Free Press (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on November 2, 2009 alleged that the publishers of the Elko Daily Free Press violated Section 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act by publishing rental ads that contained the phrase, "No kids," thereby printing or publishing an advertisement that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination on the basis of familial status. Under the nationwide consent decree, the defendants will adopt procedures to screen out discriminatory advertisements for housing from all the defendants’ publications that include advertisements for housing. The consent decree requires the defendants to screen out discriminatory advertisements for housing that appear in print or that appear both in print and on any associated websites. The settlement requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements on the Fair Housing Act, post notices informing readers about the requirements of the FHA, and make periodic reports to the government. The consent decree also requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to SSFHC, and $8,750 in attorney’s fees. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years. 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. L &M 93rd Street LLC (The Melar) (S.D.N.Y.)

On July 22, and July 25, 2011, the court entered two partial consent decrees in United States v. L & M 93rd Street LLC. et al. (Melar) (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2010, alleged the defendants failed to design and construct a 143-unit apartment building in New York City in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The partial decree with the developer, L & M 93rd Street LLC provides an injunction against discriminating on the basis of disability as prohibited by the Fair Housing Act. It requires retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and within the dwellings at The Melar, and inspection by a neutral third party to ensure implementation of these retrofits. The decree requires the defendant to disclose to the United States planned multi-family construction and specifies assurances that such construction will comply with the FHA. The decree required that the defendants will pay up to $180,000 to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices at The Melar as well as a civil penalty of $40,000. The partial decree also requires the defendant to establish an Accessibility Project Fund of $288,300 to fund facilities or services (not otherwise required by law or the decree) at the Melar for persons with disabilities, or for similar features or items that enhance accessibility at other covered properties that may be built during the three year term of the decree. The partial consent decree with architect defendant Costis Kondylis provides for standard injunctive relief, including non-discrimination on the basis of disability, reporting and training requirements and a $40,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Lexington Village Apartments and Hillcrest Village et al. (D. N.J.)

On December 8, 1997, the United States initiated complaints which were later amended against Hillcrest Village Apartments and Lexington Village Apartments both located in Clark New Jersey, alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race. Between March 1995 and July 1996 the Division conducted testing which indicted that African American testers were told apartments were not available for rent while white testers were told of available units; African American testers were discouraged from renting at both properties, while their white counterparts were not. The cases were consolidated on February 12, 1997, and on February 11, 1998, the parties agreed to have their case heard before a judge. On April 9, 1998, the parties entered into a joint consent decree resolving the complaint. The parties are enjoined from further discriminatory conduct. The defendants must post non-discriminatory policies; submit to mandatory fair housing training; standardize their application processes; and submit to record-keeping and monitoring. The defendants must also pay $250,000 to aggrieved persons and pay a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

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.

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. LNL Associates, et al. (D. Kan.)

On November 1, 2006, the United States filed a consent decree resolving United States v. LNL Associates/Architects, P.A., et al. (D. Kan.). The complaint, filed April 16, 2002, alleges that the developers, contractors, architect and civil engineer of two apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas violated the Fair Housing Act by designing and constructing multifamily housing that is not accessible to or adaptable for use by persons with disabilities. The architect and civil engineer in this suit are defendants in United States v. Bleakley, a related suit the Division filed last May relating to two other apartment complexes in Olathe.

The consent decree requires the owners of the complexes to retrofit parking areas, paths and walkways, public and common-use areas, as well as the interiors of ground-floor units, to enhance the accessibility of the complexes to disabled residents and their guests for an estimated cost of about $1.2 million. In addition, the defendants are required to establish funds to pay for enhanced accessibility features upon request, for a total of $200,000, provide $200,000 in damages for unidentified victims, and pay $50,000 in civil penalties. The settlement also requires the defendants to obtain training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. Loftus (D. Kan.)

On September 15, 2006, the court entered a consent order resolving in United States v. Loftus (D. Kan.). The complaint, filed, on November 10, 2005, alleged the Defendant violated the Fair Housing Act when she refused to rent an apartment to an African-American man because of race and made statements with respect to the rental of an apartment indicating a preference or limitation based on race. The consent order provides for $17,500 in monetary damages and injunctive relief and will remain in effect for three years. 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. Loki Properties (D. Minn.)

On July 29, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Loki Properties (D. Minn.). The complaint, filed on June 24, 2010, alleges that the owner and manager of a four unit apartment building in Red Wing, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to a African-American man who was trying to use a Section 8 voucher because of the combination of his race and his gender. The consent decree requires fair housing training, recordkeeping and reporting, and the payment of $15,000 in damages to the complainant.

United States v. Long Beach Mortgage Company (C.D. Cal.)

In this instance, the bank allowed its employee loan officers and independent loan brokers to charge, at their discretion, an additional amount over its base price for the loan. Our complaint, filed on September 5, 1996, alleged a pattern of African American, Hispanic, female, and older borrowers paying a greater amount for their loans than other borrowers. Under the settlement agreement, also filed on September 5th, the company paid $3 million in damages to 1,200 victims of discrimination.

United States v. Lora (N.D. Ill.)

On November 1, 2002, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint in United States v. Lora (N.D. Ill.). The United States Attorney alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of a 4-unit rental apartment building in Chicago, IL, together with the property manager's son and daughter, discriminated against an African-American woman tenant and her two year old son, on the basis of their race. The United States Attorney further alleged that when the tenant spoke to defendants about renting an apartment, the defendants made statements indicating that they did not wish to rent to African-Americans. When the two moved into the apartment notwithstanding these statements, the property manager's seventeen year old son began racial harassing the family, including using racial epithets and physically threatening the woman and her child. The United States Attorney alleges that the owner and property manager knew of the harassment by the property manager's son but failed to stop it, and instead told the family to move out of their apartment because they could not guarantee their safety.

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. Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

On October 16, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The amended complaint, filed on January 27, 2012, alleged that Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC, Goodman Management Company, and Jesus Velasco, the owners and managers of a 72-unit rental building located in the Riverdale area of the Bronx, engaged in a pattern or practice of rental discrimination based on race and color. The complaint alleged that defendants misrepresented the availability of apartments, quoted higher prices, failed to provide rental applications, and failed to show apartments to African American testers while similarly situated white testers were told about apartments, shown apartments, provided application, and quoted lower prices. The allegations were based on testing conducted by the Fair Housing Justice Center. Under the terms of the consent decree, defendants will establish a $30,000 fund to compensate victims of discrimination, and will pay a $40,000 civil penalty. The consent decree includes standard injunctive relief.

United States v. Lowrey Hotel and Café (W.D. Wis.)

On August 27, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Lowrey Hotel & Café, LLC, et al. (W.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act election case alleging that the former manager of a residential hotel in Richmond, Wisconsin, sexually harassed a homeless woman who sought temporary residence there. The complaint, filed on November 23, 2011, also alleged that the co-manager and owner of the hotel warned the homeless woman that the manager might ask for sexual favors but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Under the terms of the settlement the defendants will pay the complainant $50,000 in damages. The defendant owner and co-manager will also develop and maintain non-discrimination housing policies and attend fair housing training, while the former manager who committed the violations will be permanently enjoined from entering the premises at the Lowrey Hotel & Café, and permanently enjoined from having any involvement in the management, rental, or maintenance of any rental property.

United States v. Lucas (D. Or.)

On October 15, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Lucas (D. Or.). The complaint, filed on September 22, 2008, alleged that the defendants refused to allow a tenant with disabilities to keep an emotional support dog. The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt a nondiscriminatory assistance animal policy and to attend fair housing training. The plaintiff-intervenor and defendants have entered into a separate confidential settlement for monetary relief. On March 26, 2012, the court entered an amended stipulated order of settlement extending the term of the consent decree by a year, to October 14, 2013, and requiring the defendants to pay $1,500 ($1,000 to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and $250 each to Connie Eubank and Shelly Eubank). 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. Luke (C.D. Cal.)

On March 5, 2008, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Luke (C.D. Cal.), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin. The complaint, filed on November 16, 2006, and amended on September 17, 2007, alleged that the Defendants discriminated against Hispanics in favor of Vietnamese people by denying or making housing unavailable to them in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and by making statements indicating preferences on the basis of national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604. In addition to the claim brought on behalf of the HUD complainants, the United States' complaint also alleged that the Defendants conduct constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $174,000 in damages to private plaintiffs and $59,344 to counsel for private plaintiffs in the form of attorney's costs, fees and litigation expenses. Defendants must also pay $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States, and $7,500 in damages to an additional aggrieved individual. Along with these payments, the defendants are also required to attend fair housing training, to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and to keep certain records.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received multiple complaints, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Lund (D. Minn.)

On September 29, 2010, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Lund (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on July 30, 2009, alleged that the owners and managers of a four unit apartment building in Roseau, Minnesota violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), (f)(1) and (f)(3)(B) on the basis of disability by refusing to rent a unit to the complainant because her daughter used a service animal. The consent decree enjoins the defendants from further violations of the Act, requires them to adopt a written assistance animal policy, display a fair housing poster, use the fair housing logo in advertisements, attend fair housing training, comply with record keeping and reporting provisions and pay $1,000 in damages to the complainant.

United States and Dunfee v. Lund (W.D. Pa.)

On November 4, 2013, the court entered the settlement agreement reached between the United States and the defendant in United States and Dunfee v. Lund (W.D. Pa.), a HUD election case alleging that Ms. Lund refused to rent or provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled woman with two emotional assistance cats. During settlement discussions in October 2013, the interests of the United States and intervenor Dunfee diverged. The settlement agreement reached between the United States and defendant requires defendant to comply with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act, to comply with our standard injunctive relief if she rents more than three dwellings within the term of the agreement and dismisses the United States from the case. The case will proceed based on the claims filed by the intervenor.

United States v. Luther Burbank Savings (C.D. Cal.)

On September 12, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Luther Burbank Savings (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that from 2006 to 2011, Luther engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in its residential lending activities in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. During that time period, Luther enforced a $400,000 minimum loan amount policy for its wholesale single-family residential mortgage loan program. The United States alleges that this policy or practice had a disparate impact on the basis of race and national origin. Under the settlement Luther will invest $1.1 million in a special financing program to increase the residential mortgage credit that the bank extends to qualified borrowers in the affected areas seeking loans of $400,000 or less in California. The bank also will invest $450,000 in partnerships with community-based organizations that provide credit and financial services to minorities in the affected areas; spend $300,000 for outreach to potential customers and promotion of its products and services; spend $150,000 on consumer education programs; and conduct fair lending training for employees. Luther also is prohibited from establishing or implementing a loan amount policy similar to the prior $400,000 minimum loan amount policy. The court entered the consent order on October 15, 2012.

United States v. Lyon, et al. (D. Idaho)

Our complaint, filed on January 12, 2000, which resulted from the election of a HUD charge, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status. The complaint alleges that defendants discriminated by telling the complainant that the apartment was unsuitable for children and that she should look for something else. As part of the consent decree, filed on March 7, 2001, the defendants have agreed to pay $3,500, to attend training given by the Idaho Fair Housing Council, and to comply with other advertising and reporting requirements.

United States v. L.T. Jackson (S.D. Miss.)

On August 9, 1999, the United States filed a suit contending that the owner and manager of numerous rental properties in Jackson, Mississippi, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. The amended complaint alleged his female tenants were subjected to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, including: unwanted verbal sexual advances or touching; conditioning the terms and conditions of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors; and threatening and taking steps to evict or taking other adverse action against female tenants and prospective female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.

On March 28, 2002, a federal jury in Jackson, Mississippi returned a $451,208 verdict against L.T. Jackson and the L.T. Jackson Trust for violating the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. Most of the victims are lower-income, single women who had limited opportunities to seek other housing, making them particularly vulnerable to harassment by a landlord. At the trial, 22 current and former tenants testified that Jackson's actions included unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, asking for sexual favors in exchange for tenancy and threatening to retaliate against women who refused his sexual advances. Punitive and compensatory damages in the amount of $451,208 will be divided among 22 female tenants whom the jury found were victims of the harassment.

United States v. Lucky Joy Restaurant, Inc. and Xiao Rong Wu (in his official capacity) (E.D.N.Y.)

On August 12, 2010, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Lucky Joy Restaurant, Inc. and Xiao Rong Wu (in his official capacity) (E.D.N.Y.), resolving claims of religious discrimination against the Lucky Joy restaurant, located in Flushing, N.Y. In the proposed consent decree, the restaurant’s owner, Lucky Joy Restaurant Inc., and its president, Xiao Rong Wu, admit that the restaurant engaged in a pattern or practice of wrongfully ejecting Falun Gong practitioners from the premises. The investigation, conducted jointly by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, revealed that Lucky Joy servers ejected ten patrons, including an eight-year-old girl, on three separate occasions during 2008 because members of their parties wore shirts displaying the tenets of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Under the consent decree, the defendants are enjoined from discriminating against any patron based on religion, religious expression, religious dress or association with Falun Gong. Additionally, the defendants have agreed that they and their staff will attend training regarding the non-discrimination requirements of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will adopt non-discrimination policies and procedures which will be posted publicly (in English and Chinese), and will finance independent testing designed to ensure that Lucky Joy no longer discriminates. The court entered the consent decree on August 19, 2010.

United States v. Lytton IV Housing Corp (N.D. Cal.)

On March 10, 2003, the court approved the parties' consent decree and final order in United States v. Lytton IV Housing Corp., et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed October 20, 2000, alleged that the defendants, the designers and builders of Lytton Courtyard, a three-story elevator building in Palo Alto, California, discriminated on the basis of disability by designing and constructing the building so that it did not have the features of accessibility and adaptability required by the Act. Lytton Courtyard is HUD-funded housing for low-income senior citizens. It has 51 apartments - all having inaccessible kitchens and bathrooms. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $87,500 in damages to Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing and $532,500 into a fund to modify the inaccessible units and common areas. The Decree also enjoins defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act in the future, requires them to undergo fair housing training and periodic recordkeeping. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. David Madrid d/b/a Trinity House Living Services (D. N.M.)

On May 25, 2005, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. David Madrid d/b/a Trinity House Living Services (D. N.M.). The complaint, filed on June 17, 2004, alleged that David Madrid, who owns, rents and/or manages Trinity House Living Services, had engaged in a pattern or practice of harassing his mentally disabled tenants on the basis of their disability and/or sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Trinity House Living Services consists of several group residences that house individuals with mental disabilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The complaint specifically alleged the that defendant Madrid: (1) subjected tenants with mental disabilities to severe and pervasive unwelcome physical harassment and discriminatory living conditions (including verbal harassment); (2) subjected female tenants to severe and pervasive unwelcome sexual harassment including, but not limited, to hugs, massages, and touching of intimate body parts; and (3) threatened to evict or take other adverse actions against tenants who refused, objected to or reported his discriminatory actions.

Under the terms of the consent decree, Mr. Madrid will pay $67,500 in monetary damages as well as a $7,500 civil penalty to the government, and will refrain from personally managing any group home facilities for the five year duration of the decree.

United States v. Madsen (D. Idaho)

On July 29, 2002, the court (B. Lynn Winmill) entered a consent order to resolve the case of United States v. Madsen (D. Idaho), a complaint, filed on September 12, 2001, in which the Division alleged that defendants Victoria and Floyd Madsen, owners of Pioneer Village Mobile Home Park in Weiser, Idaho, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a mobile home space to a woman and her adult son, on the basis of his mental disability; and that defendant Victoria Madsen made statements indicating that she did not want tenants with mental disabilities. The United States also alleged that because of this discrimination, the complainants could not purchase the home of their choice from third-party sellers, and were forced into a far more expensive and less satisfactory home. The consent order provides that the Madsens will pay them a total of $30,000; that Pioneer Village will implement nondiscriminatory policies and will inform all residents and applicants of these policies and of their rights under the Fair Housing Act and Idaho state law; and that the relevant agents of defendants will attend fair housing training. The consent order also contains provisions for monitoring of Pioneer Village's tenant and applicant records, and for requiring the defendants to advertise to the public in accordance with HUD's fair housing advertising guidelines. These provisions will remain in effect for 3 years plus 3 months from entry of the consent order. Plaintiff-intervenor Idaho Human Rights Commission joined in the United States' allegations and is a party to the consent order.

The case was originally 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. Magee (S.D. Miss.)

On April 17, 2013, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Magee (S.D. Miss.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on November 17, 2011, alleged that Marcus Magee III, Ina Magee, and M.M. and S., Inc. engaged in familial status discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a three-bedroom house to a single mother with four children because she had "too many children," and applying an occupancy policy that set a maximum number of children per rental, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b), and (c) and 3614(a). The consent order requires the defendants to pay $20,000 to a family that was harmed by defendants' discriminatory practices and $7,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the order prohibits the defendants from discriminating against families with children in the future, mandates a non-discriminatory occupancy policy, and requires the defendants to receive training on the Fair Housing Act. The case was originally 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. Makowsky Construction Company, et al. (W.D. Tenn.)

On March 21, 2005, the court entered a consent order resolving, Memphis Center for Independent Living and United States v. Makowsky Construction Co., Inc. et al. (W.D. Tenn), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on November 9, 2001, alleges that Makowsky Construction Company, Inc., the general contractor, Archeon, Inc., an architectural firm, Reaves Sweeney Marcom, Inc., and W. H. Porter & Co. Inc., engineering firms, Penn Investors, Inc., JAN Realty, Inc., Belz/South Bluffs, Inc., MRB-Windyke, L.P., and MRB-Stonebridge, L.P., who are owners and developers, failed to design and construct three Memphis apartment complexes (Champion Hills at Stonebridge, Champion Hills at Windyke and Eton Square Apartments) and two Mississippi apartment complexes (The Magnolias in Hernando, Mississippi, and Cypress Lakes Apartments in Robinsonville, Mississippi) in accordance with the accessibility guidelines provisions of the Act. Also named as a party is Makowsky Ringel Greenberg, LLC, the manager of these properties.

Under the consent order, the defendants will retrofit Stonebridge, Windyke and Eton Square apartment complexes including the interiors of ground-floor units as well as sidewalks, entryways, and other public exterior spaces. They will also make certain other accessibility enhancements which are not required by federal law are available upon request such as roll in showers and roll under cooking surfaces. They will also survey The Magnolias and Cypress Lakes Apartments for compliance with the access requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

The defendants will pay $260,000 to compensate individuals who experienced harm at any of these properties due to non-compliance. The defendants will also pay $20,000 to Plaintiff, Memphis Center for Independent Living, and $20,000 as a civil penalty to the United States.

United States v. Maldonado d/b/a Midway Mobile Home Park (D. Kan.)

On January 29, 2003, the United States filed a consent decree with the United States District Court in Topeka, Kansas, to resolve United States v. Maldonado (D. Kan.). The complaint, filed on February 13, 2002, involved allegations that Trinidad Maldonado, the owner of the Midway Mobile Home Park in Junction City, Kansas, sexually harassed female tenants, many of whom were the spouses of men stationed at the nearby Ft. Riley army base. The United States alleged that Mr. Maldonado made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, offered female tenants reductions in their rent and other privileges in exchange for sexual acts, entered female tenants' trailers without permission and without a legitimate reason, and inappropriately touched female tenants. The Defendants will pay $245,000 to nine identified victims of the harassment, $25,000 to be used as a fund to compensate as-yet unidentified victims, and $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States. Mr. Maldonado is also required to refrain from future contact with tenants. The Park will also be required institute a sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure and ensure that all persons who work at the park receive training from a third party in fair housing laws, and to have no further involvement in the management of the park for the five year term of the decree. The consent decree was entered by the court on January 31, 2003, and will remain in effect for five years and three months.

The case was originally referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated, and issued a charge of discrimination. The United States later amended its complaint to allege that the defendants' actions constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

United States v. Mammarrapallil (N.D. Ill.)

On February 11, 2005, the United States filed a consent decree resolving United States v. Mammarrapallil (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on August 16, 2004, alleged that the defendant, the owner and manager of three rental properties in Alsip, Illinois. The complaint alleged the defendant discriminated on the basis of race by imposing more burdensome application procedures on the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities' black tester. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $25,000 to the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and enjoins them from further discrimination on the basis of race. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3 years.

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. Marti (D. R.I.)

On April 8, 2010, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Donna Marti, et al. (D. R.I.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on September 25, 2009, alleged that Donna Marti, the Velna Marti Irrevocable Income Trust, and their real estate professionals, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent a single family home located in Cranston, Rhode Island to families because they had children. The complaint also alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) based on the rental notice published on the internet site "Craigslist," which stated "[n]o cats, dogs, or children please," and statements made to the Complainants that the owners refused to rent to families with children. The consent order provides $9,500 in damages to two aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, monitoring for three years, and training in the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Martin Family Trust (N.D. Cal.)

On August 13, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Martin Family Trust (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on October 25, 2013, alleged that the owner, manager, and staff of Woodland Garden Apartments discriminated against five complainant families and a local fair housing organization on the basis of familial status and engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children. The two-year consent decree requires, among other things, that the defendants pay $77,500 in damages to aggrieved persons and a $2,500 civil penalty, attend fair housing training, and develop and implement new procedures for enforcing rules against tenants and guests. 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. Matusoff Rental Company (S.D. Ohio)

On March 30, 2007, the court issued an order in United States v. Matusoff Rental Company (S.D. Ohio) finding that Defendant Roger Matusoff had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and familial status and ordering him to pay a total of $535,000 to 26 aggrieved persons, $405,000 in compensatory damages (in damage awards ranging from $7,500 to $20,000) and $130,000 in punitive damages ($5,000 per victim). The court declined to enter injunctive relief and did not address the United States' request for civil penalties.

After investigation, the United States filed a complaint on November 24, 1999, which was later amended. The amended complaint alleged that Defendant Roger Matusoff, the owner of three apartment complexes located in Xenia, Troy and Sidney, Ohio violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against several African-Americans and families with children, who were applying for housing. The complaint also alleged that Defendant Matusoff had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race or color by instructing employees to identify the race of rental applications as a means to further the Defendant Matusoff's policy of denying apartments to African-Americans.

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. Maui County (D. Haw.)

On December 22, 2004, the United States announced the successful resolution of United States v. Maui County (D. Haw.), a religious zoning discrimination lawsuit against the County of Maui, Hawaii. The court dismissed the case on February 9, 2005, following a settlement agreement reached between the County of Maui and the Hale O Kaula Church. As part of a settlement agreement with the church, the county granted the contested permit on November 17, 2004. In addition, the church received $700,000 in damages and attorneys' fees from the county. The complaint, filed on July 10, 2003, alleged Maui County's 2001 decision to deny the church a special zoning permit to expand the religious use of property that the church already owned in an area that was zoned for agricultural use violated the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). According to the complaint, the county denied the permit even though it had previously granted other groups - including other religious groups - similar permits to use property in the area for nonagricultural purposes. On December 29, 2003, the court entered an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on constitutional and statutory grounds. Following cases in the Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, the court found that RLUIPA was a valid exercise of congressional power, and that the law did not violate the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court also held that the United States has standing to file the suit and that the action is not barred by any statute of limitations. On January 5, 2004, the court entered an order granting the church's motion to consolidate the Division's suit with the private action. The case was the first brought by the Division under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

United States v. McCoy (E.D. Wis.)

On August 29, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. McCoy (E.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The amended complaint, which was filed on October 3, 2011, alleged that Kenneth McCoy, the owner of five single-family rental properties in Green Bay, Wisconsin, discriminated on the basis of race (African-American) and familial status by refusing to rent a single-family rental property to two HUD complainants The consent decree includes a payment of $35,000 to the complainants and injunctive relief.

United States v. Meadowlark Manor Condominium Association (W.D. Wis.)

On March 15, 2005, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Wisconsin filed a Stipulation for Partial Settlement in United States v. Meadowlark Manor Condominium Association (W.D. Wis.). The complaint filed on July 30, 2004, alleged that the defendant unlawfully conditioned its approval of the complainant's request for a reasonable modification to install a ramp at the rear entrance of her building on her agreement to sign a release stating that she would maintain the ramp at her own expense. The stipulation requires the condominium association to maintain the ramp in good repair as long as she resides at the property, to comply with the Fair Housing Act and to refrain from retaliating against the complainant.

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. Meadows Apartment Limited Partnership, et al. (D. Nev.)

On May 8, 2002, the court approved a consent decree to resolve the United States' complaint. The complaint, filed on October 22, 2001, included allegations that defendants had published rules that restricted the use of common areas at the Meadows Apartments in Sparks, Nevada to persons under the age of eighteen, including a playground, basketball court, and a swimming pool area, irrespective of adult or parental supervision.

The consent decree provides standard relief and includes standard injunctive relief including a requirement that all current and future employees must sign a certification acknowledging receipt of the donsent decree and defendants' non-discrimination policy. The decree also requires defendants to distribute to each tenant and every applicant at any of their properties a copy of their non-discrimination policy as well as the HUD pamphlet entitled " Are You a Victim of Housing Discrimination?"

This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination and the complainant elected to proceed in federal court.

United States v. Meadows of Jupiter, Ltd., et al. (S.D. Fla.)

On November 20, 2003, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Meadows of Jupiter, Ltd. et al. (S.D. Fla.), a case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color and familial status. The complaint, filed on August 27, 2002, alleged that managers of the Mallards Cove used a variety of tactics to discourage black persons from renting an apartment at the 240-unit complex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants told black prospective applicants that there were no apartments available for rent at Mallards Cove while at the same time telling white applicants that apartments were available. In addition, the complaint alleged that the managers made numerous statements indicating they did not want to rent to families with children and indicated to apartment seekers with children that no apartments were available.

Under the consent decree, the owners and managers of the Mallards Cove apartment complex in Jupiter, Florida will contribute $520,000 to compensate any individuals who may have been injured as a result of defendants' discriminatory housing practices and pay a civil penalty of $50,000. As part of the consent decree, the defendants will also: adopt non-discriminatory standards and procedures for the processing of rental applications at Mallards Cove; undergo testing to ensure future compliance; and receive training on the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

This case was based on evidence developed through the division's testing program.

United States v. MEM Property Management Corp., et al. (D. N.J.)

On May 16, 2005, the court entered the consent order resolving United States v. MEM Property Management Corp. et al. (D. N.J.). The Defendants in this case are a condominium association, its president, its retained management firm, and the management firm employee responsible for the complex. The complaint alleged that the defendants refused to allow the complainant to install a clothes washer and dryer in her condominium, and thereby denied her a reasonable accommodation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The complainant alleged that she needed these appliances because of her disabilities, including carpal tunnel syndrome and asthma, which made it impossible for her to carry loads of laundry to the common laundry room located on the ground floor. The consent decree requires the defendants to: allow the complainant to install the requested appliances; pay her $2,000 in compensatory damages; adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and conduct training for employees and members of the board of the condominium association. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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. Mercker (S.D. Miss.)

On April 11, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Mercker (S.D. Miss.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that Theresa O. Mercker violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b), on the basis of familial status by evicting a married couple and their five minor children from a home with three bedrooms and a den because there were too many people living in the house. The consent order requires Ms. Mercker to allow the maximum number of occupants permitted under the applicable local occupancy codes to live in her rental units, to undergo training on the Fair Housing Act, and to pay a total of $6,000 to the complainants ($1,500 to each adult and $600 to each minor child).

United States v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville (M.D. Tenn.)

On January 30, 2009, the court entered a consent decree resolving allegations that the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metropolitan Government) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by discriminating against Teen Challenge, a Christian substance abuse treatment program. In a federal lawsuit filed in September 2008, the United States alleged that the Metropolitan Government discriminated against individuals with disabilities in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA. According to the complaint, the Metropolitan Government denied Teen Challenge a building permit to operate in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, and amended its zoning code in a manner that prevented Teen Challenge from using the property.

The consent decree requires the Metropolitan Government to train nearly 100 employees and officials who make zoning and land use decisions on the requirements of the FHA and RLUIPA, to appoint a compliance officer to receive complaints and ensure compliance with the settlement, and to provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. As part of the settlement, the Metropolitan Government rescinded the amendment to its zoning code that affected Teen Challenge and adopted a reasonable accommodation policy for individuals with disabilities. The Metropolitan Government will also pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States and $50,000 to participants in Teen Challenge’s program.

United States v. Mid America Bank, fsb (N.D. Ill.)

On December 30, 2002, the United States submitted a consent order to the U.S. District Court in Chicago, resolving a lawsuit alleging that Mid America Bank, fsb violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by unlawfully failing to market and provide its lending products and services to predominantly African American and Hispanic neighborhoods, a practice commonly known as redlining. Mid America, a federally chartered savings and loan association, is the largest independent thrift institution in the Chicago metropolitan area and the second largest such institution in Illinois. Under the settlement, Mid America will open two new branch offices in the allegedly redlined areas and invest $10 million over five years in a special financing program, under which it will offer residents of the redlined areas home mortgages and other residential real estate-related loan products on more favorable terms than would normally be provided.

The Division's complaint, filed on December 30, 2002, alleged that the 34-branch Mid America has never opened a full-service branch office in a census tract with a majority African American or majority African American/Hispanic population, despite opening or acquiring 20 new branch offices between 1994 and early 2002. The complaint also alleges that the Bank made nearly $6 billion in single-family residential real-estate loans between 1996 and 2000, but that only 1% of that amount went to census tracts with majority African American populations and only 2.75% to majority African American, African American/Hispanic, and Hispanic census tracts combined. The complaint further alleges that Mid America, until December 2001, defined its service area in an unusually restrictive way that excluded most minority neighborhoods. Additionally, the complaint alleges that although Mid America solicited and funded a large number of loans outside its defined service area, those loans also were made primarily to residents of predominantly white census tracts.

United States v. Midtown Development, LLC (S.D. Miss.)

On July 10, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Midtown Development, LLC (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, filed on June 20, 2007, by the U.S. Attorney's Office alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of an apartment complex in Biloxi, Mississippi, violated sections 3604(f)(2), 3604(f)(3)(B) and section 3617 of the Fair Housing Act by failing to provide complainant an assigned accessible parking space and by taking steps to evict him in retaliation for his reasonable accommodation requests. Before the eviction process was complete, Hurricane Katrina decimated the property. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay the complainant $2,000, to undergo fair housing training and to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and comply with various reporting requirements if they go back into the residential property rental business. 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. Midwest BankCentre (E.D. Mo.)

On June 16, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and agreed order in United States v. Midwest BankCentre (E.D. Mo.), a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice case. The matter was referred to us by the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunities Council in 2009 and was the subject of a referral from the Federal Reserve Board in 2010. The complaint alleges that Midwest BankCentre (Midwest) failed to provide its home mortgage lending services to residents of majority African American neighborhoods on an equal basis as it provided those services to residents of predominantly white neighborhoods in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metropolitan area, a practice commonly known as "redlining." Under the agreed order Midwest will open a full-service branch in an African-American neighborhood and invest in the formerly redlined majority African-American areas in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metropolitan area by providing $900,000 in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the bank extends in those areas; spending $300,000 for consumer education and credit repair programs, and spending $250,000 for outreach to potential customers and promotion of their products and services. The court entered the amended agreed order on April 15, 2012.

United States v. Milazzo (E.D. La.)

On February 10, 2001, the United States filed a complaint against co-owners of a ten-unit apartment complex, alleging: (1) that the defendants discriminated against a rental applicant, an African-American man, on the basis of his race; and (2) that the defendants maintained a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-Americans. This matter was referred to the Department by HUD.

In addition to the payment of $30,500 in compensatory damages to the African-American student and $1000 in civil penalties to the United States, the consent order, filed on January 8, 2002, requires the defendants to complete fair housing training, adopt non-discriminatory rental policies, inform the public that they are an equal housing opportunity provider and provide the Department with bi-annual reports during a three-year monitoring period.

United States v. Millikin Univ. (C.D. Ill.)

On January 11, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Millikin Univ. (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed on November 6, 2009, alleged that Millikin University in Decatur, Illinois required a student who has a seizure disorder and is legally blind to transfer to a different dormitory when she acquired her service animal. The consent order requires the university to educate its employees about the law of reasonable accommodations and to pay $4,436.89 to the former student.

United States v. Mills d/b/a Chestnut Properties, et al. (D. N.H.)

On June 7, 2000, the United States filed a complaint against the property owner and former rental manager of an apartment complex in Manchester, New Hampshire, claiming that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in housing based upon sex. This case began following a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants had discriminated against a tenant on the basis of sex. Upon further investigation the United States discovered additional evidence of the rental agent's pervasive sexual harassment and sexual assaults against female tenants. The United States contended that the owner knew or should have known about the rental agent's conduct but refused to take action to curtail and/or prevent the rental agent's discriminatory conduct. The 11 unit apartment complex's tenants are primarily, if not all, Section 8 tenants.

The consent decree, filed on November 14, 2001, provides for an injunctive prohibiting the defendants from further violations of the Fair Housing Act; permanent injunction against the manager from having any involvement whatsoever in the ownership or management of rental housing properties; letters of apology from both defendants to all aggrieved victims; a $15,000 civil penalty to the United States; and $90,500 in damages to four aggrieved parties.

United States v. Milton (D. Idaho)

On March 16, 2009, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Milton (D. Idaho), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by HUD. The complaint alleged that the defendants refused to rent a second-floor unit to a father because he had two young children. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $600 to the complainant and comply will standard injunctive provisions. The consent decree was entered by the court on April 15, 2009.

United States v. Mississippi Regional Hous. Auth. VIII (S.D. Miss.)

On March 26, 2010, the court entered a consent decree with the property management company defendants and a dismissal against the public housing authority defendant in United States v. Mississippi Regional Hous. Auth. VIII (S.D. Miss.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $10,000 to the complainant, maintain a non-discrimination policy, continue fair housing training and reasonable accommodation policies, as well as submit periodic reports to the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years. The complaint, filed on February 17, 2009, alleged that the MRHA and a management company violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by denying the complainant’s reasonable accommodation request to transfer to a first-floor unit. This election case referral from HUD was litigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

United States v. Mitchell (S.D. Ohio)

On November 2, 2007, the United States filed an amended complaint in the Southern District of Ohio against James G. Mitchell, the owner and operator of numerous rental properties in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. The complaint alleged that Mitchell engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Mitchell subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances and unwanted sexual touching, entered the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice, granted and denied tangible housing benefits based on sex, and took adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. This matter was initially referred to the Division by Housing Opportunities Made Equal, a fair housing organization in Cincinnati.

On September 18, 2008, the court entered a consent decree settling the United States’ claims against James G. Mitchell, and his company, Land Baron Enterprises, for $1 million. This is the largest monetary settlement the Department has ever obtained in a case alleging sexual harassment violations under the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $890,000 in compensation to 12 women who Mitchell sexually harassed and $110,000 in a civil penalty to the United States.

United States v. Moldenhauer, et al. (D. N.D.)

Our complaint, filed on December 18, 2000, alleges that the owners/managers of an apartment complex in Bismarck, ND violated the Fair Housing Act by denying available apartments to families with young children. Defendants denied housing to the families by failing to inform them about all available apartments and making comments indicating that families with young children were not welcome. The case came to our office after HUD determined that the defendants had discriminated against families with children and issued a charge of discrimination. The complainants include two families and the North Dakota Fair Housing Council, who conducted familial status testing at defendants' apartments to determine if the defendants were complying with the Fair Housing Act.

The consent decree, filed on September 25, 2001, provides $42,000 for the three complainants and our standard injunctive relief, including reporting and training requirements.

United States v. Montagne Development, Inc. (D. Or.)

On May 9, 2013, the court entered a consent order with the developer/owner defendants in United States v. Montagne Development, Inc. (D. Or.), a design and construction election and pattern or practice case. Under the terms of the consent order, those defendants will perform the necessary retrofits to covered apartment interiors and to the development's public and common use areas. The defendant will also pay $48,000 to the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, which filed the original HUD complaint and intervened in our lawsuit, and $32,000 to establish a settlement fund to compensate aggrieved persons. The consent order also contains further standard injunctive relief. The settlement does not include the design defendant

United States v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp., et al. (W.D. Pa.)

On April 30, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on July 5, 2011, based on a HUD election referral, alleged MGIC engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons based on sex and familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act by requiring women on maternity leave to physically return to work before approving their applications for mortgage insurance. The settlement creates a $511,250 fund to compensate aggrieved persons, including $42,500 for the HUD complainant and $468,750 to 69 additional aggrieved persons identified through the Division's review of applications MGIC underwrote between July 2007 and September 2010, and a $38,750 civil penalty to the United States. It also provides extensive injunctive relief for a 4 year term, including setting out detailed provisions that MGIC must follow in underwriting future applications involving paid or unpaid maternity or paternity leave, a monitoring program that requires the re-underwriting by management of all applications involving maternity or paternity leave for one year and auditing of these applications for the remaining term, employee training, and nondiscrimination notices to applicants.

United States v. Morgan, et al. (S.D. Ga.)

On June 23, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Morgan, et al. (S.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging that the Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the base of race or color and sex. The complaint, filed on September 8, 2008, alleged Darwin Kenneth Morgan and his company DK Morgan Consolidated LLC, violated the Fair Housing Act in the rental of mobile homes and mobile home lots at Morgan Mobile Home Park in Bloomingdale, Ga. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Morgan refused to rent to inter-racial couples, made statements indicating a racial preference, and misrepresented the availability of units to African–American prospective tenants. The complaint also alleged that Morgan subjected female tenants and prospective tenants to unwanted verbal and physical sexual advances, granted and denied tangible housing benefits based on sex, and took adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. Under the terms of the consent the Defendants are required to pay a total of $680,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties. The consent decree also includes broad injunctive relief, including an independent manager provision, training and reporting requirements. The government’s investigation and lawsuit arose after the Savannah-Chatham County Fair Housing Council alerted the Civil Rights Division to Morgan’s discriminatory activities. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. The Mortgage Super Center (D. Ariz.)

On November 7, 2005, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. The Mortgage Super Center (D. Ariz.). The complaint, filed on December 23, 2004 alleged that the defendants, the Mortgage Center and Nogales Realty, breached a conciliation agreement they had entered into with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to resolve a complaint that the defendants had discriminated on the basis of national origin. The complaint alleged that in the Conciliation Agreement, the defendants agreed to pay $1000 to the complainants and to refinance the complainants' first and second mortgages as one loan and that they failed to do so. The consent decree enjoins the defendants from discriminating on the basis of national origin, requires fair housing training, and requires the defendants to pay the complainants $8,358.85. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, et al. (S.D. Iowa)

On October 25, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, et al. (S.D. Iowa). The complaint, filed on September 1, 2005, alleged the Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they inquired into the HUD complainants' mental disabilities, submitted them to different terms and conditions, and rejected their application based on the medical information they received. The complaint also alleged that the Defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The consent decree calls for employee training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping, and monitoring. Additionally, the defendants will pay $31,700 in damages to the complainants, $3,300 in damages to a fair housing organization, and $5,000 in a civil penalty to the United States.

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. Murphy Development, LLC, et al. (M.D. Tenn.)

On December 15, 2011, the court entered a supplemental consent order in United States v. Murphy Development, et al. (M.D. Tenn.). The original complaint, filed in 2008 alleged that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by failing to design and construct 375 covered units at seven multi-family apartment complexes in or around Nashville, Tennessee to be accessible to persons with disabilities in compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The complaint was amended in March 2009 to add additional properties, additional defendants and additional violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the original consent order, Murphy Development LLC and 22 defendants was required to pay all costs related to making the complexes for which they were responsible accessible to persons with disabilities, pay up to $350,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay $75,000 to the United States. The consent order required all the defendants to be trained about the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and to provide periodic compliance reports to the government. The defendants have failed to meet numerous retrofit deadlines. Among other things, the supplemental consent order provides for: (1) new court-ordered dates for retrofits; (2) bi-weekly progress reports; (3) a requirement that Defendants provide the United States with prompt notice of any anticipated delay; (4) a requirement that Defendants seek permission from the court for any significant delays in retrofit deadlines; and (5) liquidated damages of $1,000 per day if deadlines are missed without approval of the United States or the court. The United States withdrew its motion for contempt and for further relief. The matter was referred to the Department by the Tennessee Fair Housing Council, a private, nonprofit advocacy organization whose mission is to eliminate housing discrimination throughout Tennessee. The Department then conducted an independent investigation.

United States v. NPI, et al. (E.D. Pa.)

On October 8, 2008, the United States filed a proposed consent decree in United States v. National Properties Inc, NPI Management Corp., Barrcrest Manor Associates, L.P., and Sandy Brown (E.D. Pa.). On October 15th the court entered the Concent Decree. The complaint, which was filed on February 1, 2007, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a visually-impaired individual who uses a guide dog because of the apartment's "no-dog" policy. Under the agreement, the defendants, National Properties Inc., NPI Management Corporation, and Barrcrest Manor Associates will pay up to $25,000 to compensate any victims of discrimination at Barrcrest Manor. The defendants will also pay $35,500 in civil penalties to the United States government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, and undergo fair housing training. The evidence was developed by the Section's testing program.

United States v. Thomas E. Nail (M.D. Fla.)

The complaint filed on June 16, 2000, alleged that the defendant discriminated against a white tenant because the tenant had a relationship with a black male. The United States alleged that the defendant harassed and intimidated the tenant leading to her moving out of the apartment.

The terms of the consent order, filed on March 13, 2001, provide that the defendant must pay $20,000 to the two victims to compensate them for the damages suffered as a result of the discrimination, apologize in writing to the victims, cease and resign from performing any management duties with respect to any residential rental property and hire an independent rental manager to manage the property; and give written notice to current and future tenants, notifying them of their rights to equal housing opportunity and nondiscrimination. Further, the Order provides that the court, at a public hearing with the defendant present, will make a statement on the record admonishing Defendant Nail for his violations of the Fair Housing Act, and making clear just how serious such violations are and how carefully the defendant must avoid any such violation in the future.

United States v. Nara Bank and Union Auto Sales, et al. (C.D. Cal.)

On November 18, 2009, the court entered a partial consent decree resolving the government’s claims against Nara Bank only in United States v. Nara Bank; Union Auto Sales d/b/a Union Mitsubishi; Han Kook Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Los Angeles City Hyundai, Garden Grove Hyundai, Han Kook Imports, Vermont Chevrolet, and Han Kook Motors, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). The amended complaint, alleged that Nara Bank and the other named Defendants (dealerships in Nara’s automobile lending network) violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, on the basis of race or national origin by charging non Asian customers, many of whom are Hispanic, higher "overages" or "dealer mark ups" than similarly situated Asian customers. The consent decree enjoins the Bank, its officers, and its employees from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin, in violation of ECOA, against any loan applicant and/or consumer in the terms or conditions relating to the extension of credit, including the setting of overages in indirect automobile lending purchases. It also requires the Bank to pay $410,000 to compensate several hundred non Asian borrowers who were aggrieved by the discriminatory conduct. On May 28, 2010, the court granted the dealership Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 28, 2010, the court granted the dealership Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The United States has appealed this decision. The brief as appellant was filed January 3, 2011, and the reply brief was filed May 2, 2011.

United States v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (S.D. Ohio)M

On March 10, 1997, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (S.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by using certain rules regarding the age and value of a home. The complaint alleged that Nationwide's rules that a home could not be insured if it was above a certain age or below a certain value were not supported by economic considerations. These rules effectively barred coverage in minority neighborhoods where homes are typically older and undervalued, in part due to discrimination in the real estate market. In large part, because of these rules, the complaint asserted the company restricted the neighborhoods in which homeowners policies could be offered based on the racial or ethnic composition of the area and instructed its agents to avoid doing business in minority neighborhoods. The consent decree requires Nationwide Insurance to invest more than $13 million in up to ten communities and change some of the ways it underwrites and markets homeowners insurance to ensure that minority neighborhoods get equal access to insurance.

United States v. Nationwide Nevada (D. Nev.)

On September 29, 2008, the Division filed a complaint and consent order in ,United States v. Nationwide Nevada (D. Nev.). The complaint alleged that Nationwide Nevada and its general partner NAC Management, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing to finance car loans for consumers living on Indian reservations in Utah and Nevada, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Under the consent order, which was approved by the court, the company will pay $170,000 to compensate loan applicants who were denied loans by Nationwide Nevada due to their residence (or the residence of their co-applicant) on an Indian reservation. The consent order also enjoins the company from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin against loan applicants because they live on an Indian reservation. In addition, the company has agreed to implement a non-discrimination policy stating that consideration of residency on an Indian reservation is not a valid basis for declining to purchase automobile sales finance contracts and will provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to its officers and employees who determine whether to finance car loans.

United States v. Nedialkov (N.D. Ill.)

On December 1, 1994, the United States reached an agreement with the defendants, resolving allegations that the owner and property manager of an apartment building in Chicago, Illinois had violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. In our complaint, filed on March 25, 1993, we alleged that the owner and property manager had subjected female tenants to continual sexual harassment by conditioning tenancy on the granting of sexual favors, creating a hostile environment, and retaliating against women who refused to grant him sexual favors and who filed complaints of sexual harassment against him. The consent decree required the owner and property manager to pay $180,000 in monetary relief, to refrain from managing or entering the apartment building, and to make a good faith effort to sell the building.

United States v. Nejam Properties (S.D. Miss.)

In this lawsuit, filed on November 18, 1998, based on evidence developed through our testing program, we claimed in our complaint that the owner of numerous rental units in Jackson, Mississippi and his former rental agents discriminated on the basis of race. The United States contended that the defendant and his agents gave false information about apartment availability to African-American testers and applicants.

On February 18, 2000, the United States resolved this suit with a consent decree. The decree provides a total of $200,000 in monetary relief, including a $5000 civil penalty. The remainder of the money will compensate approximately thirty-five victims of the company practices in amounts ranging from $1000 to $6500 apiece. The decree also requires all of the owner's employees to undergo fair housing training and further requires the owner to maintain detailed records of apartment availability, to make that information available to all prospects and to notify the public of his non-discriminatory rental policy.

United States v. Nieman, et al. (N.D. Iowa)

On September 22, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Nieman, et al. (N.D. Iowa). The United States brought this pattern or practice case under the Fair Housing Act against the property manager, management company, and owner of Park Towers Apartments in Waterloo, Iowa, based on an election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed on November 10, 2010, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of sex when the property manager, while acting as an agent for the management company and owner, sexually harassed female tenants of Park Towers Apartments. The consent order includes a permanent injunction preventing the property manager from ever having any involving in the management, rental, or maintenance of any dwelling, $80,000 in monetary relief for ten female residents at Park Towers, and $15,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The defendants must also comply with document retention and reporting requirements, and standard injunctive relief that will come into effect against the management company and owner if they re-enter the residential real estate business during the term of this order.

United States v. Nistler(D. Mont.)

On October 7, 2014, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Nistler (D Mont.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, which was filed on September 12, 2013, alleged that defendants designed and constructed an eight-unit property in Helena, Montana without required accessible features for four covered units. Under the consent order, the defendants are required to remove accessibility barriers at this property as well as two other properties they designed and constructed which are currently owned by two of them. The defendants are also required to pay $17,500 to the HUD complainant, Montana Fair Housing, Inc., and $8,500 in civil penalties to the United States. 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. Nixon State Bank (W.D. Tex.)

On June 17, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Nixon State Bank (W.D. Tex.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice that was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaint alleges that Nixon charged higher prices on unsecured consumer loans made to Hispanic borrowers through the bank’s branch offices. The consent order resolves the case by requiring Nixon to further revise its uniform rate matrices to price unsecured consumer and other loans offered by the bank to ensure that the price charged for its loans is set in a non-discriminatory manner. The settlement also requires the bank to pay nearly $100,000 to Hispanic victims of discrimination, monitor its loans for potential disparities based on national origin, and provide equal credit opportunity training to its employees. The agreement also prohibits the bank from discriminating on the basis of national origin in any aspect of a credit transaction. The court entered the consent order on June 21, 2011.

United States v. Noble Homes, Inc. (N.D. Ohio)

On May 14, 2014, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Noble Homes, Inc. (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by designing and constructing the Windham Bridge and Hampton Court condominium properties in Hartsville, Ohio without features of accessibility required by the Act. The proposed amendments include adding the Hampton Court property and corresponding unit owners' association as a necessary party for relief and naming the Tri-County Independent Living Center as an aggrieved person.

United States v. Allen Norman, Nancy Norman, and John Norman (W.D. Mo.)

On February 23, 2006, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Norman (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, filed on April 21, 2005, alleged that the complainant, an African American female, was discriminated against because of her race and sex by John Norman, the white maintenance man for her rental unit. In addition, the complaint alleged that Allen and Nancy Norman, owners of the property and John Norman's parents, retaliated against her after she obtained a restraining order against John Norman. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $15,000 to the complainant, establish a nondiscrimination policy, undergo fair housing training, and submit reports to the Division. It also prohibits John Norman from working on any rental units except those in completely unoccupied buildings. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Northern Trust Company (N.D. Ill.)

In this case, our complaint, filed on June 1, 1995, contended that the bank failed to make the same efforts to approve African American and Hispanic mortgage loan applicants as it did for white applicants, and it made special efforts to qualify white applicants while it did not make similar efforts for minority applicants. Under the consent decree, also filed on June 1, 1995, the bank agreed to create a $700,000 fund to compensate victims and take a number of other corrective measures.

United States v. Occoquan Forest Drive, LLC (E.D. Va.)

On February 14, 2013, the court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and issued a final judgment in United States v. Occoquan Forest Drive, LLC (ED Va.). The complaint, which was filed on May 21, 2012, alleged that the owners of a single-family home in Manassas, Virginia violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by refusing to return a $2,450 security deposit and imposing over $5,000 in unjustified charges on a servicemember when he tried to terminate his lease. The Major was serving at the Pentagon when he received permanent change of station orders to serve at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. The court ordered the defendants to refrain from imposing any early termination charges and to return the $2,450 security deposit. The opinion stated that defendants' withholding of the security deposit, attempts to charge additional rent and allegations of property damage amounted to an "early termination charge in violation of the SCRA." The court also looked to Fair Housing Act law to conclude that the complaint stated a cause of action against both the individual property manager and his limited liability corporation.

United States v. Ohnstad, et al. (C.D. Ill.)

On September 11, 2003, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ohnstad, et al., C.A. No. 02-2172 (C.D. Ill.). In this complaint, filed on July 30, 2002, the United States alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of the Surbana Estates Mobile Home Park in Urbana, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race or color when they sought to evict a white resident and her African-American boyfriend after he moved into her mobile home. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 to the tenant and $10,000 to her boyfriend. The Order also: enjoins defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race; requires the defendant Dennis Ohnstad to undergo training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act pertaining to racial discrimination; requires the defendants to display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in all advertising; and requires the defendants to advise the United States of any written complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division and handled by the United States Attorney's Office for central district of Illinois after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Ojeda (N.D. Ill.)

On June 20, 2000, the United States filed a complaint under the Fair Housing Act on behalf of three individuals and a fair housing organization following a determination of reasonable cause by HUD with respect to complaints they had filed. HUD's investigation found that soon after the defendants purchased a 42-unit apartment building in an integrated Chicago neighborhood in 1997, they told the individual complainants (who are African-American) that he wanted to get rid of the black tenants in his building. HUD found that similar remarks where made to a white tester sent by the fair housing organization and that he informed the white tester of a greater availability of apartments than the black tester.

Under the consent order, filed on December 13, 2000, the defendants agree to pay $30,000 in damages and attorney's fees and submit to three years of Justice Department monitoring. The consent order also provides that the defendants must undergo training, release the eviction judgments previously entered against the complainants, and change their procedures for advertising and filling vacancies.

United States v. Old Kent Financial Corporation and Old Kent Bank (E.D. Mich.)

The May 19, 2004, the United States simultaneously filed and a complaint and settlement agreement in United States v. Old Kent Financial Corporation and Old Kent Bank (E.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act case. The complaint alleges that Old Kent Financial Corporation and Old Kent Bank of Detroit, subsequently acquired by Fifth Third and Fifth Third Bank (Michigan), unlawfully avoided making business and residential loans in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, a practice commonly referred to as redlining. The complaint alleges that Old Kent intentionally refused to issue loans and open branches in Detroit because of the city’s African-American population. Specifically, the complaint alleges that while Old Kent served largely white suburbs, it opened a branch in Detroit only after the Justice Department opened its investigation. The complaint also alleges that of the 15,473 small business and residential real estate related loans Old Kent made between 1996 and 2000 in the Detroit metropolitan area, only 335, or 2.2%, were made in majority African-American neighborhoods. The complaint further alleges that while capturing most of the greater Detroit area, Old Kent defined its Community Reinvestment Act service-area to exclude certain majority African-American areas. The enforceable settlement agreement requires the defendants to provide three million dollars for a loan subsidy program to provide Detroit businesses and residents small business loans and residential real estate-related loan products on favorable terms; open three new full-service branches in Detroit; advertise its products so as to generate loan applications from qualified businesses and residents in Detroit; invest $200,000 to develop and implement consumer education programs for residents and small businesses in Detroit; and, relocate its team of business banking lenders responsible for developing business in Detroit, the "Detroit Business Group Team," to the city of Detroit by the end of 2004.

United States v. Olmstead (D. Conn.)

On January 13, 2010, the court issued an Notice of Dismissal in United States v. Olmstead (D. Conn.) after the parties reached a settlement. The complaint, filed on October 16, 2009, by the United States Attorney's Office alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), on the basis of familial status by expressing an intention, both in a printed advertisement and in oral statements made to Connecticut Fair Housing Center testers, not to rent an apartment to families with children. 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. Orchard Hill Construction, L.L.C., et al. (N.D. Ill.)

In this case, we filed a complaint on July 1, 1999, claiming that the architect and developer built residential properties, Creekside of Spring Creek and Convington Knolls, violated the Fair Housing Act when they did not include certain features that would make the units accessible to persons with disabilities. Specifically, the housing complexes have inaccessible common areas, inaccessible routes into and through the units, doors that are too narrow for the passage of wheelchairs, and bathrooms that cannot accommodate grab bars.

The United States settled this case on July 27, 1999, with a consent decree which calls for the defendants to modify condominium and townhouses that are not in compliance with the Act. The defendants also agreed to pay $20,000 to aggrieved persons identified by the United States.

This case was based on evidence developed through our testing program.

United States v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Tex.)

On December 22, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleged that these defendants discriminated on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complaint alleged the defendants evicted residents with disabilities if they were unable to walk without assistance or if they required too many hours of assistive services and conducted health assessments of residents as a condition of tenancy. Under the consent order the former owner and manager, respectively, of The Summit at Newforest (now Newforest Estates Retirement Community), are required to pay a total of $420,000 to settle allegations that they discriminated against tenants with disabilities. The monetary amount includes: $260,000 for six former and current residents; $50,000 in civil penalties, and $110,000 for a settlement fund to compensate any additional victims. The defendants are also required to implement nondiscriminatory rental standards and tenant rules and to replace current leases containing discriminatory policies. In addition, these defendant are required to pay $200,000 to settle a related private suit.

The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., et al. (D. Idaho)

On October 21, 2003, the court entered a consent decree (PDF 732 KB) resolving United States v. Pacific Northwest Electric (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on January 11, 2001, alleged the defendants: Boise, Idaho developers, Walter T. Sigmont and Wirt Edmonds, Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., Edmonds Construction Co., Inc., and architects Teal Whitworth Architects, P.A. and Capstone, Inc. discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct five Boise complexes in accordance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements for new multifamily housing. The five Boise complexes that were the subject of the suit are Grayling Place, Jade Village, Imperial Court, Eagleson Park and Harborview Station (formerly known as Lawton Apartments).

The consent decree requires the defendants: to retrofit the complexes by, among other things: removing steps; reconfiguring kitchens and bathrooms to provide added maneuvering space; widening doorways; leveling sidewalks; and adding accessible parking and curb ramps at an estimated cost of approximately $300,000. In addition, the defendants are required to: pay damages in the amount of $29,000 to persons harmed by the lack of accessible features at the complexes; pay $5,000 in damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council ("IFHC"); and ensure that new construction complies with the Fair Housing Act with respect to new construction comply with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after HUD investigated complaints it had received from the Intermountain Fair Housing Council ("IFHC").

United States v. Pacific Properties and Dev. Corp., et al. (D. Nev.)

On May 23, 2007, the court approved and entered a consent decree (pdf) resolving United States v. Pacific Properties and Dev. Corp., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed November 15, 2005, alleged that the designers and builders of Pacific Legends West, a condominium complex in Las Vegas, Nevada with 92 ground floor units, violated the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct the units and public and commons areas with features necessary to make them readily usable by and accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants must retrofit the covered ground floor units upon the request of the homeowners; retrofit the public and common use areas; provide accessible pedestrian routes; pay $100,000 in damages to nine aggrieved individuals; and undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and six months.

United States v. Pacific Properties, et al. (D. Nev.)

On February 28, 2001, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in this case alleging that the defendant discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at four complexes - two rental properties and two condominium complexes - in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendant has agreed to spend approximately $208,000 to retrofit the public and common use areas, as well as the interior of the units at the four properties. Additionally, defendant will contribute $30,000 to an organization in the Las Vegas metropolitan area whose purpose is to serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities and pay $1200 to two residents at one of the complexes who were required to pay for modifications that would not have been necessary had defendants designed the unit to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Act.

United States v. Pacifico Ford, Inc. (E.D. Pa.).

On August 21, 2007, the Division filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Pacifico Ford (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia-area car dealership engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American customers by charging them higher dealer markups on car loan interest rates, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The dealership cooperated fully with the Division's investigation. Under the consent order, which was entered on September 4, 2007, Pacifico Ford will pay up to $363,166, plus interest, to African-American customers who were charged higher interest rates. In addition, the dealership agreed to implement changes in the way it sets markups, including guidelines to ensure that the dealership follows the same procedures for setting markups for all customers, and that only good faith, competitive factors consistent with ECOA influence that process. The dealership will also provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to officers and employees who set rates for automobile loans

United States v. Palazzolo and Lombardo (E.D. Mich.)

On July 9, 2007, the United States filed a complaint and a consent decree in United States v. Palazzolo and Lombardo (E.D. Mich.), a case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination based on disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The court entered the consent decree on August 8, 2007. The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Act when they failed to design and construct an apartment and condominium complex in Sterling Heights, Michigan with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires Defendants to retrofit the apartments and common areas of the condominiums; to pay $96,000 to be used for retrofitting of condominiums that have already been sold; to pay up to $25,000 to aggrieved persons; and to pay $25,000 as a civil penalty.

United States v. Pasco County Fair Association, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)

On July 19, 2010, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Pasco County Fair Association, Inc., (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on July 15, 2010, alleged that the Fair Association violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanic customers and prospective customers of a the Dan Cannon Auditorium, a reception hall owned and operated by the fair association and used for weddings, anniversaries and other events. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Fair Association charged and quoted Hispanic customers and prospective customers higher deposit fees for renting the hall. The consent decree prohibits the Fair Association from discriminating on the basis of national origin in the provision of goods, services and facilities at the fairgrounds and the reception hall. The decree also requires training of the association's board members and employees, the adoption of nondiscrimination policies and procedures, the posting of nondiscrimination policies in Spanish and English, the adoption of complaint resolution procedures, the retention of an outside contractor to test the association's compliance with Title II, and monitoring by the Division. The lawsuit arose after the Greater Tampa Chapter of the ACLU Foundation of Florida alerted the Civil Rights Division that the fair association was allegedly charging Hispanics higher deposits to rent Dan Cannon Auditorium. The United States conducted an independent investigation, including using testers – individuals who pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices – who uncovered evidence of possible discrimination. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. Patel d/b/a Econo Lodge (S.D. Fla.)

On October 20, 2000, the court entered the consent order resolving United States v. Patel d/b/a Econo Lodge (S.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed October 18, 2000, alleged that the defendants assigned African-American persons to specifically designated rooms and/or areas of the motel because of their race and color; refused to accommodate the preferences of African-American guests in the location and options or other amenities of their hotel room; and charged African-American persons a higher price for a room than white persons. Under the consent order, the defendants are required to: post a notice of Defendants' nondiscriminatory policies; train each employee of his or her duties and obligations under the consent order; employ nondiscriminatory standards and procedures; maintain records; and submit to compliance testing.

United States v. Pauley, et al. (S.D. W.Va.)

On September 29, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Pauley, et al.(S.D. W.Va.), a Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act case. The complaint, filed on December 18, 2013, alleged that Douglas E. Pauley, as General Partner, and his thirty limited liability partnerships, violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by building multi-family housing developments with features that made them inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint also included a claim alleging that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, or a denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the FHA, which raises an issue of general public importance. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $110,000, and make all retrofits required to remove accessibility barriers at 30 apartment complexes throughout the state of West Virginia.

United States v. Pearl River Gardens, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On June 16, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Pearl River Gardens, LLC (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The complaint, filed on March 10, 2011, alleged that the owner of Pearl River Gardens, a residential apartment complex in Rockland County, discriminated against persons on the basis of race or color. Among other things, defendants were alleged to have misrepresented the availability of apartments, quoted African American prospective tenants higher rental rates than quoted to non-African Americans, and failed to negotiate with African American prospective tenants for the rental of available apartments. The consent decree includes an admission of liability, standard injunctive relief, and a civil penalty.

United States v. Pecan Terrace (W.D. La.)

On September 30, 2008, the United States filed a complaint and a consent decree in United States v. Pecan Terrace (W.D. La.). The court entered the consent decree on October 8th. The complaint alleged that the owner and manager of an Pecan Terrace Apartments in Lafayette, Louisiana discriminated against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the defendants had and exercised a policy of refusing to rent second floor units to families with children and discouraging families with children from renting at the complex.

Under the agreement the defendants will pay up to $115,000 to compensate victims of discrimination at Pecan Terrace Apartments, as well as pay $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The settlement also calls for numerous corrective measures, including training on the requirements of federal housing law, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. Evidence for this case was developed through the Housing Sections's testing program.

United States v. Penny Pincher, Inc., Deanna Lynn Cooley, and Michael Law (S.D. Miss.)

On December 8, 2011, the court entered a partial consent decree resolving its claims against Deanna Lynn Cooley and Michael Law, the remaining defendants in United States v. Penny Pincher, et al. (S.D. Miss.). The amended complaint, filed on December 17, 2010, alleged that Defendant Cooley placed an advertisement for a rental house that was discriminatory on the basis of familial status and that Defendants Cooley and Law made similar oral discriminatory statements to a tester for a fair housing group. The partial consent decree includes standard injunctive relief as well as payments of $2,000 to Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center, which investigated and attempted to combat Defendants' conduct, and $500 to an individual aggrieved person who read the Cooley's ad when she was seeking housing for her family. On August 31, 2011, the United States settled its related claims against Penny Pincher, the newspaper in which the ad appeared. That consent decree required Penny Pincher to pay $10,000 in damages to Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center, $1,500 in damages to the individual affected by the ad and $3,500 in a civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also required Penny Pincher to adopt a non-discrimination policy, to provide its employees with fair housing training, and to provide periodic reports to the Justice Department.

United States v. Perlick Family Trust, et al. (E.D. Wis.)

On September 14, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States and Spears v. Perlick Family Trust, et al. (E.D. Wis.). This is a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, which was referred to the Division by HUD and alleges discrimination on the basis of familial status. The Division's complaint, filed on September 1, 2005, alleged that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a woman and her ten year old daughter, implemented rental practices that discriminated based on familial status, and made discriminatory statements. The HUD complainants intervened in the case. The consent decree resulted from a settlement conference with the magistrate judge. The consent decree provides for a non-discrimination injunction; revisions to defendants' rental policies and practices; posting of non-discrimination notices; training; record keeping and reporting; payment of $39,000 in damages and attorney's fees to the intervening private plaintiffs; and payment of an $11,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Peterson, et al. (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, et al. (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. Philadelphian Owner's Association (E.D. Pa.)

On September 28, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint and a consent order in United States v. Philadelphian Owner's Association (E.D. Pa.). The HUD election and pattern or practice complaint alleged that the Philadelphian Owners' Association (POA), a condominium association that manages a 776 unit condominium complex in Philadelphia violated the Fair Housing Act by denying a resident with a disability a reasonable accommodation for an emotional support animal and by having and implementing a no-pets policy limiting the use of assistance animals in the complex. The consent decree requires the POA to pay the complainant $15,000 in monetary damages, establish a $15,000 settlement fund for additional potential aggrieved persons, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The decree also requires the POA to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, have its members undergo education and training and imposes reporting and record-keeping requirements. The court entered the consent order on October 9, 2012.

United States v. Pine Properties Inc., et al.(D. Mass.)

On January 22, 2008, the United States filed and the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Pine Properties Inc., et al. (D. Mass.), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin. The complaint, filed on September 26, 2007, alleged that the defendants, who own and manage multifamily housing in Lowell, Massachusetts, discriminated against Cambodian-Americans based on national origin by (1) telling Cambodian-American persons that their employment and/or credit had to be verified before they could see available dwellings while at the same time taking white persons to see available dwellings without first verifying their employment or credit; and/or (2) telling Cambodian-American persons that they had to have a separate appointment to see available dwellings while at the same time taking white persons to see available dwellings immediately, with no prior appointment. This case was developed based on evidence developed through the Department's Fair Housing Testing Program, part of the Division's "Operation Home Sweet Home"program.

Under the consent decree, which the defendants will pay up to $114,000 to compensate victims, pay a $44,000 civil penalty to the U.S. government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government.

United States v. Pinewood Associates (D. Nev.)

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Pinewood Associates, Ltd., and other defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with children. Our complaint, filed on December 19, 1995, added a claim that the defendants also discriminated against tenants on the basis of race. The United States contended that the defendants' employees harassed tenant families by yelling obscenities at young children and threatening parents with eviction for minor infractions of rules that imposed unreasonable and discriminatory restrictions on children. The complaint also alleged that the defendants' employees treated minority tenants less favorably than white tenants and used racial epithets.

The United States were able to resolve this matter on March 8, 1999, with a consent order in which the defendants admitted that they had violated the Fair Housing Act. The decree required the defendants to provide fair housing training for their employees and publicize a non-discrimination housing policy at their apartment complexes and revise the tenant rules and regulations affecting families with children. In addition, the order establishes a $240,000 fund to compensate any persons who are identified victims of the alleged discriminatory practices and pay $42,500 to the complainant.

United States v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. (S.D. Cal.)

On September 26, 2013, the Division filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. (S.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice that was referred by the Federal Trade Commission. The complaint alleges that from 2006 to 2010, Plaza charged higher broker fees on wholesale mortgage loans made to African-American and Hispanic borrowers than to non-Hispanic borrowers. The settlement will resolve the case by requiring Plaza to pay $3 million to African-American and Hispanic victims of discrimination, develop race- and national origin-neutral policies and practices, establish a monitoring program to detect future potential fair lending violations, conduct employee training, and maintain a community development program for the five-year term of the Order.

United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates (C.D. Cal.)

On April 19, 2006, the court entered the consent orderM resolving United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates (C.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case based on familial status. The complaint, filed on November 15, 1991, and later amended, alleged that the defendants engaged in familial status discrimination in the operation of mobile home parks. The private plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a confidential monetary settlement agreement in 2005. The consent order with the United States requires the defendants to: advertise on an equal opportunity basis; attend fair housing training; maintain record keeping, and reporting obligations to the Division. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Polk County (M.D. Fla.)

On November 30, 2010, the court entered an order approving the consent decree in United States v. Polk County (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice group home case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2010, alleged the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act when it denied New Life Outreach Ministries the right to operate a faith-based transitional residency program in Lakeland, Fla., for homeless men with disabilities, including those in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $400,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties. The consent decree also provides for comprehensive injunctive relief, including training for Polk County’s Board of Commissioners.

United States v. Port Liberte Condo 1 Ass'n, Inc., et al. (D. N.J.)

After a two day bench trial on September 13-14, 2006, the court ruled in favor of the Defendants in United States v. Port Liberte Condo 1 Ass'n, Inc., et al. (D. N.J.). In his Opinion, United States Senior District Judge Debevoise stated that the Defendant's had made a reasonable accommodation with respect to the complainant's request for a handicap parking space and awarded costs to the Defendant. The complaint, filed on June 15, 2004, alleged that the condominium association and property manager of a condominium complex in Jersey City, New Jersey, discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the complainant an accessible parking space close to his unit. On December 20, 2005, the court denied the Defendants' motion for Summary Judgment.

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. Portzen Construction, Inc., et al. (S.D. Iowa)

On January 29, 2010, the court entered a consent order resolving the claims in United States v. Portzen Construction, et al. (S.D. Iowa), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case. The original complaint, filed on September 30, 2009, alleged that the builder, owner, and designer/draftsman of two Davenport-area apartment complexes violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) by designing and constructing these complexes without the requisite accessibility. The consent order requires the defendants to comply with training and reporting requirements and establish a $40,000 victim compensation fund. The builder and owner are responsible for remediating the accessibility barriers, and the designer/draftsman is required to establish a $175,000 retrofit fund.

United States v. Post Properties (N.D. Ga.)

On September 23, 2010, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Post Properties (N.D. Ga.), against Post Properties, Inc., Post Apartment Homes, L.P., and Post GP Holdings alleging that defendants failed to provide accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act at multi-family housing developments in six states. According to the complaint, Post has designed, constructed and developed at least 50 multi-family apartment complexes in Georgia, Texas, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia,. Nineteen of these properties are in the Atlanta region. All together, the properties constitute more than 17,000 units. At least half of the units have elevators that serve every unit, requiring that each unit comply with the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility requirements. Post operates many of these properties as rentals.

United States v. Powers (E.D. Wis.)

On September 8, 2005, the United States filed a consent order resolving United States v. Powers (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed on November 16, 2004, alleged that the Defendant, the owner of three duplexes in Wisconsin, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by stating that he would not rent an apartment to the complainant because she had children. The Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council (MMFHC), a non-profit fair housing organization, conducted two tests which provided additional evidence that the defendant did not want to rent to families with children. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $13,000 in damages to the complainant. The consent order also requires the defendant to fulfill training, reporting and monitoring requirements. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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. Powers Properties, (D. N.D.)

The United States filed this complaint on December 15, 1999, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of familial status in the rental of an apartment in Fargo, North Dakota. In our complaint we claim the resident manager repeatedly stated that no children were allowed at the complex and the management company raised the tenants' rent significantly more than it did any other tenant's rent. The United States also contend that the defendants retaliated against the complainants for filing a complaint with HUD by falsely accusing them of failing to pay one month's rent and by placing negative information to that effect in their credit history.

Under the consent order, filed on November 3, 2000, the defendants will attend fair housing training, notify tenants and the public of their non-discrimination policy, comply with reporting requirements, and make a payment of $15,000.00 to the complainants.

United States v. Prestonwood Properties (N.D. Tex.)

The United States filed this complaint on March 8, 1999, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Prestonwood Properties, in McKinney, Texas, had violated the Fair Housing when its property manager had sexually harassed female tenants over a six-year period. The United States contend that the property manager of the complex entered women's apartments while they slept or showered and sexually assaulted them, threatened to evict and evicted women who declined his sexual advances, offered women rent subsidies and bigger apartments in exchange for sex, and made vulgar comments to women in the rental office.

A consent order was entered on September 14, 2000, in which the defendants agreed to pay $150,000 to compensate 17 women the United States identified as victims. The order also bars the defendant from owning or managing any residential rental property for four years.

United States, et al. v. Price, et al. (W.D. Wash.)

On May 1, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States, et al. v. Price et al. (W.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Defendants own Valley View Apartments, a 24 unit apartment complex located in Longview, Washington. The complaint alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for the HUD complainant by giving him adequate space to park and then seeking to evict him after he requested it. On August 10, 2009 the court entered a consent decree resolving the complaint. Pursuant to the consent decree, the defendants will pay $35,000 to the complainant.

United States v. PrimeLending (N.D. Tex.)

On December 9, 2010, the United States filed a fair lending complaint and proposed consent order resolving United States v. PrimeLending (N.D. Tex.), alleging that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American borrowers nationwide between 2006 and 2009. The court entered the consent order on January 11, 2011. The defendant, a national mortgage lender with 168 offices in 32 states became one of the nation’s 20 largest FHA lenders by 2009. PrimeLending did not have monitoring in place to ensure that it complied with the fair lending laws, even as it grew to originate more than $5.5 billion in loans per year. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $2.0 million to the victims of discrimination and to have in place loan pricing policies, monitoring and employee training that ensure discrimination does not occur in the future. The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when it charged African-American borrowers higher annual percentage rates of interest between 2006 and 2009 for prime fixed-rate home loans and for home loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs than it charged to similarly-situated white borrowers. PrimeLending’s policy of giving its employees wide discretion to increase their commissions by adding "overages" to loans, which increased the interest rates paid by borrowers, had a disparate impact on African-American borrowers. This case resulted from a referral by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in 2009.

United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc.,
William E. Dansey, Jr., and Hite/MSM, P.C. (E.D.N.C.)

On February 11, 2005, the court entered the consent order in United States of America v. Quality Built Construction, Inc. et al. (E.D.N.C.), a design and construction case, originally filed on December 7, 2000, involving 192 covered ground-floor units and their associated public and common use areas in Breezewood Condominiums and Hyde Park Apartments in Greenville, North Carolina. The court had already granted full summary judgment on liability to the United States. The consent order resolves the case with respect to the owner and developer of the complexes; the Division had previously reached a $340,000 consent order with the architectural firm responsible for the design of the properties. Under the terms of the consent order, William E. Dansey, Jr., and Quality Built Construction, Inc., must pay a total of $800,000. Of that sum, $700,000 will be used to make substantial retrofits to the public and common use areas and the interior of units at both the complexes; $70,000 will compensate aggrieved individuals for damages; and $30,000 will be paid to the United States as a civil penalty. The two consent orders therefore provide for payments totally over $1.1 million dollars for retrofit funds and monetary damages. The term of the order is five years, with the exception of the provisions addressing the interior retrofits to the condominium units, which will last for eight years.

United States v. Queens Point Manor, et al. (D. N.M.)

On January 23, 2003, the court entered a consent order resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. James B. McCollum d/b/a Queen Point Manor, et al. (D. N.M.). The complaint, filed on June 1, 2001, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status when they refused to negotiate to rent apartments on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants had stated a preference to rent only downstairs units to families with young children, had quoted higher rental rates to families with children, and had published advertisements designed to promote renting to families without children. The consent order enjoins the defendants from future discrimination on the basis of familial status and requires Queens Point Manor to rescind the policies set forth above, include "Families with Children Welcome" in all advertising, receive fair housing training for employees, submit to record keeping and reporting requirements, and pay $12,000 for damages to aggrieved persons and a civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for three years and nine months and applies to all rental properties owned/managed or operated by the Defendants.

The complaint resulted from a referral by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) following its investigation of administrative complaints filed by the Fair Housing Project of the Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque, Inc. ("FHP") and a woman with two minor children. The administrative complaints were filed with HUD after testing conducted by the FHP revealed that defendants had stated preferences to rent to families without children and quoted higher rental rates to families with children.

United States v. Raimo (N.D. Ill.)

On April 20, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Raimo, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a case that involved the violation of a HUD Conciliation Agreement. The consent decree resolved both the Division's complaint against the defendant and the HUD complainant's default judgment against defendants. Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants will pay $7,500 to the complainant.

This matter was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The original HUD complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race and sex in connection with a loan guarantee. The United States' complaint, filed on January 27, 2004, alleged the defendant agreed to resolve the complaint by paying $1,000 to the complainant, but then breached the agreement by failing to make the payment.

United States v. Raintree Associates LTD. Partnership, et al. (D. Nev.)

On February 27, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent order alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at Raintree Village Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will pay approximately $150,000 to retrofit the common and public use areas; up to $120,000 to retrofit the interiors of individual units, to compensate those who choose to retrofit their units, and to relocate those owners who cannot remain in their homes while they are being modified; and $70,000 to individual unit owners who suffered damages as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Act. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. This case was based on a pattern or practice referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. Raleigh Annex Apartments TC LP et al. (S.D. Miss.)

On December 15, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Raleigh Annex Apartments TC LP et al. (S.D. Miss.). The complaint alleged the defendants refused to rent a subsidized unit to a man with physical and mental disabilities. On December 19, 2005, the court entered the Division's consent decree, resolving the complaint. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay the complainant $60,000; advertise all units on an equal housing opportunity basis; provide all employees, tenants, and prospective tenants a copy of the defendants non-discrimination policy; establish and adopt a uniform complaint process; attend fair housing training; and submit to report and recordkeeping requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Rapp (E.D. Ark.)

On April 6, 2006, the United Stated entered a consent order resolving United States & Rios v. Rapp (E.D. Ark.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on November 1, 2004, alleged the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused to rent a house to an Hispanic family on the basis of national origin. On November 22, 2005, the court issued an Order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Under the consent order, the defendants will pay $15,500 to the three HUD complainants, including Raquel Rios, her adult son and her minor daughter. In addition, the defendants will attend fair housing training, post fair housing notices and submit to standard injunctive relief. The order also states that the United States may conduct fair housing testing at any dwelling in which any defendant, now or in the future, has a direct or indirect ownership, management, or financial interest. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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. Rathbone Retirement Community, Inc. (S.D. Ind.)

On August 19, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Rathbone Retirement Community, Inc. (S.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The United States’ complaint, filed in November 2008, alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by adopting and maintaining a policy prohibiting the use of motorized wheelchairs and scooters in the Rathbone Retirement Community’s common dining room during meals and in all residents’ apartments. Under the terms of the consent order the corporate operator of the Rathbone Retirement Community, a retirement home for persons age fifty-five and older, and the facility’s manager, Norma Helm, will have to pay a total of $70,000 to three former residents of the home, establish a $25,000 settlement fund, and pay the government a $21,000 civil penalty. The consent order also requires the Defendants to provide fair housing training for employees, adopt nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, and maintain and submit records to the United States for the two year term of the order.

United States v. Realty One, et al. (D. Nev.)

On November 10, 2010, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Realty One, et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, file on March 11, 2010, alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status against a mother who wanted to rent a house in Las Vegas for herself, her three biological children, and three children whom she planned to adopt. The consent order requires the defendants to establish a fair housing policy, require their employees to attend fair housing training, summit periodic reports to the United States and pay $10,500 to the complainant.

United States v. Reeves & Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc. (D. Alaska)

On June 9, 2005, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Reeves & Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc. (D. Alaska). Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants will pay $3,500 to the complainant, and follow the injunctive provisions of the decree that include requirements for record-keeping and training. The complaint, filed on June 6, 2005, alleged that Defendants, Susan R. Reeves, Richard L. Reeves, and Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc. ("Red Oaks"), discriminated against the complainant because she was HIV positive. Defendants Mr. and Ms. Reeves are the owners and operators of Red Oaks.

United States v. Regent Court Apartments, LLC and Donna Harrison (E.D. Mich.)

On December 8, 2008, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Regent Court Apartments (E.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act case developed by the testing program that alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race. The complaint filed on January 18, 2008, alleged that the defendants, the owners and manager of a 102-unit apartment complex in Roseville, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, and a denial of rights to a group of persons in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged that white testers were offered apartments immediately while African-American testers were told that there would be a long wait for any apartment availability. The consent order includes standard injunctive relief as well as a requirement that the defendants contract with a local fair housing organization to conduct compliance testing during its three-year term. Under the order, the defendants will pay $25,000 each to three identified aggrieved persons, a $55,000 civil penalty, and $40,000 to an unidentified victim fund. The owners of the apartments have also terminated the employment of the defendant resident manager.

United States v. Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)

On October 17, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent order with Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. (N.D. Ill.). The United States alleges that the Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. and Resurrection Health Care, Inc., discriminated against individuals with disabilities who sought to live at Resurrection Retirement Community, a 500 unit retirement community on the northwest side of Chicago. After receiving a complaint in 2001, the Division conducted an investigation and alleges the defendants: (1) discouraged persons who use wheelchairs from renting apartment units at Resurrection; (2) steered applicants who use wheelchairs away from Resurrection to assisted living facilities even though the applicants did not need assisted living services; (3) asked applicants whether they have disabilities and the nature and severity of their disabilities; and (4) required some applicants to submit to a medical assessment conducted by an employee of defendants' as a term or condition of tenancy. The United States alleges that such practices violate the Fair Housing Act.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants have agreed to pay a total of $220,000 in damages and penalties. Specifically, the defendants will pay $20,000 as a civil penalty and $200,000 to compensate aggrieved persons. In addition, the consent order enjoins the defendants from future violations of the law and requires the defendants to adopt and implement uniform, non-discriminatory policies. Among other things, the defendants are required to rescind their previous policy requiring persons with disabilities to submit to a medical assessment as a condition of living at Resurrection Retirement Community; receive fair housing training and require employees to undergo such training; institute compliance testing and report their compliance to the United States for five years; and ensure that persons with disabilities are not discouraged from living at Resurrection Retirement Community because of their disability. The settlement is believed to be the first agreement involving such practices at a major retirement community. The court entered the consent order on October 22, 2002.

This lawsuit was based on evidence developed through the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program.

United States v. Riba (D. N.H.)

On April 7, 2011, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Riba (D. N.H.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election case. The complaint, filed on July 19, 2010, alleged that the defendant, Lothar Riba, made a statement with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. Under the consent decree, the defendant is ordered to pay the complainant $15,000, to undergo training, and to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

United States v. Richardson (N.D. Ohio)

On May 24, 2012, the court entered a settlement agreement in United States v. Richardson (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleged that defendants Ryan Richardson and Ryan Smith conducted a campaign of racial harassment against their neighbors, and their four minor children. The decree requires the defendants to: pay $10,000 to the family and $3,000 to the Toledo Fair Housing Center; issue written apologies to the complainants; submit retractions to police, child welfare authorities, animal welfare organizations, professional organizations, and neighbors of all the complaints they filed against the complainants; be enjoined from contacting them, their children, or any members of their immediate families, including through social media such as Facebook; and attend fair housing training. The decree has a five-year term.

United States v. Richmond 10-72 (E.D. Va.)

The United States filed this case on January 16, 1998, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owners and managers of Wedgewood Village Apartments, a Richmond, Virginia, apartment complex, refused to rent to African Americans. Based on our further investigation, our complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination.

As part of the decree, entered on October 15, 1998, the owners agreed to develop a fair housing policy, require their employees to attend fair housing training, and hire an independent consulting firm to conduct self-testing of the apartment complex over the next three years. The agreement requires the owners and managers of Wedgewood to pay $480,000 in damages, including $200,000 to compensate any persons identified as victims of the alleged discrimination; a total of $235,000 to the individual complainants and H.O.M.E.; and $40,000 in civil penalties.

United States v. Byron Richard d/b/a Hylites Lounge (W.D. La.)

The United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana filed this lawsuit against Byron Richard, the owner of the Hylites Lounge, claiming that he violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating on the basis of race in the operation of his business. In our complaint, filed on, August 31, 1999, we contended that he refused to admit or serve African American customers. This is the fourth case filed in recent years in Louisiana alleging discrimination on the basis of race in public accommodations.

The consent decree, filed on February 25, 2000, contains an admission that the club's owner engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination and that, in particular, the bartender refused to serve three African-American men pursuant to the owner's orders. The decree permanently enjoins defendant from engaging in any further discriminatory conduct, requires him to engage in affirmative advertising and to pay for civil rights training for himself and all his employees. The decree lists the names of all the employees of defendant's two bars, and states that if they violate the decree, they will be subject to the full contempt power of the court, ranging from monetary penalties to incarceration. The decree also requires Richard to post signs at the Hylites Lounge and any of his other businesses stating that the establishment is open to all members of the public without regard to race or color and that any person who feels that he or she has been discriminated against should contact the Housing Section. The decree subjects defendant to reporting requirements for three years, and to the court's enforcement powers permanently.

United States & Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Riverwalk Condominiums, LLC (D. Idaho)

On March 2, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States & Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Riverwalk Condominiums, LLC (D. Idaho), an election/pattern or practice case. The complaint, filed on August 26, 2009, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct Greensferry Road condominiums, located in Post Falls, with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. Under the consent decree Riverwalk Condominiums LLC will pay a total of $13,500 to an individual with a disability who inquired about housing at Riverwalk and to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC), a non-profit fair housing organization that assisted the individual and helped document accessibility barriers at the complex. The defendants shall also retrofit the complex to make it more accessible and pay $5,000 in civil penalties to the United States.

United States v. Rockford Villa (D. Minn.)

On November 1, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Rockford Villa (D. Minn.). The complaint alleges that owners and managers of a 24-unit apartment building in Rockford, Minnesota violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by rejecting a tenant's request to live with an assistance dog in a second-floor unit and then refusing to renew her lease. 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. Rock Springs Vista Development Corp., Inc., (D. Nev.)

The United States claimed in our complaint, filed on December 15, 1997, that the Rock Springs Vista Development Company and J.A. Black Construction violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct five condominium developments located in Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint noted that the common areas of the condominium developments included steps in the pathways and into the individual units, pathways that were too steep for wheelchairs to maneuver, inadequate curb cuts, and parking lots that lacked adequate accessible parking spaces. The complaint also alleged that the individual condominium units had doors that were too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs, bathrooms that were too small to be used by individuals who use wheelchairs, and thermostats and electrical outlets in inaccessible locations.

Under the terms of the consent decree, entered on November 29, 1999, which settled this case, the defendants will pay over 1 million dollars for interior and exterior modifications so that the properties comply with federal law and to compensate individual unit owners who suffered damages as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act. The amount also includes a fund, which will be used to retrofit the units of those owners who have not yet come forward to request them, as well as over a quarter of a million dollars in compensatory damages to those persons who were victims of the defendants' actions. Additionally, the consent decree requires that the defendants certify to the United States that any future construction complies with the Act.

United States v. Roddis (E.D. Wis.)

In our complaint, filed on August 30, 2000, we alleged that the landlord violated the Fair Housing Act by rejecting the rental application of the claimant because he was both black and male. The terms of the consent order, entered on May 29, 2001, require the landlord to pay $25,000 in damages to the claimant and retain a management company to manage the apartment complex. The consent order will also require the landlord to adopt and publicize a nondiscrimination policy, follow uniform nondiscriminatory procedures in advertising and filling vacancies, obtain fair housing training for himself and his employees, and submit periodic reports to the Justice Department.

United States v. Rogers et al. (D. S.D.)

On October 29, 2009, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Rogers (D. S.D.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of race and familial status. The complaint was filed on November 4, 2008 and amended on June 4, 2009 to include a "pattern or practice" claim. The lawsuit alleged that Phyllis and Richard Rogers, the owners of three buildings encompassing 28 units in Sioux Falls, refused to rent to families with children and stated this policy to tenants on numerous occasions. The complaint further alleged that Phyllis Rogers informed tenants and prospective tenants that she did not rent to African-Americans. The consent order provides for injunctive relief, $50,000 in damages to aggrieved persons and a $9,000 civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Rosewood Park, LLC (D. Nev.)

On November 15, 2012, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Rosewood Park, LLC (D. Nev.), alleging that the owners and managers of a 902-unit apartment complex in Reno, Nevada violated the Fair Housing Act when they instituted and enforced discriminatory policies with respect to assistance animals. 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., et al. (E.D. Mich.)

On February 18, 2005, a jury returned a verdict  (pdf version) 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 & Joyce Grad v. Royalwood Cooperative Apts., Inc., et al. (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.

United States v. RSC Development Group, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On January 8, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design condominiums in St. Charles, Illinois, in compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The evidence showed that the defendants failed to design and construct condominium units at Hunt Club in compliance with the Act. The major deficiencies in this complex include the construction of doorways throughout the units with widths which are too narrow for a person using a wheelchair to use; bathrooms without adequate space for a person in a wheelchair and without reinforced walls for the later installation of grab bars; and inadequate accessibility to the public and common use areas of one of the buildings.

On May 9, 2002, the court entered a consent decree resolving the lawsuit. The decree prohibits the defendants from further discriminating, requires the defendants to retrofit certain common use area features, establishes a $95,000 fund to provide grants to individual owners who wish to retrofit their units, and requires the defendants to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

On November 17, 2003, the United States filed a Brief  in support of the United States' Motion for Contempt and Supplemental Relief.

United States v. Ruth (N.D. Ohio)

On October 31, 2011, the United States, jointly with the United States Attorney's Office, filed a complaint alleging Fair Housing Act violations in United States v. Ruth (N.D. Ohio). The complaint alleges that the owners of several apartment complexes in Massillon, Ohio, and their agents, have denied apartments to African-American prospective tenants, misrepresented the availability of units to African-American prospective tenants, and have treated similarly situated African-American and white tenants and prospective tenants differently. The complaint also alleges that the defendants have denied families with children the opportunity to rent upper-level apartments and directed families with children to basement-level apartments. The case was referred to the United States Attorney's Office by the Stark County, Ohio, Fair Housing Department.

United States v. Rutherford County, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.)

On July 18, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in United States v. Rutherford County, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.), alleging that the county violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) when, in compliance with a state chancery court ruling, it refused to process or issue a certificate of occupancy to the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro for a recently constructed mosque. The same day, the court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the county to immediately conduct an inspection of the mosque, to inform the Islamic Center of any deficiencies and to issue a certificate of occupancy once all deficiencies have been corrected by the Islamic Center, notwithstanding the chancery court orders. The complaint states that a certificate of occupancy is needed immediately so that the Islamic Center can hold worship services at the new facility during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins at sundown on July 19. The complaint alleges that the county's refusal came as a result of a recent state chancery court order last month, which, acting in response to a motion brought by individuals opposed to the mosque, enjoined the county from processing or issuing a certificate. The chancery court ruled that the county had provided insufficient public notice prior to the hearing at which the county approved the mosque's site-plan. The chancery court imposed a heightened notice requirement on the mosque, one not imposed on other religious or secular organizations. The case began when the Islamic Center, which has been operating in Rutherford County since 1982, sought to construct a new mosque for its growing congregation. In 2009, it purchased land for that purpose and applied for site-plan approval. After considering the proposal at a regularly scheduled, advertised meeting, the county approved the site plan. Following the county's approval, opponents of the mosque filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to stop construction. Ultimately, with the exception of the plaintiffs' public-notice claim, the chancery court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The United States' filed an amicus brief in Estes, et al. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission, et al. (Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee) on October 18, 2010.

United States v. S-2 Properties Inc. (W.D. Pa.)

On April 10, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. S-2 Properties, Inc., et al. (W.D. Pa.). This is a testing case filed on September 30, 2013, alleging that a corporate owner and leasing agent engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, on the basis of race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The case originated after a series of three tests were conducted by DOJ's Fair Housing Testing Program between February and April 2013 at Baldwin Commons, a 100-unit rental complex in Pittsburgh. The testing evidence revealed that white testers were shown apartments and were offered the opportunity to rent them while black testers were told that the same apartments were unavailable to rent. Under the consent decree, the Defendants will pay a civil penalty to the United States of $15,000. The defendants will also develop and maintain non-discrimination housing policies, attend fair housing training, and report compliance on a quarterly basis for the three year term of the decree.

United States & Willborn v. Sabbia, et al. (N.D. Ill.)

On July 27, 2012, the court entered a final partial consent decree in United States & Willborn v. Sabbia, et al. (N.D. Ill.) , a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint alleged that the owners, listing agent and listing broker of a five-bedroom, 8,000 square foot single-family home in Chicago, Illinois discriminated on the basis of race (African-American), in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to sell the home to radio and TV personality George Willborn and his wife and their two children. On November 9, 2011, the court entered a partial consent decree with the listing agent and listing broker, requiring the payment of $30,000 to the Willborns' real estate agent, Dylcia Cornelious, fair housing training and the ability of the United States to conduct compliance testing; the Willborns entered into a confidential settlement with the same defendants in a related case. In the final partial consent decree with the homeowner defendants, Ms. Cornelious will receive $6,000; the Willborns have entered into another separate confidential settlement. 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. Sallie Mae, Inc. (D. Del.)

On September 29, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (D. Del.). The complaint, filed on May 13, 2014, alleged that three separate owners or servicers of private and federally guaranteed student loans (collectively "Sallie Mae") violated Section 527 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA") when they failed to reduce to 6% the interest rates on pre-service loans held by approximately 60,000 servicemembers. The complaint also alleged that Sallie Mae violated Section 521 of the SCRA by obtaining improper default judgments against SCRA-protected servicemembers. The consent order provides for a $60 million settlement fund to compensate aggrieved servicemembers and a $55,000 civil penalty, requires Sallie Mae to streamline the process by which servicemembers may obtain SCRA interest rate benefits and requires Sallie Mae to correct negative credit entries associated with interest overcharges and improper default judgments.

United States v. Sandpointe Associates, et al. (E.D. Cal.)

On July 2, 2007, the district court entered a consent order in United States v. Sandpointe Associates, et al. (E.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act election case, which was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed November 2006, alleged that the defendants published a discriminatory statement when they enacted a rule requiring children under the age of 14 to be accompanied by an adult in all apartment common areas. The decree provides for a total of $20,000 in monetary compensation for the three HUD complainants: $3,750 each for two minor children, and $12,500 for their mother. In addition, the decree requires the defendants to comply with training, notice, and reporting requirements, and directs the defendants to develop a common area policy that is neutral with respect to familial status.

United States, et al. v. San Francisco Housing Authority (N.D. Cal.)

On January 16, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States, et al. v. San Francisco Housing Authority (N.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination against public housing residents on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion. The complaint, filed on September 18, 2002, alleged that residents of public housing in San Francisco have been victims of racial, ethnic, and religious harassment including verbal abuse, racial slurs, threats, assaults, vandalism, and robbery and that the Housing Authority had knowledge of the harassment, but failed to take reasonable steps to protect its tenants as required by law. The United States alleged that the victims of the harassment included white, African American, Iraqi. and Hispanic public housing residents, as well as residents of the Muslim faith. The United States contended that the harassment of residents of Iraqi descent and Muslim faith increased following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The consent decree requires the Housing Authority to pay $200,000 to compensate victims of discrimination. The consent decree also requires the Housing Authority to modify its current civil rights policy to ensure prompt action in response to complaints, to establish a civil rights complaint hot line with a language translation service, to train its employees to identify and respond to civil rights complaints, and to submit to monitoring by the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. City of San Jacinto (C.D. Cal.)

On June 16, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of San Jacinto (C.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case alleging that the City engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against the residents and providers of group homes for persons with disabilities when it passed an ordinance restricting the location and operation of such homes within the city and targeted those homes for enforcement actions. The City's enforcement efforts included an unannounced, early morning sweep of unlicensed homes by city officials and Riverside County sheriff's deputies acting as agents for the city who interrogated the residents from a prepared questionnaire, asking them such questions as whether they were mentally ill, whether they were on "psych meds," whether they were currently using illegal drugs and whether they were registered sex offenders. The consent decree will require the city to pay a total of $757,599, which includes compensatory damages to housing providers and former residents with disabilities, the attorney's fees and costs of the three private plaintiffs, whose suit was consolidated with that of the Division, and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. As part of the settlement, the city rewrote its zoning code and created a new classification, "Group Homes for Persons with Disabilities," making such homes permitted uses in all residential zones. The city also revised its process for providing persons with disabilities exceptions to its zoning and land use requirements to comport with the FHA and ADA. In addition, the decree requires the city to pay for fair housing training of its officials, including council members and law enforcement officers acting as agents for the city; maintain records relating to future proposals for housing for persons with disabilities; and submit compliance reports to the Division for a period of five years.

United States v. San Miguel 1 Homeowners Association, et al. (S.D. Cal.)

On February 26, 2003, the court entered the parties' consent decree in United States v. San Miguel 1 Homeowners Association, et al. (S.D. Cal.) In its complaint, filed on January 25, 2002, the United States Attorneys' Office for the Southern District of California alleged that the defendants; the homeowners' association and the president of the board of directors of a condominium complex in Oceanside, California, violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation for a former resident who used a wheelchair. The Association installed an electric security gate at the entrance to an underground parking garage which left no accessible exit in the case of a power failure or malfunction of the gate. There had been power failures at the complex in the past and the complainant feared for his physical safety. He moved out of the complex when the Association refused to install any type of emergency back-up system to ensure that people with disabilities would be able to exit the garage in the event of a power failure or other emergency that rendered the electric gate inoperable. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay the complainant $60,000 in damages, enjoins them from violating the Fair Housing Act in the future, requires them to adopt specific guidelines for assessing requests for reasonable accommodations, and requires the Association to train all its employees about the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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. Sarasota County Florida (M.D. Fla.)

On June 30, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sarasota County, Florida (M.D. Fla.), alleging that the County discriminated against persons with disabilities when it refused to allow Renaissance Manor, Inc., to operate six homes for individuals with mental illness and a history of substance abuse. The homes provide a supportive environment for residents, but are otherwise similar to other houses in the County that have unrelated residents who share living space and common facilities. The complaint alleges that the County made its decision that the homes violated the local zoning ordinance because of the disabilities of the residents. It also alleges that the County retaliated against the operator of the homes by refusing to release grant funds that had been previously awarded to it.

The case was referred to the Division by HUD after it received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Satyam, L.L.C. d/b/a Selma Comfort Inn, et al. (S.D. Ala.)

On January 19, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that Satyam, L.L.C., which owns and operates the Comfort Inn in Selma, Alabama, its former manager, and its former desk clerk and housekeeper, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American guests based on race or color. The United States alleged that this conduct violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants steered African American guests to rooms on the second floor of the hotel towards the back and denied African Americans an opportunity to rent suites and first floor rooms. The complaint also alleged that defendants charged African American guests higher prices than they charged white guests and denied African American guests equal access to hotel facilities and services. On April 4, 2002, the court entered a consent order that resolves this case. The consent order permanently enjoins defendants and their employees from discriminating against African American hotel guests and requires defendants and their employees to undergo civil rights training. In addition, the order requires defendants to implement non-discriminatory policies and to publicize these policies in newspaper advertisements, billboards, and signs at the hotel. The order also requires the defendants to pay for a program of compliance testing to monitor whether their employees are discriminating on a basis of race and to report to the Justice Department concerning their compliance with the order for a four year period.

United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (D. Neb.)

On April 30, 2003, the court approved a consent order in United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (D. Neb.). The complaint, filed on November 29, 2001, alleged that the Defendants, owners and operators of the Savannah Pines Retirement Community, discriminated against persons with disabilities by: prohibiting tenants who use motorized wheelchairs or scooters from using these devices in common areas of the facility, charging an additional $1000 security deposit to such persons; requiring such persons to obtain liability insurance; and restricting such persons to apartments on the first floor. The complaint also alleged that as a result of the Defendants' enforcement of the policy, tenants who used motorized wheelchairs or scooters were not able to use the dining facilities and some of them missed meals for which they were charged as part of their monthly rental fees.

The consent order requires that the defendants rescind the policies set forth above and ensures that persons who use motorized scooters or wheelchairs at Savannah Pines will have full and equal access to the facilities in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Under the consent order, the Defendants will pay over $87,000, including providing free rent for a period of time to persons who were harmed by its past practices, paying civil penalties, compensating identified victims and providing a settlement fund for other victims. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Sawicki, et al. (D. Mass.)

In this HUD election case, filed on January 18, 2001, we alleged in our complaint that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent or show apartments containing lead-based paint to families with young children. The complainant who called to inquire about an apartment she had seen advertised. When the defendant heard the complainant young daughter in the background, she said the apartment could not be rented because it was not de-leaded. State law requires the owners of dwellings containing lead-based paint to de-lead any property in which a child under the age of six lives, and specifically prohibits familial status discrimination on this basis. Nonetheless, the defendants, who were property owners as well as rental agents, consistently told testers that lead-containing apartments could not be rented to families with young children. They also offered unadvertised but available apartments to testers who did not have children, but failed to mention these apartments to testers with young children. In addition to injunctive relief, the consent order, entered on April 4, 2001, requires the defendants to pay $9,000 to the complainant.

United States v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (N.D. Tex.)

On May 26, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and the court entered a consent order in United States v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (N.D. Tex.), a case brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"). Saxon services mortgage loans and is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. The complaint alleges that Saxon foreclosed without court orders on the pre-service residential mortgages of approximately 17 individuals who were in military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA in states that allowed for non-judicial foreclosure between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009, and that Saxon failed to check consistently the military status of mortgagors prior to foreclosure. The consent order requires Saxon to establish a $2,350,000 victim fund to compensate servicemembers foreclosed on from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009 in violation of the SCRA. Saxon is also required to compensate any additional victims from July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Moreover, Saxon will not pursue any remaining amounts owing under the mortgages and must take steps to remedy negative credit reporting directly resulting from Saxon's foreclosures of affected servicemembers' loans. Further, the consent order requires Saxon to adopt measures designed to help secure the SCRA rights of servicemembers going forward. These measures include a monitoring program to test for effective compliance with the SCRA, training on the SCRA for employees who provide customer service to servicemembers or who have significant involvement in any aspect of the mortgage foreclosure process, systematic checks of the Defense Manpower Data Center's SCRA database during the foreclosure process, as well as record-keeping and reporting requirements to the United States.

United States v. Sayville Development Group, LLC (E.D.N.Y.)

On August 28, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sayville Development Group, LLC (E.D.N.Y.). In the complaint, the Division alleges that Sayville Development Group, LLC and Stephen Ray Fellman engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct Sayville Commons in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. Sayville Commons is a 342-unit rental community with 171 covered ground floor units for residents aged 55 and older located in Sayville, New York. Sayville Development Group is the developer of Sayville Commons and Fellman is an architect who provided architectural and engineering services for the construction. The complaint also names the current owner of Sayville Commons, Home Properties Sayville LLC, as a defendant necessary for relief.

United States, et al. v. Schaberg (D. Mont.)

On February 6, 2003, the United States filed a consolidated consent decree in United States, et al. v. Janice Schaberg, (D. Mont.). The complaint filed on August 2, 2002, alleged the defendant, Schaberg, had refused to rent an apartment to a male applicant pursuant to a policy of not renting at the location in question to males for single occupancy. The defendant asserted her policy was a reasonable accommodation for a female resident of the apartment complex in question who had a disability causing her to have "a great fear of adult males in a residential setting." The consent decree enjoins the defendant from future discrimination on the basis of sex, and requires the defendant to pay $18,000 in damages to the aggrieved applicant and the local fair-housing organization which had conducted testing, and requires the defendant 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. SDC Legend Communities, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.)

On October 2, 2006, the court entered a consent order in United States v. SDC Legend Communities, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, was amended on September 28, 2006, and a consent order alleged a pattern or practice of disability discrimination by the architects, engineers, developers, builders, and owners of two, multi-family residential complexes constructed in Austin, Texas, through the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The complaint alleged the Defendants' failure to design and construct 52 ground level units at St. Johns Village and 110 ground level units at Huntington Meadows and the public and common areas in compliance with the accessibility and adaptability features violated section 804(f)(3)(C) of the Fair Housing Act.

The order provides for retrofits of routes, entrances, and public and common-use areas, as well as interior retrofits in certain units and installation of enhanced accessibility features in others. The order also requires the defendants to establish a $50,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing and to pay $10,000 in civil penalties to the government. The order also provides for injunctive relief, training, reporting and record keeping. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Seattle Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.)

On July 23, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the Seattle Housing Authority discriminated against a resident of the Authority, by refusing to grant her an accommodation that was reasonable and necessary, on account of her handicap, to afford her equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Seattle Housing Authority denied the complainant's repeated requests for a transfer from her unit, after she notified the Authority that she had asthma and that the second hand cigarette smoke from her neighbors was entering her unit and adversely affecting her.

On June 6, 2002, the court entered a consent decree resolving the United States's claims in United States v. Seattle Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.). The consent decree provides for injunctive relief, including requirements for training and that the Seattle Housing Authority develop and implement procedures for handling reasonable accommodation requests. The decree also provides that the Authority will implement a proposal to turn all buildings in one of its housing facilities into non-smoking buildings and that the Authority will provide the complainant with an air filtration unit as long as she stays in Authority housing. The complainant has filed a motion to intervene in the case and will continue to litigate for monetary relief.

United States v. Security State Bank (W.D. Tex.)

This complaint, filed on September 18, 1995, challenged the bank's alleged practice of charging Hispanics higher interest rates on consumer loans than non-Hispanic applicants. Under the agreement, filed simultaneously with the complaint, the bank agreed to create a $500,000 fund to compensate victims, pay $10,000 in civil penalties, and take a series of corrective measures.

United States v. Shanrie Company, Inc., et al.(S.D. Ill.)

On April 25, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Shanrie Company, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ill.). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct a multi-unit apartment complex, Applegate Apartments, located in Belleville, Illinois, in compliance the accessibility guidelines of the Fair Housing Act. The defendants include the owner/developer (Shanrie Company, Inc.), the president of Shanrie (Dan Sheils), and two engineering firms (Netemeyer Engineering Associates and Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.). The complaint also alleged that the Defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons. On January 26, 2006, the court denied the defendants' motion to remand the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for further conciliation. On June 23, 2006, the United States filed a brief in support of summary judgment.

On March 30, 2007, the court found that the developer defendants and the architect defendant are liable for designing and constructing the complex in violation of the Fair Housing Act and that they have denied rights to a group of persons. The court rejected the defendants' site impracticability defense holding that their site impractically analysis was untimely and that, as a matter of law, any site impracticability defense has to be based on an analysis done before construction. The court found that there were material issues of fact regarding the extent of the involvement of TWM, the engineering firm, and therefore denied the cross motions for summary judgment by both parties.

On May 30, 2008, the jury reached a verdict in favor of the site engineer defendant. The United States has already obtained summary judgment on the liability of three of the four defendants. The court has also ordered the three defendants that have been found liable to retrofit the property completely within one year. On June 11, 2008, the court entered the consent decree with the structural engineer defendant. This consent decree included $25,000 in civil penalties, $9,000 in compensatory damages for the local fair housing group, and 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. Shanrie Co. Inc., et al. ("Shanrie II") (S.D. Ill.)

On March 17, 2010, the court ordered defendants to retrofit the properties at issue in United States v. Shanrie Co., Inc., et al. (S.D. Ill.) ("Shanrie II"). The complaint, filed in July 2007, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination based on disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Act when they failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Shiloh, Illinois with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. The court granted summary judgment to the United States in August 2009, and ordered defendants to submit a remedial plan, to which the United States responded. The court adopted the United States’ recommendations on the remedial plan and entered judgment in favor of the United States against all defendants.

United States v. Sharlands Terrace LLC, et al. (D. Nev.)

On June 4, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sharlands Terrace LLC, et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint alleges that the developer, builder, architect, civil engineer, and owners of the Sharlands Terrace Apartments in Reno, Nevada, discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct 152 covered units and the public and common use areas in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that this failure constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination. The United States is seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and a civil penalty.

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. Shawmut Mortgage Company (D. Conn.)

On December 13, 1993, the bank resolved allegations that it refused to make loans to qualified African American and Hispanic applicants with an agreement to create a $960,000 fund to compensate victims.

United States v. Silva (W.D. Tex.)

On September 6, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Silva (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners of nine-single family homes in the Austin and San Antonio areas, violated Sections 3604(a), 3604(b), 3605, and 3617 of the FHA by leading Hispanics to believe they were purchasing properties offered for sale by the defendants when in fact the complainants were entering into lease agreements for the properties. The United States also alleges that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons. On July 17, 2008, the court issued Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and a Final Judgment in United States v. Silva (W.D. Tex.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case referred by HUD. The judgment awarded $103,651 in damages to 15 aggrieved persons, $110,000 in civil penalties, and injunctive relief against both Defendants, Anibal and Janet Silva.

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. Sleepy Hollow Estate, Inc. and Jessie Roberts (M.D.N.C.)

In this lawsuit, filed on March 22, 2000, we claim that the owner and operator of Sleepy Hollow Estates, a trailer park in rural Alamance County, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race. Our fair housing testing program gathered the evidence on which we based our complaint. The testing evidence showed that the defendants consistently gave false or misleading information about the availability of dwellings to black testers and, in some instances, made statements to the white testers indicating it was her policy and intent to discriminate because of race.

The consent order, entered on March 29, 2000, requires the Defendants to pay $25,000 in a civil penalty and pay $37,500 into a fund to be distributed to individuals harmed by the alleged discrimination. The order also requires the Defendants to receive fair housing training, notify the public that they do not discriminate, and submit to monitoring by the Department of Justice.

United States v. Smith (C.D. Ill.)

On August 30, 2005, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Smith (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on November 15, 2004, alleged that the defendants refused to rent to a mixed race couple because of the husband's race and refused to rent to testers from the South Suburban Housing Center ("SSHC") because of race and familial status. The former wife and SSHC intervened. The consent order provides that the Defendants will pay the three complainants a total of $40,000 and pay $25,000 in attorneys' fees to plaintiff-intervenors' counsel.

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. Sokoloff (E.D. Pa.)

On August, 4 2008, Judge Cynthia Rufe entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Sokoloff (E.D. Pa.). This is a Fair Housing Act election case. The defendants, who own rental units in the University of Pennsylvania area, told the complainants, a married couple who are medical students, that they could not rent an apartment because they were adopting a child. The consent decree provides for standard injunctive relief and the payment of $6,950 to the complainants.

Hawecker, et al. v. Sorensen (E.D. Cal.)

On September 13, 2012, the court entered a consent decree in Hawecker, et al. v. Sorensen (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on March 25, 2011, alleged that the defendant sexually harassed female tenants by making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, exposing his genitals, touching tenants without their consent, granting and denying housing benefits based on sex and taking adverse actions against women who refused his sexual advances. The defendant has operated his rental business for more than 30 years. The consent decree will result in a judgment against Sorensen requiring him to pay $2,075,000 in monetary damages to 25 individuals identified by the United States as victims of his discriminatory conduct. That amount includes court costs and attorneys' fees for two of the victims who are private plaintiffs. In addition, Sorensen must also pay a $55,000 civil penalty to the United States, the maximum penalty available under the Fair Housing Act. The proposed consent decree requires Sorensen to hire an independent manager to manage his rental properties and imposes strict limits on his ability to have contact with current and future tenants. This represents the largest monetary settlement ever agreed to in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Southport Bank (E.D. Wis.)

On September 26, 2013, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. Southport Bank (E.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice that was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaint alleges that from 2007 to 2008, Southport charged higher broker fees on wholesale mortgage loans made to African-American and Hispanic borrowers as compared to non-Hispanic white borrowers. Under the settlement, Southport will pay $687,000 to African-American and Hispanic victims of discrimination.

United States v. Space Hunters, Inc. and John McDermott (S.D.N.Y.)

On February 9, 2009, the court denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment in United States v. Space Hunters, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, which was filed on March 7, 2000, alleged that the defendants discriminated against the complainant, who is hearing-impaired, when he attempted to place calls to the defendants through a relay service operator. The defendants, who supply information about rooms to rent in exchange for a fee, maintained a policy of refusing to accept telephone calls from persons who called through a relay service operator and refused to accept the complainant’s calls. In 2002, the first jury returned a verdict of $1,500 in compensatory damages, but was prohibited by the judge from considering punitive damages. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the punitive damages claim. On October 3, 2007, the second jury returned a verdict of $150,000 in punitive damages for the complainant. On June 10, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement requiring the defendants to pay the complainant $35,000, based on their lack of assets to satisfy the whole judgment. The motion to vacate claimed that the complainant lied at the trial and was actually acting as a tester when he attempted to call the defendants. The opposition denied the merits of the allegations and made procedural objections to the motion.

United States v. Springfield Ford, Inc. (E.D. Pa.)

On August 21, 2007, the Division filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Springfield Ford, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia-area car dealership engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American customers by charging them higher dealer markups on car loan interest rates, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The dealership cooperated fully with the Division's investigation. Under the consent order, which was approved on September 4, 2007, Springfield Ford will pay up to $94,565, plus interest, to African-American customers who were charged higher interest rates. In addition, the dealership agreed to implement changes in the way it sets markups, including guidelines to ensure that the dealership follows the same procedures for setting markups for all customers, and that only good faith, competitive factors consistent with ECOA influence that process. The dealership will also provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to officers and employees who set rates for automobile loans.

United States v. Spring Valley Properties (C.D. Ill.)

In this case the United States alleged that the owner of a number of apartment complexes and single family homes in the Danville, Illinois area violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race. In the complaint, filed on November 17, 1999, we contend that employees were instructed to discourage African-American home seekers from applying and to steer them away from certain of the defendants' apartment properties.

On March 15, 2002, the the court entered a consent order to resolve the United States allegations. The consent order provides standard injunctive relief and requires the defendants to pay a total of $415,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, attorney fees for class counsel, and a civil penalty.

United States v. Spyder Web Enterprises LLC (D. N.J.)

On January 18, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Spyder Web Enterprises, LLC (D. N.J.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination by Spyder Web Enterprises, LLC ("Spyder Web"), the proprietor of the website "TheSublet.com." The complaint, filed on April 3, 2003, alleged that the proprietor published advertisements for rental housing on its website which contained discriminatory statements indicating a preference based on race, sex, family status, and/or national origin. The consent decree enjoins the defendants from publishing, or causing to be published, discriminatory advertisements on "TheSublet.com" website, or any of Spyder Web's other housing-related web sites, in the future. Additionally, the consent decree requires the defendant to: establish a $10,000 victim fund to compensate individuals who subscribed to the website and were discouraged from obtaining housing as a result of discriminatory advertisements; pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States; implement a written non-discrimination policy to be issued to subscribers of Web's websites, as well as posted on the homepage of "TheSublet.com" and each of Spyder Web's other housing-related websites, and provide annual Fair Housing Act training for Spyder Web employees who are responsible for posting advertisements on the website. The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years.

United States v. S & S Group, Ltd. d/b/a ReMax East-West, et al. (DeJohn) (N.D. Ill.)

On February 17, 2009, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. S & S Group, Ltd. d/b/a ReMax East-West, et al. (DeJohn) (N.D. Ill.). The lawsuit, filed on July 18, 2008, originated from a complaint filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Testing conducted by NFHA of RE/MAX East-West in 2004 and 2005 revealed that DeJohn had steered an Hispanic tester toward homes in predominantly African-American or Hispanic neighborhoods, but had encouraged a similarly situated white tester to look at listings in predominantly white neighborhoods. Both testers had contacted DeJohn about the same advertised listing.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants shall pay $120,000 to the NFHA. The settlement also requires RE/MAX East-West to hire a qualified organization to provide fair housing training to its agents and to maintain records and submit periodic reports to the Justice Department. DeJohn voluntarily surrendered his Illinois real estate license which expires in April 2009. However, the settlement requires DeJohn to comply with similar training and reporting requirements if he decides to become a real estate agent again in Illinois or any other state.

United States v. S-Sixteen Limited Partnership, et al. (D. Idaho)

On March 14, 2005, the court entered the consent order resolving United States v. S-16 Limited Partnership, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on April 11, 2003, alleged that defendants, the owners and developers of the 254-unit Village at Columbia apartment complex in Boise, Idaho and the architects and engineering firm involved in its design failed to design and construct the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires Defendants to retrofit the common use areas of the complex and 76 ground-floor apartments. The order also requires Defendants to pay $2,000 in damages to the Inter-mountain Fair Housing Council, the original HUD complainant in the case, and to establish a fund of $40,000 to compensate victims of defendants' discriminatory practices. In addition, the order includes: a general injunction against future discrimination; requires defendants to inform the Division of future development and design work in which they become involved and obtain statements that design plans comply with the Act; mandates that defendants require all supervisory employees and agents to participate in fair housing training and certify that they have read the order; and requires that defendants post signs describing their policy of nondiscrimination in housing; and meet reporting and record-keeping obligations. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. St. Bernard Parish (E.D. La.)

On January 31, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. St. Bernard Parish (E.D. La.). The complaint alleges that the Parish violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a multi-year campaign to limit rental housing opportunities for African-Americans through exclusionary zoning practices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These practices include the establishment of a restrictive permit-approval process for single-family rentals, the elimination of multi-family zoning from most of the parish zoning map, and repeated attempts to block the construction of multi-family affordable-housing developments on pretextual grounds. The complaint alleges that the Parish's actions disproportionately disadvantaged African-American renters in St. Bernard Parish. The suit is based on HUD's referral of ten individual HUD complaints, the referral of a HUD Secretary-initiated complaint, and the Department's own investigation. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of discriminatory conduct, monetary damages and a civil penalty.

United States v. Stealth Investments, LLC, et al. (D. Idaho)

On May 29, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Stealth Investments, LLC, et al. (D. Idaho.). The complaint, filed November 21, 2007, alleged that the defendants violated the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to a person who uses a service animal, refusing to make a reasonable accommodation, and making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on disability.

The consent decree requires the Defendants to pay $24,500 to compensate victims of discrimination at Shadow Canyon Apartments, establish a $12,500 victim fund, and pay a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. Additionally, Defendants have agreed to establish and follow non-discriminatory procedures and undergo training. This is a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case that was referred to the Division by HUD.

United States v. Donald Sterling, et al. (C.D. Cal.)

On November 12, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving a pattern or practice lawsuit in United States v. Sterling (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on August 7, 2006, alleged that Donald Sterling, Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust, and the Korean Land Company, L.L.C. violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. The complaint also alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they own or manage in Los Angeles County. The United States also alleged that the Sterling Defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in Los Angeles County.

The consent order requires the Defendants to: (1) pay a total of $2.725 million in monetary damages and civil penalties; (2) implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employees’ compliance with fair housing laws at their Los Angeles County properties; (3) maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and (4) obtain fair housing training for their employees who participate in renting, showing, or managing apartments at the Los Angeles County properties. The order settles the claims of the United States and the private plaintiffs.

United States v. Stevens and Anstine d/b/a Knollwood Partners (E.D. Pa.)

On April 28, 2000, we filed our complaint  which alleged that the owners violated the Fair Housing Act by informing families with children that they could only rent units on the first floor of the apartment complex. Our allegations were based on evidence developed through our testing program.

On October 25, 2000, the United States settled this case with a consent decree which included the payment of $24,000 to a fair housing group and another $5,000 in civil penalties.

The apartment complex was sold during the course of this litigation and the new owners are not named in the lawsuit.

United States v. Stevens (S.D. Ala.)

On December 4, 2006, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Stevens (S.D. Ala.) The complaint, filed on May 18, 2005, alleged the defendant discriminated on the basis race by harassing and later evicting the complainant after learning the complainant, who is Caucasian had a bi-racial (African-American) child and had African American friends. The complaint further alleged the defendant told the complainant she did not want African-Americans in her mobile home and would not have rented to her had she know her daughter was bi-racial.

The consent order, resolves the government's case as well as the related claims of the complainant and another aggrieved person, a neighbor of the complainant, both of whom intervened in the government's lawsuit. Under the consent order, the defendant has agreed to pay more than $40,000 in damages and penalties; to post a nondiscriminatory rental policy; to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; and to submit periodic reports to the Justice Department. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Stonebridge (N.D. Tex)

On January 8, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Stonebridge (N.D. Tex), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case against the owners and operators of Stonebridge Apartments, a 184-unit complex outside of Dallas. The complaint, which was filed on April 5, 2013, alleged that the defendants denied apartments to persons of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, misrepresented apartment availability on the basis of race and national origin, and segregated those persons who were not denied into designated buildings. The consent decree requires training of staff, the adoption of fair housing policies, termination of the apartment manager, $210,000 in damages and $107,000 in civil penalties.

United States v. Stonecleave Village Ass’n, Inc. (D. Mass.)

On December 7, 2010, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Stonecleave Village Ass’n, Inc. (D. Mass.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint alleged that a condominium association in Methuen, Massachusetts discriminated against several families with children on the basis of familial status by imposing fines on them after their children were caught playing outside on the common area. The enjoins the Association from discouraging children from playing on the common areas. In addition, the decree requires the Association to implement a new policy regarding violations of condo rules, undergo Fair Housing Act training, and pay a total of $150,000 ($130,000 in damages to be divided among six families with children and $20,000 as a civil penalty). The case was handled by the United States Attorney’s Office.

United States v. Stone Legacy Corp. (W.D. Wis.)

On September 18, 2009, the court approved the terms of a stipulation of settlement filed by the parties on September 17 in United States v. Stone Legacy Corp. (W.D. Wis.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA") case handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The United States’ complaint, which was filed on June 25, 2009, alleged that a commercial landlord violated Section 535 of the SCRA when it refused to return a security deposit to United States Navy Reservist Lieutenant Commander when he was deployed to Africa and terminated his lease early. Under the stipulation of settlement, the defendants must return the security deposit.

United States v. Strieter, et al. (C.D. Ill.)

On September 19, 2000, the United States filed a fair housing complaint against United States v. Strieter, et al. (C.D. Ill.) alleging that the defendants discriminatorily denied housing to the complainant and his wife, based upon his use of a wheelchair and a discriminatory "no wheelchairs" policy.

On November 2, 2001, the parties reached a settlement in which the defendants agreed to adopt policies clarifying that no restrictions shall be placed on any person with disability from using wheelchairs within their apartment units, conduct outreach to organizations providing housing counseling to persons with disabilities, and pay $35,000 in damages to the complainants.

The lawsuit arose as a result of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

United States v. Stuber (C.D. Ill.)

On July 18, 2007, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Stuber (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 20, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a nine-unit apartment building in Morton, Illinois violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race by refusing to rent an apartment to an African-American woman and her twelve year old daughter. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $40,000 and to submit to injunctive relief, including, recordkeeping and monitoring, and training. The decree also contains an admission from defendants that they violated the Fair Housing Act and a statement that they regret any harm caused by this violation. The United States Attorney's Office also filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the minor complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Sturdevant, et al. (D. Kan.)

On February 24, 2010, the court entered a consent order among the AIMCO Defendants and the United States in United States v. Sturdevant et al. (D. Kan.). The consent order, resolves all of the United States’ claims against the AIMCO Defendants, and provides that the AIMCO Defendants will, in turn, pay $1,890,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, and $95,000 in civil penalties to the United States’ Treasury. The combined $2.13 million settlement represents the second largest monetary payment ever obtained by the department in a fair housing case alleging housing discrimination in the rental of apartments. On October 6, 2009, the court entered a consent order with defendant Central Park Towers II. The consent order required standard injunctive relief, $135,000 to compensate aggrieved persons and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States’ Treasury. On May 13, 2010, the court issued an order for default judgment against the apartment manager, Stacy Sturdevant. The order is a permanent injunction banning her from working in rental housing and ordered her to pay a $55,000 civil penalty the United States’ Treasury. The original complaint, filed in 2007 and amended in September 2008, alleged a pattern-or-practice of discrimination in that the defendants created a racially hostile environment in a high-rise apartment building in Kansas City, and retaliated against a former employee when they terminated her employment in response to the complainant's cooperating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") investigators and assisting others to file complaints with HUD. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that for two-and-a-half years between 2003-2005, Stacy Sturdevant, the community manager of the Central Park Towers Apartments (CPT) engaged in discriminatory rental practices on the basis of race. The United States presented evidence in litigation that Sturdevant openly displayed racially hostile materials at CPT, such as hangman’s nooses, frequently referred to African Americans with racial epithets and generally treated white residents more favorably than African American residents. The case was referred to the Department of Justice after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Summerhill Place, LLC et al. (W.D. Wash.)

On March 8, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Summerhill Place, LLC (W.D. Wash.), a pattern or practice/election case alleging rental discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint, which was filed in June 2010, alleged that Summerhill Place's owners, managers, and former on-site manager discriminated in housing by steering Indian tenants away from one of the five apartment buildings at Summerhill, treating tenants from India less favorably than other tenants and discouraging African-Americans, Hispanics, and families with children from living at Summerhill. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $85,000 to tenants and prospective tenants who were harmed by the discriminatory practices, pay $25,000 to the government as a civil penalty, create a common recreational area for tenants, including children, provide fair housing training to the defendants' employees, and develop and maintain non-discrimination policies.

United States v. Sunburst Mobile Home Village, Inc. et al. (D. N.M.)

On November 26, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vázquez approved a consent order in United States v. Sunburst Mobile Home Village, Inc. et al. (D. N.M.). The complaint, filed on October 19, 2001, alleged that Mr. Geiger, the owner of Sunburst Mobile Home Village, and Mr. Rivera, the Mexican-American on-site manager, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the Division alleged that Defendants' rental practices revealed a pattern of discriminatory treatment of tenants and rental applicants of Cuban national origin. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants' will pay $19,000 in monetary damages, and a $1,000 civil penalty. Additionally, the defendants must establish nondiscriminatory standards and procedures at the mobile home park, notify all employees and tenants of their nondiscriminatory policies, attend fair housing training, pay for three (3) years of fair housing testing, and file reports with the Division. The consent order will remain in effect for three (3) years.

The case was originally 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. Sunrise Villas LLC (E.D.N.Y.)

On June 8, 2010, the court entered a settlement agreement and order in United States v. Sunrise Villas (E.D.N.Y.), a pattern or practice/election case brought under the Fair Housing Act. The complaint, filed on September 9, 2009, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B), on the basis of disability, by telling fair housing testers that service animals were not permitted to live at the property. The consent decree enjoins the defendants from further violations of the Act and requires them to adopt a written assistance animal policy, display a fair housing poster, attend fair housing training, comply with record keeping and reporting provisions and pay $12,186 in damages to Long Island Housing Services and a $1,000 civil penalty.

United States. v. Summerland Heights GP, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. Va.)

On August 3, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States. v. Summerland Heights GP, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. Va.) resolving allegations that those involved in the design and construction of the Summerland Heights Apartments, an apartment complex in Woodbridge, Va., discriminated on the basis of disability in the design and construction of the project. The complaint, which was filed on July 31, 2009, alleges that the defendants violated the federal Fair Housing Act. It cites a failure to design and construct the Summerland Heights Apartments so that ground floor units contain features of accessible design and the public use and common use areas are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Under the settlement the defendants will pay all costs related to retrofitting the apartment complex to make it accessible to persons with disabilities. The defendants must also establish a $40,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The settlement also requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The defendants are: Summerland Heights GP LLC, Summerland Heights II GP LLC, Summerland Heights L.P., Summerland Heights II L.P., Charles P. Johnson & Associates Inc. and the Marlyn Development Corp.

United States v. Summerland Heights III, L.P, et al. (E.D. Va.)

On January 16, 2009, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree in United States v. Summerland Heights III, L.P, et al. (E.D. Va.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Woodbridge, Virginia in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the complaint cites a failure to design and construct the Crossings at Summerland Apartments so that the public use and common use portions of covered multi-family dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and so that all of the ground floor units contain features of accessible design. The defendants are: Summerland Heights III LP; Summerland Heights III GP LLC; Cederquist, Rodriguez, Ripley PC; Bowman Consulting Group Ltd.; and the Marlyn Development Corporation.

Under the consent decree, which was approved by the court on January 26, 2009, the defendants will pay all costs related to making the apartment complex accessible to persons with disabilities and establish a $30,000 fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The defendants will also pay a $20,000 civil penalty to vindicate the public interest and undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (E.D. Va.)

On May 31, 2012, the United States filed a complaint and a consent order in United States v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (E.D. Va.). The complaint alleges that from 2005 to 2009, SunTrust Mortgage discriminated against at least 20,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers across the country by systematically charging higher discretionary broker fees and retail loan markups to those borrowers than to white borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The consent order provides for a $21 million settlement fund and for injunctive relief specifying that SunTrust Mortgage must maintain for at least three years specific improved pricing policies and fair lending monitoring that it has adopted since the conduct at issue in the complaint occurred. The court entered the consent order on September 14, 2012.

United States v. Sussex County (D. Del.)

On November 28, 2012 the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Sussex County (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the county's planning and zoning commission denied land use approval for a 50-lot affordable housing subdivision proposed by Diamond State Community Land Trust in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The suit alleges that the Sussex County Council later affirmed the denial of the proposed development. The suit alleges that opposition to the proposal was based partly on the assumption that the subdivision's residents would be Latino and African-American and on stereotypes based on race, color and national origin. The consent decree requires that the defendants reconsider the affordable housing proposal using nondiscriminatory criteria and take no actions to obstruct or delay the development of the subdivision. It also requires the county to pay $750,000 to Diamond State Community Land Trust in compensation for its damages. In addition, the settlement requires that the county take affirmative steps to provide for future affordable housing, communicate its commitment to fair housing, and establish mechanisms to ensure affordable and fair housing in Sussex County. Among other things, the county must formulate an affordable and fair housing marketing plan to encourage the development of housing opportunities that are available and accessible to all residents of Sussex County regardless of race, color or national origin, appoint a fair housing compliance officer, and ensure that county officials and staff undergo fair housing training. The lawsuit arose from a complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was referred to the Department of Justice. The court entered the consent decree on November 29, 2012.

United States v. Swanson (W.D. Pa.)

On December 10, 2012, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Swanson (W.D. Pa.), alleging that the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a dwelling to a woman with a disability who had two emotional assistance animals. 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. Synchrony Bank, f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank (D. Utah)

On June 19, 2014, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Synchrony Bank, f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank (D. Utah), an ECOA pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin by denying approximately 108,000 borrowers the opportunity to participate in two credit card debt repayment programs if they had indicated that they preferred communications to be in Spanish or had a mailing address in Puerto Rico. The consent order provides approximately 108,000 borrowers with at least $169 million in relief, in the form of monetary payments and the reduction or complete waiver of borrowers' credit card balances. The Bank has also agreed to other injunctive relief, including credit repair corrective actions for affected borrowers. This matter was referred to DOJ by the CFPB, and the agencies conducted a joint investigation. The court entered the consent order on June 27, 2014.

United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., et al. (D. Idaho)

On July 18, 2006, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., et al. (D. Idaho), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on July 11, 2001, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct Centennial Trail Apartments in Post Falls, Idaho, in accordance with the accessibility provisions of the Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

On September 29, 2003, the court had granted in part the United States' motion for summary judgment. The court found that there was no genuine issue of dispute that defendants violated the Act and the ADA by failing to design and construct the complex in accordance with both laws. The complex fails in many respects to meet the accessibility requirements, e.g., the rental office was on the second floor and its bathroom and other features were inaccessible; interior doors are too narrow; the kitchens and some bathrooms lack sufficient maneuvering space; and common areas, including the mailboxes and sidewalks, are inaccessible. On January 25, 2006, the court issued an order that the retrofits must be made within one year and without regard to whether any resident requests the retrofits. Pursuant to the consent order, the defendants will complete the retrofitting and pay $58,000 to compensate aggrieved individuals, including residents who experienced difficulties living at the complex and persons who were unable to live there, due to its non-compliance. The consent order will remain in effect for three and a half years.

United States v. Talgar General Partnership (D. N.H.)

On June 11, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Talgar General Partnership (D. N.H.). This is a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The defendants are the owners of a mobile home park in Newmarket, New Hampshire, which has a rule against cats and dogs. The complainants reside in the mobile home park and sought a reasonable accommodation to keep a dog that assists one of the complainants in dealing with the effects of her disabilities. The defendants have threatened to evict the complainants from the park if they do not get rid of the dog, and have repeatedly refused complainants' requests to let the complainants retain the dog as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

United States v. Tamarack Property Management Co., et al. (D. Mont.)

On August 11, 2003, the United States filed a consent decree in United States & Martinez/Avalos v. Tamarack Property Management Co., et al. (D. Mont.). The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the defendants (Tamarack Property Management Co., Forsyth Development, Foundation, Inc., the city of Forsyth, and other individuals) violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they refused to permit tenants at Riverview Villa, a fifty-unit retirement development in Forsyth, Montana, to install, at their expense, a wheelchair ramp, and a portable hot tub, which one of the tenants needed for medical reasons to relieve the significant pain he experienced from his disability. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants will pay $98,000 in monetary damages, establish non-discriminatory written policies for receiving requests for reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations, notify employees and tenants of the non-discriminatory policies, receive fair housing training, and submit reports to the United States twice a year for the three year and three month term of the consent decree.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)

On January 22, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.) to settle its lawsuit against developers Bruce Tanski, the Bruce Tanski Construction and Development Company, Michael Dennis, and the Mountain Ledge Development Corporation. The complaint, filed on June 21, 2004, and amended for the second time on January 20, 2006, alleged that the various defendants failed to design and construct 362 ground-floor apartments and the public and common areas at the McGregor Village Apartments in Wilton, N.Y., and several other properties in accordance with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act. In addition to the claim brought on behalf of the HUD complainant, the United States' complaint added an allegation that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern and practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

The consent decree will require the defendants to eliminate steps at ground-floor units and retrofit the apartments; to retrofit public and common use areas; and to pay $155,000 in damages to persons identified by the government as having been harmed by these inaccessible features, and $20,000 in civil penalties to the government. In addition, the settlement requires the defendants to comply with federal accessibility requirements in all future construction of apartment complexes; to report to the government on any future construction projects; and to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for four (4) years after the date of its entry or eighteen (18) months after the date that the last retrofit is completed.

On July 7, 2005, the court entered a partial consent decree (PDF Version) resolving its claims against an engineering company, Keystone Associates L.L.C. The firm was responsible for the site plan for one of the seven properties at issue in the case. In addition to injunctive relief, the decree provided that Keystone will pay $10,000 into a retrofit fund and 5,000 into a victims' compensation fund. The partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On February 28, 2006, the court entered a second partial consent decree (PDF Version) in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.). The consent decree entered on February 28, 2006, resolves the United States' claims against Howard Jacobson, an engineer who sealed the building plans used in the construction of certain non-compliant apartment buildings. The second partial consent decree requires defendant Jacobson to pay $12,000 into a retrofit fund and pay $8,000 into a victims' fund for persons who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility, as well as requires training and other injunctive relief. The second partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On October 22, 2007, the court entered a third partial consent decree in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.). The consent decree entered on October 22, 2007, resolves the United States claims against Yates Scott Lansing, an engineer who was hired by Bruce Tanski to draw the architectural plans based on a template provided to Lansing by Bruce Tanski. The third partial consent decree requires defendant Lansing to pay $5,000 into a retrofit fund and pay $5,000 into a victims' fund for persons who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility, as well as requires training and other injunctive relief. The third partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Tel-Clinton Trailer Courts, Inc. (E.D. Mich.)

On July 5, 2011, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Tel-Clinton Trailer Courts, Inc. (E.D. Mich.). The Fair Housing Act complaint alleges that Tel-Clinton Trailer Courts Inc. – the owner and operator of Shamrock Village Mobile Home Park in Monroe, Michigan – engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of familial status by maintaining policies that prevented families with more than one child from residing there. The lawsuit also named as defendants Eugene J. Ponzio, the president of Tel-Clinton, and Mildred E. Wampler, the resident manager at Shamrock Village. Under the consent decree the defendants will pay $27,500 in damages and civil penalties, including a fund for individuals who suffered damages as a result of the defendants' conduct. The defendants will also develop and maintain non-discrimination policies at Shamrock Village and provide fair housing training to their employees. This case was based on testing conducted by the Fair Housing Council of Washtenaw County. The court entered the consent decree on July 13, 2011.

United States v. Testa Family Enterprises, et al. (N.D. Ohio)

On June 8, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Testa Family Enterprises, et al. (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, filed on October 12, 2010, alleged that the owners and managers of a 26-unit apartment building in Ravenna, Ohio discriminated against the mother of a 4 year old son and a 10 month old daughter, and the Fair Housing Advocates Association on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent upper-level units to families with young children. Under the consent decree defendants must pay $33,350 to HUD complainant and her minor children, $16,650 to the Fair Housing Advocates Association, and $10,000 as a civil penalty. Defendants must also attend fair housing training and comply with other standard injunctive requirements.

United States v. Texas Champion Bank (S.D. Tex.)

On February 19, 2013, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Texas Champion Bank (S.D. Tex.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act pattern or practice that was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaint alleges that from 2006 to 2010, Texas Champion charged higher prices on unsecured consumer loans made to Hispanic borrowers than to similarly-situated non-Hispanic white borrowers through the bank's branch offices. The consent decree requires Texas Champion to further revise its uniform rate matrices used to price unsecured consumer and other loans offered by the bank, in order to ensure that the price charged for its loans is set in a non-discriminatory manner. The settlement also requires the bank to pay $700,000 to Hispanic victims of discrimination, monitor its loans for potential disparities based on national origin, and provide equal credit opportunity training to its employees. The agreement also prohibits the bank from discriminating on the basis of national origin in any aspect of a credit transaction. The court entered the consent decree on March 5, 2013.

United States v. Town of Colorado City (D. Ariz.)

On June 21, 2012, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Colorado City (D. Ariz.) against the town of Colorado City, Ariz.; the City of Hildale, Utah; Twin City Water Authority; and Twin City Power alleging a pattern or practice of police misconduct and violations of federal civil rights laws. The adjoining towns of Colorado City and Hildale are located on the border of Arizona and Utah and are populated primarily by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). The FLDS is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The complaint alleges discrimination based on religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the first lawsuit by the Justice Department to include claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The complaint alleges that the cities, their joint police department and local utility providers under the cities' control have allowed the FLDS Church to improperly influence the provision of policing services, utility services and access to housing and public facilities, and that this improper influence has led to discriminatory treatment against non-FLDS residents.

United States v. Fred Thomas d/b/a Best Western Scenic Motor Inn (E.D. Ark.)

The United States has reach a settlement in this case. The United States had filed a complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges that defendants denied lodging to African Americans and other minority guests; provided inferior room accommodations to guests on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and attempted to ascertain the race, color, or national origin of potential guests over the telephone in order to tell minorities that there were no rooms available.

The consent decree's requires the defendants to pay for certain measures that will be undertaken by the new owner of the motel to prevent future discrimination and to remedy the effects of the defendant's past conduct. The measures include but are not limited to training the new owner's employees, voluntary testing, affirmative marketing, and permanently posting nondiscrimination signs. The new owners have agreed to cooperate with these measures. Furthermore, defendants have agreed to not have any unsolicited contact with the new owners or any of the former employees who came forward as witnesses for the United States' case.

United States v. Thomas Development Co., et al. (D. Idaho)

On March 11, 2005, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Thomas Development Co., et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on February 13, 2002, alleged the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the ground floor units and public and common uses areas in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that some of the defendants retaliated against a tenant family at one of the complexes by attempting to evict the family after one of the family members requested a reasonable accommodation. The consent order, which includes injunctive relief and monetary payments totaling $125,000, affects over 700 ground floor apartments in 31 complexes in four states. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

The complaint was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. TK Properties, LLC, et al. (D. S.D.)

On March 9, 2011, the court granted the United States' motion for civil penalties and injunctive relief against Defendants Ann Wagner and Corey Anderson in United States v. TK Properties, L.L.C. et al. (D. S.D.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election referral from HUD. The court ordered each defendant to pay a $15,000 civil penalty after the court entered a judgment of default against them in July 2010. The court also enjoined both defendants from violating sections 3604(b), 3604(c) and 3617 of the Fair Housing Act and from participating in the rental of housing for a term of three years. On December 21, 2010, the court entered a partial consent decree with TK Properties L.L.C. and one of its principals, Scott Terveen. The partial consent decree required the defendants to pay $30,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties. The complaint, filed on October 15, 2009, alleged that defendants TK Properties, LLC, Scott Terveen, and two employees, Ann Wagner and Corey Anderson created a hostile housing environment for one African American family and two white families who associated with the African American family while they were tenants at Lakeport Village, a 48 unit apartment complex. Further, the complaint alleged that the defendants used pervasive racial epithets and engaged in threatening, harassing, and intimidating conduct in response to the complainants' filing of a discrimination complaint with the local housing authority.

United States v. Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (M.D.N.C.)

On October 2, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (M.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on December 12, 2005, alleged that the town violated the federal Fair Housing Act when it refused to grant a citizen of Chapel Hill an accommodation for her disabled daughter. The citizen, then a resident of public housing, had repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of a transfer to a wheelchair-accessible unit. The city operates the Chapel Hill Department of Housing, which manages 336 public housing units sites in Chapel Hill. Under the terms of the consent decree Chapel Hill will pay $30,000 in damages to the family. The consent decree also requires the town employees to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and that the town adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, post non-discrimination policies, and submit periodic reports to the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years. 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. Town of Cicero (N.D. Ill.)

In our complaint, filed on January 21, 1993, we alleged that the Town of Cicero violated the Fair Housing Act by enacting, and then selectively enforcing, an occupancy ordinance, which restricted occupancy of some three-bedroom dwellings to as few as two persons. Our suit contended that the town had not enforced the ordinance against current residents, the majority of whom were white, but only against new purchasers of property, the majority of whom were Hispanic. The United States resolved the case with a consent order, which required the town to pay $60,000 to compensate persons who were harmed by its enforcement of the ordinance, to refrain from enforcing the ordinance, and, if it adopts a new occupancy standard, not to adopt one more restrictive than the nationally recognized building codes.

United States and Oxford House Inc. v. Town of Garner, North Carolina, and the Town of Garner Board of Adjustment (E.D.N.C.)

On January 19, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States and Oxford House Inc. v. Town of Garner, North Carolina, and the Town of Garner Board of Adjustment (E.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on May 19, 2009, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a denial of rights to a group of persons or a pattern or practice of discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow up to eight men recovering from drug and alcohol addictions to live together as a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. The home is chartered by Oxford House Inc., a non-profit organization that assists in the development of self-governing houses in which persons in recovery support one another’s determination to remain sober. Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants will pay $105,000 in monetary damages to Oxford House and $9,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. The settlement requires that the town grant the reasonable accommodation requested by Oxford House, submit periodic reports to the government, and train town officials on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. In December 2010, in connection with the parties’ proposed settlement, the town amended its zoning code to establish a procedure for addressing future requests for reasonable accommodations. The case was referred to the Civil Rights Division by HUD.

United States v. Town of Lake Hunting and Fishing Club (C.D. Ill.)

On April 18, 2007, the court entered the revised consent decree in United States v. Town of Lake Hunting and Fishing Club (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2005, alleged that the refusal of a residential hunting and fishing club in Momence, Illinois to allow the complainant couple to install wheelchair ramps and a sidewalk at the entrances to their house and a later decision to expel them from the club constituted a refusal to allow a reasonable modification and retaliation under the FHA. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay the Jolys $40,000 in damages and attorney’s fees, to allow the requested ramps and sidewalks to be installed, to waive all prior claims against the complainants for past dues and attorney’s fees, to reinstate the husband as a member of the club in good standing, to send the president of its board of directors to fair housing training and to submit to the Division’s notice and record-keeping requirements for the three-year term of the decree. At the court’s instruction, the revised consent decree, rather than leaving the case open for three years, terminates the case immediately upon entry of the decree, but leaves the court with jurisdiction to enforce the decree during its three-year term.

United States v. Town of Maiden, NC, et al. (W.D.N.C.)

On March 17, 2000, the United States filed a complaint behalf of complainant The Hand, Inc., a corporation composed of five African-American men who wished to open a group home for children and adolescents with emotional and mental disabilities in Maiden, North Carolina. The United States alleged that the defendants discriminated against The Hand on the basis of race and disability by interfering with The Hand's efforts to locate a group home in Maiden.

On May 7, 2002, the court signed a consent order resolving the case. The consent order provides that the defendants will pay $45,000 to compensate The Hand. The Order further provides that all employees of the Town of Maiden who have responsibility for zoning, planning, or approval for group homes or similar facilities must receive training in their responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act; that the Town adopt a nondiscrimination policy and distribute it to all such employees and all applicants for permits for group homes or similar facilities; that the Town must report to the United States annually for three years on applications for such permits; and that the Town will report to the United States all discrimination complaints made against the Town during the duration of the consent order

This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination and the parties elected to proceed in federal court.

United States v. Town of Oyster Bay, et al. (E.D.N.Y.)

On April 10, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Town of Oyster Bay, et al. (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 and a stipulation of dismissal of the United States' claims against LIHP. The court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement, which requires LIHP to ensure that residency preferences it administers do not violate fair housing laws, and to educate consumers, developers, lenders, realtors, public officials, community groups, and the general public regarding the requirements of fair housing laws.

United States v. Town of St. John (N.D. Ind.)

On March 18, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Town of St. John (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on September 21, 2007, alleged that the Town violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a variance to a St. John resident who wanted to allow one unrelated person with a disability to live with him in his single-family home. Under the settlement, the Town is required grant the requested variance, train Town officials directly involved in making zoning and land-use decisions, and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. The Town is also required to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States.

United States v. Townsend House Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)

On May 6, 2009, the court entered a stipulation and order of dismissal in United States v. Townsend House Corp. (S.D.N.Y.). The parties reached a settlement in the case. The complaint, filed on November 12, 2008, by the United States Attorney's Office, alleged that a 97-unit cooperative development in New York City violated the Fair Housing Act by delaying and placing unreasonable conditions on the granting of a request by a mother to allow her eleven year old son, who has Asperger's Syndrome and Central Auditory Processing Disorder, to keep an assistance animal. 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. Torino Construction Corporation of Nevada, Inc., et al.(D. Nev.)

On January 12, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Torino Construction Corporation of Nevada, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The Division's complaint, which was filed simultaneously with the consent decree, alleged that defendants, Torino Construction Corporation of Nevada, Inc., Sedona Corporation, Paradise Village F&B, and Canyon Willow II, On October 7, 2014, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Nistler, et al. (D Mont.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, which was filed on September 12, 2013, alleged that defendants designed and constructed an eight-unit property in Helena, Montana without required accessible features for four covered units. Under the consent order, the defendants are required to remove accessibility barriers at this property as well as two other properties they designed and constructed which are currently owned by two of them. The defendants are also required to pay $17,500 to the HUD complainant, Montana Fair Housing, Inc., and $8,500 in civil penalties to the United States. 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. Tower 31, LLC (S.D.N.Y.)

On August 11, 2014, the court entered a partial consent decree with the developer-defendants in United States v. Tower 31, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on August 5, 2014, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct the Tower 31 apartment building, located in New York City, in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The consent decree resolves the claims against developers Tower 31 LLC and Atlantic 31st LLC. The partial decree enjoins the developers from future discrimination on the basis of disability as prohibited by the Fair Housing Act and requires them to perform retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and in the dwelling units of Tower 31. The decree also requires the defendants to pay at least $100,000, and up to $300,000, to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices at Tower 31, and a civil penalty of $35,000. Litigation will proceed against architect-designers Costas Kondylis & Partners LLP, and Alan L. Goldstein.

United States v. Trinity Villas, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)

On November 18, 2013, the United States Attorney's Office filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Trinity Villas, Inc. (M.D. Fla.), alleging that a 162-unit Section 8 project-based housing complex in Ocala, Florida refused to grant the request of a tenant with a mobility impairment to transfer from a second-floor unit to a first-floor unit as a reasonable accommodation.

United States v. Triple H. Realty, et al. (D. N.J.)

On April 30, 2009 the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Triple H. Realty, et al. (D. N.J.). The complaint alleged that the defendants tried to force Hispanic and African-American tenants to transfer from one building to another to make room for Orthodox Jews whom were courted as tenants in 2002-2004. The complaint also alleged that the buildings in which non-Jewish tenants lived were in the rear of the property and had fewer amenities and were less well maintained than buildings at the front of the property that housed the new Jewish tenants. The United States also alleged that the incoming Jewish tenants paid less rent than non-Jewish tenants for comparable apartments. Pursuant to the consent decree the defendants are required to pay $170,000 to compensate identified victims and an additional $30,000 to the United States as a civil penalty.

United States v. Tristaino (E.D.N.Y.)

On June 20, 2012, the court entered the settlement agreement and order in United States v. Tristaino (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on November 17, 2011, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), on the basis of familial status by posting ads on craigslist for a two-bedroom apartment that said "mature couple or single with no children." The settlement agreement and order requires the defendants to pay $2,800 to the National Fair Housing Alliance and to attend 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. Tunica County School District (N.D. Miss.)

In connection with the provisions of our consent decree, with the Tunica County School District and the construction of a new elementary school in Tunica, the county's board of supervisors has adopted a resolution to implement a county-wide affordable housing plan. Under that plan, the county will provide housing counseling services, home buyer seminars, and fair housing training. This plan includes working with the North Delta Planning Development District, a regional planning commission, to create developer incentives for construction of affordable housing in the county and the Mississippi Home Corporation, a state housing finance agency, to provide funding for the county's counseling and education program and to develop affordable housing in the county. As part of the order, the school district has agreed to market the services of the affordable housing plan to families with school age children, to make school facilities available for housing-related activities, and to use a state mortgage assistance program for teachers as a marketing tool to attract and keep teachers in the district.

United States v. Twining Services Corporation ("TSC") (E.D. Pa.)

On September 30, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Twining Services Corporation ("TSC") (E.D. Pa.), a pattern or practice case brought under the Fair Housing Act. TSC owns and operates Twining Village, a 400-unit continuing care retirement community that, until February 2005, banned manual wheelchairs from its dining rooms and continued to ban motorized wheelchairs and scooters from those rooms and other public and common use areas. It also required persons who use scooters to indemnify TSC and to submit to an evaluation and training program annually, even if there was no reason to think the person had difficulty operating the scooter safely. Under the terms of the consent order, TSC will adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability such that residents of Twining Village who have physical disabilities that require the use of mobility aids may use such aids throughout the entire Twining Village complex, without the requirement for indemnification or annual evaluations. TSC will pay a resident aggrieved by the former policies $17,500 in damages, establish a $67,500 settlement fund, and pay a $7,500 civil penalty to the United States. The consent order also calls for employee training, record keeping, and monitoring through the use of testers, if necessary. The Consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Univ. of Nebraska (D. Neb.)

On November 23, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Univ. of Nebraska (D. Neb.). The complaint alleges that the University of Nebraska at Kearney ("UNK") and UNK employees violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(c) and (f)(1) - (f)(3), on the basis of disability by denying a reasonable accommodation request by a student with a disability (anxiety) to live with her emotional support animal in off-campus student apartments. The complaint further alleges that UNK denied her request because she could not produce documentation from her doctor that the dog had been trained as a service animal as defined by the revised regulations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that UNK required the student to fulfill unduly onerous and intrusive requirements to document her disability, including submission to counseling sessions by UNK's own counselor. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints by four tenants, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Urban Rental Company, et al. (C.D. Ill.)

On November 12, 2003, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Urban Rental Company, et al.(C.D. Ill.). The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of the Urban Mobile Home Village in Taylorville, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race or color in connection with the rental of a mobile home space to an African-American couple. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $3,500 to the two HUD complainants. In addition, the consent order also: enjoins the defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race or color; requires the individual defendants to undergo training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act pertaining to racial discrimination; display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in all advertising, and advise the United States of any complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of race or color or retaliation. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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. The case was handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of Illinois.

United States v. Urbana MHP, LLC (S.D. Ohio)

On October 27, 2005, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Urbana MHP, LLC (S.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged that the owners and property managers of a mobile home park in Urbana, Ohio discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $18,750 in damages to complainants and contains standard injunctive relief, training, advertising and reporting provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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, NFHA & LIHS v. Uvaydov (E.D.N.Y.)

On November 29, 2010, the court entered a settlement agreement and order in United States, NFHA & LIHS v. Uvaydov (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on September 23, 2009, by the United States alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race by telling fair housing testers sent by Long Island Housing Services, Inc. (LIHS) that they did not want to rent their single-family home to African-Americans. The settlement agreement requires the defendants to attend fair housing training, retain a management company to handle any further rental activity and pay $20,000 to the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and LIHS. 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. The Valley Club of Huntingdon Valley (E.D. Pa.)

On August 16, 2012, the United States filed a stipulated settlement agreement in United States v. Valley Club of Huntingdon Valley, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on January 13, 2010, alleged race discrimination under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleged that during June of 2009, Creative Steps, Inc., a Northeast Philadelphia children's day camp, paid the club a fee to give its campers access to the club's swimming pool for the summer and that on the first and only day they swam, some of the children reported hearing racial slurs while at the pool. Shortly thereafter, the club refunded the day camp's membership fee and prohibited the children from returning to swim. The settlement agreement stipulates that once the administration of the Estate and the bankruptcy case are closed and after paying allowed costs and fees, the remaining assets will be paid to more than 60 children, their camp counselors and to Creative Steps. The settlement also provides that $65,000 will be set aside from the proceeds of the sale of the Valley Club property for the creation of a Leadership Council that comprises former Valley Club members, Creative Steps counselors, campers and their families. The children and families affected by the Valley Club incident will take leadership roles in planning swimming, educational and recreational opportunities for the community.

United States v. Vancouver Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.)

On October 8, 2004, the United States filed a Rule 41 Dismissal with an attached Settlement Agreement in United States v. Vancouver Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.). This Fair Housing Act pattern or practice lawsuit was filed on September 24, 2004, against the Vancouver Housing Authority, the Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington, Coldwater Springs Assisted Living Community, LLC, Emeritus Corporation, Sunwest Management, Inc., and James D. Reed, the former onsite manager of the facilities. The suit alleged the defendants discriminated against disabled residents by, among other things, forcing persons who required assisted living services to either move to an inaccessible apartment or to give up their assisted living services in order to stay in their current home, and by evicting or constructively evicting persons because of their disabilities, including persons who used wheelchairs and those with the most severe disabilities.

Under the settlement, the defendants will pay a total of $100,000 to persons with disabilities who were evicted from their apartments because they used wheelchairs or who were otherwise harmed by allegedly discriminatory changes made in the operation of a program that provided assisted living services to some building residents. The defendants will pay for the establishment of special needs trusts to ensure that recipients of these payments do not lose their eligibility for Medicaid. In addition, defendant Vancouver Housing Authority will retrofit two units in one of the public housing buildings to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. The defendants will also be required to make meals, lectures, social events and other activities sponsored by the assisted living program available to all building residents, and staff will receive training regarding their obligations under the Act. The case was originally referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. Vanderpool, et al. (D. Idaho)

On April 18, 2002, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Vanderpool, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed February 23, 2001, alleged that the V.L.V. Company and its principal, Virginia L. Vanderpool, who built Baycrest, T&J Properties, its original owner, and Pinnacle Engineers, who designed Baycrest failed to design and construct the complex with accessible features required by federal law. The Division's investigation revealed that the complex had numerous barriers to accessibility steps including: steps at the front entry door of apartment units; bathrooms and kitchens that lack adequate maneuvering space to be usable by persons with disabilities; bathrooms that lack reinforcements for grab bars; and electrical outlets and thermostats placed at inaccessible heights for persons who use wheelchairs. The new owners of Baycrest Village, Baycrest LLC, who are not a party to the lawsuit, agreed to allow defendants to correct these and other deficiencies.

The builder and civil engineer of Baycrest Village in Caldwell, Idaho has agreed to settle the lawsuit by retrofitting an eighteen unit apartment complex to make it accessible to persons with disabilities and by paying up to $48,000 in damages and penalties.

Specifically, the defendants have agreed to modify the common areas and the individual apartment units within one year to make them accessible to persons with disabilities; pay up to $30,000 to compensate persons who have been harmed by the lack of accessible features at Baycrest, such as persons using wheelchairs who tried to live at Baycrest and were unable to do so; pay $3,000 in damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council; pay $5,000 to a nonprofit organization to increase accessible housing for persons with disabilities in Idaho; pay $5000 to the United States in civil penalties; and pay $5000 to the current owner of Baycrest to compensate her for the lost rent and inconvenience resulting from the modifications.

This case was brought on behalf of the Intermountain Fair Housing Council of Boise, who filed the original complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD investigated the complaint and referred the matter to the United States after determining that the complex was not accessible to persons with disabilities.

United States v. VanderVennen (W.D. Mich.)

On August 19, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. VanderVennen (W.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging sexual harassment. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2013, alleged that Dale VanderVennen, manager at Alger Meadow Apartments, had sexually harassed female residents at the complex. The complaint alleged that such harassment has included unwelcome sexual advances, touching female residents without their consent, entering the apartments of female residents without permission and notice, granting and denying tangible housing benefits based on sex; and taking adverse actions against female tenants when they refused his sexual advances. The consent decree includes $510,000 in damages for at least 13 victims, a $40,000 civil penalty, and various injunctive measures, including the termination of property manager Dale VanderVennen from managing any residential rental property.

United States v. Van Raden Properties, Inc. (D. Minn.)

On May 20, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States & Fair Housing of the Dakotas v. Van Raden Properties, Inc. (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed on October 29, 2008, by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota alleged that the owner and management company of a 24-unit apartment building in Moorhead, Minnesota discriminated on the basis of disability when they refused to rent an apartment to a person with a service animal. On February 2, 2009, the court issued an order granting a motion to intervene by Fair Housing of the Dakotas. The consent decree requires the defendant to revise its animal policy to remove the preference for animals of certain sizes and breeds, to attend regular fair housing training and to pay $3,000 to Fair Housing of the Dakotas. The consent decree shall remain in effect for two years.

United States v. Bobby Veal and Jewel Veal (W.D. Mo.)

On May 13, 2004, a federal jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $1,102,804 to eleven female tenants. The individual damage awards ranged from $10,001 to $310,000.

The complaint alleged that Bobby Veal and Jewel Veal, the co-owners and managers of numerous single family rental homes in Kansas City, Missouri, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female tenants. The complaint alleged that the defendant, Bobby Veal violated the Fair Housing Act when he demanded sexual favors from tenants and evicted certain tenants who did not submit to his advances. The suit also named Jewel Veal, Bobby Veal's wife, who co-owned and managed the properties. During trial, the Division presented evidence that Veal had sexually harassed tenants since at least 1994. Eleven former residents testified that Veal's actions included unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, asking for sexual favors in exchange for tenancy and threats to retaliate against women who refused his sexual advances. A former resident testified that Veal forced her to have sex twice in her apartment, once in the presence of her children. The Division also presented evidence that Jewel Veal was aware of the harassment and failed to take any action to prevent or stop it. On July 12, 2003, the court entered a default judgment for the plaintiff after the defendants refused to participate in discovery and failed to comply with the court's order.

On May 27, 2004, the Defendants filed a motion for new trial, or in the alternative, motion for relief from judgment, or in the alternative, motion for remittitur or reduction in judgment. On March 14, 2005, the Division filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion for relief on damages. On August 24, 2004, the court denied the Defendants' Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment, or in the Alternative Motion for Remittitur or Reduction in Judgment. The court also denied Defendants' Motion for Stay on Motion for New Trial as moot. The Division filed a post-trial motion seeking civil penalties against the Veals as well as a court order requiring them to turn over the management and operation of their rental properties to an independent management company as well as other appropriate injunctive relief. The court awarded a civil penalty of $80,000, $40,000 for each defendant. On June 28, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the United States could collect the judgment owed to aggrieved persons pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA). The complaint was brought to the United States' attention by the Kansas City, Missouri Human Relations Department.

United States v. Vernon, et al., (D. N.M.)

On August 31, 1999, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Vernon, et al., (D. N.M.), resolving a case alleging that Monterey Manor Apartments, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African Americans and families with children. The complaint, filed on July 22, 1998, alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Fair Housing Act by falsely informing African American apartment seekers that there were no apartments available and unlawfully discouraging people with children from living in the complex. This case was based in part on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.

The consent decree contains an admission of liability by the former resident manager, who was a defendant, and provides a total of $75,000 in monetary relief, divided as follows: (a) $10,000 to each of two identified aggrieved persons; (b) $20,000 to be placed in a settlement fund for as yet unidentified victims, with any leftover funds going to the Albuquerque Legal Aid Society; (c) $9,000 to the Legal Aid Society; (d) $25,000 in civil penalties against the owner of the complex; and (e) $1,000 in civil penalties against the former resident manager. The decree also contains injunctive relief, including: fair housing training; implementation and advertise of non-discriminatory rental policies; and payment for self-testing. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. Village of Addison (N.D. Ill.)

On February 10, 1998, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Village of Addison (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on July 7, 1995, alleged that the Village of Addison violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of national origin. The complaint alleged that the Village planned and began the acquisition and demolition of dwellings in the two largest Hispanic communities in the Village by acquiring, demolishing, and planning to continue to demolish affordable and decent housing in those communities. The complaint further alleged that, in 1994, the Village, pursuant to the State of Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, Section 65 ILCS/11-74.4-3, created two redevelopment districts, the Army Trail/Mill Road and Michael Lane Tax Increment Financing districts (the "TIF districts"), as the means to accomplish these ends. The complaint also alleged that, through implementation of these TIF districts, the Village violated the Fair Housing Act by seeking to displace Hispanic families residing in these areas.

Under the terms of the consent decree the Village shall: pay $5,000 to each of the forty-four households in Green Oaks who were relocated as a result of the Village's acquisition and/or removal of buildings prior to the entry of this consent decree; establish a fund in the amount of $100,000 for private plaintiffs representing the class pursuant to the notice; pay $1, 000 to any household displaced in the center core of Green Oaks Courts pursuant to the implementation of the Plan; pay $60,000 to Hispanics United of DuPage County, the Hispanic Council, and the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities; pay $30,000 into an interest-bearing account to be used in furtherance of fair housing in Addison by enhancing awareness of the requirements of federal fair housing laws. The owners of the eleven (11) buildings within Green Oaks, which were acquired by the Village prior to the entry the consent decree, shall receive an amount of money in addition to the purchase price paid by the Village. The additional amount shall be at least 125 of the amount paid to the owners by the Village at the time of acquisition. The Village shall implement a comprehensive Redevelopment Plan for affordable, multi-family, owner-occupied housing. The Village agrees that it will provide relocation assistance to all households displaced by the Plan. In addition, the Village is required to provide training to its employees; maintain records; and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain it effect for seven years.

United States v. Village of Airmont (S.D.N.Y.)

On May 6, 2011, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Village of Airmont (S.D.N.Y.), a case alleging religious discrimination in violation of RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The complaint, which was filed in June 2005, alleged that Airmont engaged in unlawful religious discrimination by maintaining a zoning code that prevents religious boarding schools from operating anywhere in the Village. The complaint alleged that the defendants denied the application of Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov to operate a religious school with on-campus student housing. The consent decree, which has a four year term, enjoins Airmont from further violations of the FHA and RLUIPA, and requires Airmont to process the application of Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov. The decree also provides that Airmont will amend its zoning code to comply with the FHA and RLUIPA. If Airmont does not amend its code by October 15, 2011, or the zoning code does not comply with the FHA and RLUIPA by that date, the decree includes a provision allowing the United States to reinstate the action and seek civil penalties.

United States v. Village of Hatch (D. N.M.)

On December 12, 1996, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Village of Hatch (D. N.M.). The complaint, filed on June 15, 1995, alleged that from 1986, the Village of Hatch, through its Mayor and Board of Trustees, has engaged in a course of municipal action intended to prevent permanent resident aliens of Mexican national origin from living in the Village. This course of action has been carried out, among other ways, through the use of zoning and land use policies which have effectively removed mobile homes as a source of affordable housing for such persons. In 1986, the Village of Hatch, through its Mayor and Board of Trustees, passed a moratorium on mobile homes being moved into the Village. On or about January 22, 1990, the Village Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance Number 233, entitled Village of Hatch Municipal Zoning Ordinance ("the 1990 zoning ordinance"). The 1990 zoning ordinance effectively prohibited all "non-grandfathered" mobile homes in the Village. On or about August 12, 1993, the Village Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance Number 256, entitled Village of Hatch Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ("the 1993 zoning ordinance"). The 1993 zoning ordinance effectively prohibits all mobile homes not located within a lawful mobile home park, and severely limits the areas within the Village where mobile home parks are allowed. Statements by Village officials indicate that a purpose of the 1990 and 1993 zoning ordinances was to remove permanent resident aliens of Mexican national origin from the Village, and to help insure that such persons would not reside in the Village in the future. Part of the geographic area from which mobile homes are banned under the 1993 zoning ordinance includes Elm Street, a neighborhood populated predominantly by permanent resident aliens of Mexican national origin at the time of the passage of the 1993 zoning ordinance. The defendant was aware of the large concentration of families with permanent resident aliens of Mexican national origin which resided in mobile homes on Elm Street before it formally adopted the 1993 zoning ordinance, and before it began enforcing such ordinance. Defendant selected the mobile homes located on Elm Street for exclusive enforcement of the 1993 zoning ordinance because of the large concentration of families with permanent resident aliens of Mexican national origin which resided in mobile homes on Elm Street.

Under the terms of the consent decree the Village of Hatch is; permanently enjoined from enforcing ordinance 256 entitled Village of Hatch Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; shall rezone and amend its zoning code to induce the use of mobile home parks in the Village of Hatch through zoning incentives used in conjunction with various programs; shall establish a housing plan and infrastructure; apply for HUD rental rehabilitation funds; create a new construction program to support the development of new single family residences on vacant lots within the Village for low income families; develop a fair housing policy; train employees; and periodically report to the United States. The Village is also required to pay $260,500.00 to aggrieved parties and a $2,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree shall remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Village of South Elgin (N.D. Ill.)

On December 13, 2006, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Village of South Elgin (N.D. Ill.). In this pattern or practice case under the Fair Housing Act, the Division alleged that the defendant municipality discriminated against Unity House, a "sober home" providing a supportive environment for recovering alcoholics and drug users, by denying it a permit to house up to nine residents. The home had operated from 2000 to 2003 without a permit, because the owner believed he was not required to obtain one. After the permit was denied, Unity House continued to operate legally with five residents. The complaint, filed on September 15, 2005, alleged that the Village Board's actions were taken on account of the disability of the residents, in violation of Section 804(f)(1) of the Fair Housing Act, and also that the Village failed to make a reasonable accommodation in violation of Section 804(f)(3)(b).

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that in seeking a reasonable accommodation, Unity House had not complied with the procedural requirements of state zoning law. On March 6, 2006, Judge Amy St. Eve denied defendant's motion to dismiss. In denying the motion, the court agreed with our argument that (1) assuming this to be true, it would not affect our entitlement to recover under an intentional discrimination theory, and (2) whether Unity House complied with the state law involves disputed issues of fact.

Under the consent decree the Village agreed to grant Unity House a permit to house seven residents; the permit was granted by the Village Board on December 5, 2006. The Village will pay $25,000 in monetary damages to the owner, and $7,500 to each of two residents who were forced to leave the home in 2003, as well as a $15,000 civil penalty. The decree also provides for training of employees and record-keeping and reporting. This matter was litigated jointly by this Section and the United States Attorney's Office.

United States v. Village of Suffern (S.D.N.Y.)

On June 17, 2010, the court entered a consent decree resolving the United States’ complaint in United States v. Village of Suffern (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on September 26, 2006, alleged that Suffern’s denial of a zoning variance to Bikur Cholim to operate a "Shabbos House" near Good Samaritan Hospital substantially burdened the religious exercise of Orthodox Jews, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). A Shabbos House provides meals and lodging to Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath and other holy days to allow them to observe their religious beliefs and practices on those days such as engaging in prayer and refraining from driving and other activities. Bikur Cholim’s Shabbos House in Suffern provides meals and lodging to Orthodox Jews who take patients to and from Good Samaritan Hospital, visit patients at the hospital, or are patients released from the hospital. The complaint further alleged that there are no other locations within a reasonable and safe walking distance of Good Samaritan Hospital that could accommodate Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath or other holy days and afford these Orthodox Jews the opportunity to exercise their religious beliefs by visiting the sick and observing the laws of the Sabbath. On June 24, 2009, the court denied the Village’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment and the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which had been pending since November 2007. Under the terms of the consent decree the Village of Suffern has agreed to permit the shabbos house to continue operation at its current location. The defendant also agreed not to discriminate on the basis of religion or impose or implement any land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of any person, assembly or institution. The defendant further agreed to comply with certain notice and training requirements to ensure that Village officials are knowledgeable about and comply with the requirements of RLUIPA. Bikur Cholim separately sued the Village for, among other things, violating RLUIP A in a lawsuit entitled Bilrur Cholim, Inc., Rabbi Simon Lauber, Fellowship House of Suffern, Inc., Maika Stern, Sara Halperin, Michael Lipman, Abraham Langsam and Jacob Levita v. The Village of Suffern, (the "Private Suit"). The parties to the private suit have entered into a Private Settlement which resolved the suit and provides relief to the private plaintiffs. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years. The case was primarily handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

United States v. Vlahakis, (N.D. Ill.)

On October 26, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Vlahakis, (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, which was filed on May 5, 2004, alleged that the defendant Demetra Vlahakis, the owner of a five-unit rental property in Chicago, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by stating that she would not rent an apartment to the complainant because she had a teenage daughter. The complaint also included a pattern or practice claim and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The consent order requires the owner to: pay $32,500 to the complainants; attend fair housing training; establish a settlement fund in the amount of $7,500 for the purpose of compensating any additional persons who have been the victims of the defendant's discriminatory housing practices and have advertisement, record keeping, and reporting obligations. The consent order will remain in effect for three years. 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. Waisbord, et al. (E.D. Pa.)

On September 6, 2006, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Daniel Waisbord, et al. (E.D. Pa.) The complaint, filed on March 15, 2006, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of race when they refused to rent an apartment to an African-American woman and stated the neighbors would not like it. The defendants eventually rented the unit to a white woman at a lower rent than had been discussed with the complainant.

Under the consent decree the defendants are required to pay $40,000 in monetary damages to the complainant, undergo training, adopt and post a nondiscrimination policy, and provide reports to the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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. Earl Walker d/b/a The Knights (M.D. Ga.)

On June 27, 2001, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Earl Walker d/b/a The Knights, (M.D. Ga.), a Title II case involving discrimination on the basis of race. In its complaint, filed January 18, 2001, the United States alleged that the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of denying to African-American persons, on the basis of their race, the full and equal use and enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Club 2000. Specifically, the United States alleged that the defendant refused to serve African-American persons entering the nightclub. The nightclub was located in Valdosta, Georgia and had a clientele that consisted, in part, of servicemen and servicewomen of the United States Air Force stationed at nearby Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.

The consent order: enjoins the defendants from future discrimination; requires posting of a non-discriminatory policy at the entrance; requires modification of the admissions policy; training of employees regarding the requirements of Title II; reporting of complaints of discrimination; advertise in the local military papers; and certain other reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Wallace III, et al. (S.D. Miss.)

On May 23, 2002, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Wallace III, et al. (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, filed on December 12, 2000, alleged Alden "Bubber"Wallace, III, his wife Priscilla Wallace, and his mother Nell Wallace of violating the Federal Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants divided their Meridian, Mississippi rental properties into better quality "white" or "No. 1" homes and inferior quality "black" or "No. 2" homes and used racially coded vacancy lists and telephone logs to segregate and exclude African-Americans from apartment complexes, trailer parks and other properties. The complaint also named four local companies, Amerihomes, LLC, The Management Group, LLC, Wallace Management & Developers, Inc. and Wallace Rentals, LLC as co-defendants.

The consent decree required the Wallaces and their co-defendants to pay a $20,000 civil penalty and $310,000 for a victims fund. The fund will compensate victims of the alleged discrimination. In addition, the defendants must turn over management of their more than 200 residential properties to an outside company. The settlement permanently bars Mr. Wallace, his wife, and his mother from any involvement in tenant affairs, including tenant selection, maintenance and evictions. Mr. Wallace is prohibited from entering the rental properties unless they are vacant and he is escorted by management company staff. The settlement also provides for fair housing training, implementation of new policies and five years of monitoring.

The United States Attorney's Office jointly investigated and litigated the case in cooperation with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

United States & Stadtlander v. Warren Properties, Inc. (S.D. Ala.)

On December 27, 2010, the court entered a consent decree requiring Defendants Warren Properties Inc., Warren Village (Mobile) Limited Partnership and Frank R. Warren to pay $1.25 million to resolve the United States’ lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant’s requests for a reasonable accommodation. This settlement is the largest ever obtained by the Department in an individual housing discrimination case.

The complaint, filed on April 29, 2009, alleged that the defendants refused to permit a tenant with a mobility impairment – an impairment which required him to use crutches and leg braces to move to a ground-floor apartment near the front of the building in a 196-unit apartment complex in Mobile, Alabama. The suit also alleged that the tenant suffered severe injuries – resulting in the tenant being hospitalized, undergoing surgery, and having to use a wheelchair as a result of falling down the stairs that led to the second floor apartment where the tenant resided.

Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $1,195,000 in monetary damages to the tenant, along with an additional $55,000 to the United States. The defendants must hire a reasonable accommodation facilitator to handle requests for reasonable accommodations from more than 11,000 housing units in 85 properties managed by Warren Properties Inc. in 15 states. The defendants must also attend fair housing training, implement a non-discrimination policy, and comply with specified notice, monitoring and reporting requirements. The case was originally 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. This case was litigated primarily by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

United States v. Wayne County Housing Authority (S.D. Ill.)

On March 11, 2010, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Wayne County Housing Authority, et al. (S.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, file on February 23, 2009, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by making racially discriminatory statements and interfering with the complainants rental of their house to an African American tenant under the Section 8 voucher program. The consent order provides a total of $8,750 in monetary relief to the complainants, as well as standard injunctive relief.

United States v. Webb, et al. (E.D. Ark.)

On September 27, 2001, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Webb, et al., (E.D. Ark.). The complaint, filed on September 20, 2000, alleged that the Defendants, James P. Matthews, Lakewood House L.L.P., The Woodcrest Company L.L.P, The Crestwood Company, James W. Webb, Dianna S. Webb and General Properties Inc., who are the current and former owners and managers of the Lakewood House Apartments in North Little Rock, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race when then they refused to rent an apartment at Lakewood House Apartments to an interracial couple and their child.

The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay $27,000 to the complainants; submit to injunctive relief and monitoring; adopt non-discriminatory advertisements, and maintain records of their rental activities. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Weilburg (D. Nev.)

On October 26, 2012, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Weilburg (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of a single-family house in Sparks, Nevada violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to rent the house to a woman because she had severe allergies, and he was concerned that if she passed out from breathing dust or dust mold while the electric range was on, the house could get set on fire. 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. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (D.D.C.)

On December 19, 2012, the Division notified the court in United States v. Wells Fargo Bank (D.D.C.) that the bank will provide $59.3 million in compensation to African-American and Hispanic retail subprime borrowers. Under the consent order, entered on September 21, 2012, Wells Fargo agreed to undertake an internal review to determine whether there were African-American and/or Hispanic borrowers who received subprime Wells Fargo loans from the bank's retail channel who might have qualified for prime loans from the retail channel. The consent order provided that any borrowers identified pursuant to the review would be compensated in an amount commensurate with the amounts paid to borrowers who received subprime loans from the bank's wholesale division. As a result of its review, Wells Fargo identified nearly 4,000 retail subprime borrowers who are eligible for compensation. With the additional compensation to retail subprime borrowers, the Division's settlement with Wells Fargo totals $234.3 million. The complaint, filed on July 12, 2012, alleged that Wells Fargo engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in its mortgage lending from 2004 through 2009. The complaint alleged that Wells Fargo discriminated by steering approximately 4,000 African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers, as well as additional retail borrowers, into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were allegedly discriminated against were qualified for Wells Fargo mortgage loans according to Well Fargo's own underwriting criteria. The United States also alleged that, between 2004 and 2009, Wells Fargo discriminated by charging approximately 30,000 African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers higher fees and rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers because of their race or national origin rather than the borrowers' credit worthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk. The consent order provided $125 million in compensation for wholesale borrowers who were allegedly steered into subprime mortgages or who allegedly paid higher fees and rates than white borrowers because of their race or national origin. Wells Fargo was also required to pay $50 million in direct down payment assistance to borrowers in communities around the country where the Department identified large numbers of discrimination victims and which were hard hit by the housing crisis.

United States v. Wellston Corporation d/b/a Wellston Properties (E.D. Wis.)

On July 31, 2000, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Wellston Corporation d/b/a Wellston Properties (E.D. Wis.). The complaint alleged that the defendants conducted a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to tell black testers about apartments that were or would be available at the Tripoli or the Brixen apartments, while providing white testers with information on available apartments. In addition, the investigation revealed that Wellston violated federal law by only letting families with children rent first floor apartments and discouraging families with children from renting apartments at the complex. The Justice Department conducted the testing along with a local fair housing organization, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Counsel. The consent decree required the defendants to pay $50,000 to victims of the discrimination. Any portion of the fund not distributed was to be contributed to local organizations involved in community housing efforts including fair housing. The consent decree required the defendants to train its employees about various aspects of the fair housing laws and market its apartments on a non-discriminatory basis. The Defendants were also required to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States and to market its apartments in a manner that was not discriminatory. The case was referred to the Division by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.

United States ex rel. ADC v. Westchester County, New York (S.D.N.Y.)

On August 10, 2009, the court entered a stipulation and order of settlement resolving United States ex rel. ADC v. Westchester County, New York (S.D.N.Y.). As part of its applications for funding under the HUD grant program, between 2000 and 2008 the County periodically certified that it was meeting its obligations to affirmatively further fair housing. The complaint-in-intervention filed on December 18, 2006, alleged that the County violated the Housing and Community Development Act and the False Claims Act when it failed to identify and address impediments to fair housing to comply with the express conditions of the HUD grants and falsely certified that it had acted to affirmatively further fair housing. To settle the United States' claims under the Housing and Community Development Act, the County has agreed to repay $21.6 million to the County's account with HUD. That amount, along with an additional $30 million of County funds, will be used for the construction of 750 units of fair and affordable housing over the next seven years in areas of the County with low African-American and Hispanic populations. To resolve the False Claims Act claims in the complaint, the County has agreed to pay the United States a total of $30 million, with a credit for the $21.6 million repaid to the County's HUD account. The County will also undertake and fund marketing, public education, and other outreach efforts to promote fair and affordable housing. Finally, the County's compliance with the agreement will be overseen by a court-appointed monitor. The allegations of wrongdoing were first brought to the attention of the United States by the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, a fair-housing advocacy group, which filed a complaint as a whistleblower under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. Those provisions permit the United States to intervene in cases originally commenced by private parties who know of fraud committed against the Government. The Anti-Discrimination Center will receive $7.5 million as part of the False Claims Act settlement.

United States v. West Creek, L.L.C., et al. (D. Del.)

On January 7, 2005, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. West Creek, L.L.C., et al. (D. Del.). The complaint, filed on November 14, 2004, alleged Pettinaro Construction Company, Inc.; Architecture Plus, P.A.; Landmark Engineering, Inc.; Hillcrest Associates, Inc.; Howard L. Robertson, Inc.; and Land Tech, L.L.C. violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct properties with required features for people with disabilities.

The properties are Rockwood Apartments in Bear, Delaware; Bethany Bay Resort Community in Sussex County, Delaware; and West Creek Village in Elkton, Maryland. The consent decree affects 289 ground floor apartments at Rockwood and West Creek Village and 133 condominium units at Bethany Bay Resort Community. The agreement requires accessibility improvements to the apartment units and the complexes' common areas. The agreement also provides $60,000 in damages awards to four individuals and an organization injured by the violations; establishes a $ 400,000 fund to compensate any other individuals injured by the inaccessible housing; and provides up to $350,000 for accessibility improvements to the condominiums at Bethany Bay if private owners desire them. Enhanced accessibility features - including roll-in showers for persons who use wheelchairs - will also be available at all three complexes upon request.

United States v. Westwater Commons Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)

On November 25, 2002, the court approved and entered the parties' consent decree in United States v. Westwater Commons Corp. (S.D.N.Y.), a housing discrimination case that was handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, filed on July 7, 2002, alleged that the defendant, a cooperative housing development, discriminated against a woman and her two minor children on the basis of familial status by refusing to sell her a two-bedroom apartment because a Board member did not want the apartment above her to be occupied by children. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay her $102,500 in damages. The Decree enjoins the defendant from discriminating on the basis of familial status in the future, and specifically prohibits it from asking applicants whether they have children or intend to have children. The Decree also contains mandatory fair housing training and reporting and record-keeping provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

The case was originally referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Wheeling Housing Authority (N.D. W. Va.)

On April 26, 2012, the court entered the consent order and dismissed the case in United States v. Wheeling Housing Authority (N.D. W. Va.), a Fair Housing Act election case. In the complaint, which was filed on January 14, 2011, the Division alleged that the Wheeling Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race and color when it failed to act on the complaints of African-American tenants who were being racially harassed by a white neighbor. The consent order includes monetary damages to the African-American family totaling $18,500 and training and reporting requirements for the Wheeling Housing Authority. The consent also requires the Wheeling Housing Authority to create discrimination complaint procedures.

United States v. WHPC-DWR, LLC (E.D. Wis.)

On September 7, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving the United States' claims in United States v. WHPC-DWR, LLC (E.D. Wis.), an election case brought under the Fair Housing Act on behalf of intervenor-plaintiff Richard Singsime, a person with disabilities. The complaint, filed on July 14, 2010, alleged that WHPC-DWR, LLC, Cardinal Capital Management, Inc., and Dee Luebke discriminated against the complainant when they denied him a reasonable accommodation for a reserved parking space near the entrance of the apartment building where he resided. The consent decree provides for injunctive relief and settles the United States' claims against the defendants; the decree does not resolve Mr. Singsime's claims against the defendants.

United States v. Williams et al. (E.D. Wa.)

On June 18, 1999, the court entered a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Williams et al. (E.D. Wa.). The complaint, filed on November 14, 1997, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination based on national origin (Russian) against the owners and managers of the Park Arms Apartments, a twenty-two unit apartment complex located in Spokane, Washington. The complaint alleged that upon taking ownership and control of Park Arms in November of 1996, the defendants engaged in an intentional and systematic campaign to evict each of the fourteen Russian immigrant families renting at the complex. The complex was populated with Russian families by the former owner, Bob Bethel. Mr. Bethel received tenant referrals from private organizations, such as Catholic Charities, that were assisting the Russian families. Most of the Russian families that rented at Park Arms moved to the United States after seeking protection from religious persecution in the former Soviet Union. The complaint alleged that the defendants' discriminatory actions included issuing no-cause eviction notices to Russian families, making statements to a local agency investigator that it was management's intent to rid the complex of all Russian tenants, making derogatory comments about persons of Russian national origin, and denying certain complex amenities to Russian tenants. The settlement agreement calls for; standard injunctive relief; mandatory training; publication of non-discriminatory policies; establishment of a complaint process; record-keeping and reporting; and payment of $82,000 to plaintiff-intervenors and other aggrieved parties. The agreement shall remain in effect for two years.

United States v. Willis (E.D. Va.)

On June 27, 2011, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Willis (E.D. Va.), an election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed March 30, 2011, alleged that Warner Willis violated the Fair Housing Act by making sexually harassing posts on craigslist.org and sending sexually harassing emails to fair housing testers that also indicated preferences, limitations, or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin with respect to the rental of a dwelling. The decree includes standard injunctive relief and a payment of $500 to the aggrieved person, Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia.

United States v. Wilmark Development Company, et al. (D. Nev.)

On November 29, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Wilmark Development Company, et al. (D. Nev.). The defendants, Wilmark Development Co., Mark Schmidt Construction, and WLW of Nevada, Inc., have agreed to pay a total of $718,000 to make the complex accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint, filed on November 7, 2002, alleged the owner, developer, architect, and site engineer of Green Valley Country Club Apartments in Henderson, Nevada discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct a complex that is accessible to persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act.

The lawsuit alleged that the Green Valley Country Club Apartments were not accessible to persons with disabilities because, among other things, there was no accessible route into the dwellings, the doors in the units were too narrow to allow access by persons using wheelchairs, bathroom walls lack reinforcements needed for the safe installation of grab bars, and the common and public use areas were not accessible.

United States v. Wilson (W.D. Ky.)


On September 9, 2013, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Wilson (W.D. Ky.). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against African-American apartment seekers and making statements indicating a preference for families without children for certain available apartments. This matter was referred by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program. The consent decree contains standard injunctive relief and civil penalties of $22,000.

United States v. Wingo et al. (C.D. CA)

On August 8, 2002, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Wingo et al. (C.D. CA). The complaint, originally filed in December, 2000, and amended on April 10, 2001, alleged that the owners and managers of two apartment complexes engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and by sexually harassing their female tenants. On December 15, 2000, the Division filed a motion to intervene and a brief in intervention to defend the constitutionality of the Fair Housing Act. The defendant had filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Fair Housing Act is unconstitutional insofar as it outlaws racial and sexual harassment in local rental markets. On December 29, 2000, the Division filed a reply brief in support of its Motion to Intervene. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $35,000 in civil penalties and $355,000 into a fund to compensate victims of the defendants' discriminatory conduct. The consent order also bars the manager of the apartment complexes from working in the rental real estate business. In addition, the owners of the complexes are required to train all employees on their obligations under the Fair Housing Act, implement a discrimination complaint policy, retain an independent agency to conduct at least three fair housing tests per year at each of their properties, and submit to monitoring by the Justice Department. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Witherington (S.D. Ala.)

On September 22, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Witherington (S.D. Ala.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, filed on July 23, 2008, alleges that the owners and managers of a mobile home park in Daphne, Alabama discriminated against a HUD complainant and her three minor children on the basis of familial status by denying them a mobile home lot because they had too many children. The defendants also imposed extra fees on residents with children and allowed no more than two children per household to occupy a mobile home. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $13,000 to the complainant and her children, set up a $91,130 victim fund for residents that were charged extra fees for children, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States. The decree also requires defendants to discontinue their discriminatory practices and to obtain fair housing training. The decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States and Jean Joyce, Brandon Billups, Michael Billups and Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. WNY Metro Crown Realty Sales & Appraisal Corp., et al. (W.D.N.Y.)

On May 5, 2004, the court entered a consent order resolving United States and Jean Joyce, Brandon Billups, Michael Billups and Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. WNY Metro Crown Realty Sales & Appraisal Corp., et al. (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on July 13, 2001, alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of family status in the renting of an apartment in West Seneca, New York. The complaint alleged that when the complainant contacted Defendant Marlene Slade to inquire about the apartment on behalf of herself and her two minor children, ages four and six years old, Defendant Slade stated, "I do not rent to mothers who have young children." The complainant filed a complaint with the not-for-profit corporation HOME, which subsequently began an investigation of Defendants' housing rental practices. HOMES' testing confirmed Defendants' refusal to rent to families with children. Under the terms of the consent order the Defendants are: enjoined from discriminating on the basis of familial status; required to affirmatively market the property, maintain records; and pay $7,500 in damages to the Complainants. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Wones, et al. (D. Minn.)

On September 1, 2006, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Wones, et al. (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging sex discrimination. The complaint, filed on December 16, 2004, alleged that the defendant subjected female tenants to conduct including, but not limited to, unwanted verbal sexual advances; unwanted sexual touching; conditioning the terms and conditions of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors; entering the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice; and taking adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.

The consent decree, which has a five year term, contains the following substantive provisions: 1) general injunctive relief that prohibits each defendant from discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting an apartment; 2) a requirement that Robert Wones, who is currently not in the rental business, hire an independent management company, in the event that he acquires more rental property in the Minneapolis area, to take over daily management of each property pursuant to specified guidelines in the decree; and 3) a requirement that Defendants must pay a total of $352,500 to 20 identified aggrieved persons and a $35,000 civil penalty.

United States v. Woodbury Gardens Redevelopment Co. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.)

c

On November 10, 2012, the court entered a settlement agreement in United States v. Woodbury Gardens Redevelopment Co. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on February 14, 2012, alleged that a housing cooperative for senior adults in Woodbury, New York refused to allow a bed-ridden woman with depression, anxiety, severe pulmonary hypertension, cirrhosis and diabetes to keep an emotional support animal during the last year of her life, and then, after she died, threatened to evict her husband if he did not pay fines related to the dog. The settlement agreement requires the defendant to pay the husband $58,750 in damages, adopt an assistance animal policy, attend fair housing training and comply with reporting and record keeping requirements. 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. Workman Family Trust (N.D. Cal.)

On March 4, 2010, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Workman Family Trust (N.D. Cal.). The consent order provides a total of $8,250 in monetary relief to the complainants, as well as standard injunctive relief. The complaint, filed on April 29, 2009, alleged that the defendant discriminated against a mother of a son under 18 years of age, by making statements indicating that they preferred not to rent to families with children. The complaint also named Project Sentinel, a nonprofit fair housing group which conducted testing of the subject complex, as an aggrieved person. The case was originally referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Wren (N.D. Ill.)

On November 18, 2013, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Wren (N.D. Ill.), alleging that the owner and property manager of a two-unit building in the Chicago area discriminated on the bases of disability and familial status.

United States v. Yoder-Shrader Management Company, et al. (C.D. Cal.)

On August 14, 2000, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Yoder-Shrader Management Company, et al. (C.D. Cal.). In its complaint, filed together with the agreement in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on July 31, 2000, the Division alleged that Yoder-Shrader Management Company, a large apartment management company discriminated against apartment seekers on the basis of race and national origin, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. It also alleged that they discriminated against families with children.

The complaint asserted that Yoder-Shrader had discriminated at eight of its apartment complexes by either restricting families to certain units within apartment complexes; instructing certain employees that they were not permitted to rent to Hispanic or African-American prospective renters; and, not telling minority apartment-seekers the same information about the availability of rental units as was provided to whites. Under the terms of the agreement, the company will pay a total of $226,000, including, $151,000 to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, whose complaint led to the initiation of the litigation; at least $65,000 to install children's play equipment at six of their apartment complexes; and, $10,000 in civil penalties. The company also has agreed to: provide fair housing training for its management employees; establish a mediation program for the resolution of any future disputes between tenants and management; allow the Fair Housing Council to test its compliance with the agreement; provide monetary relocation assistance to families who wish to relocate within an apartment complex; and, not pass on the cost of the settlement to its tenants by means of rent increases.

Yoder-Shrader's rental practices had initially been investigated by testers from the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, which subsequently filed a complaint against the company with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Robert Yanofsky, d/b/a South Bank Apartments (S.D. Fla.)

On August 3, 2004, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Robert Yanofsky, d/b/a South Bank Apartments (S.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on February 20, 2003, alleged the defendant, the owner and manager of South Bank Apartments, a 48-unit apartment building in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining and enforcing a lease provision that explicitly prohibited all children under 18 from living in the complex. The complaint also alleged the defendant's actions constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons based on familial status. Under the consent order, the defendant will pay a total of $70,000 to four families with children and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. The owner is also required to inform all tenants of the agreement and to ensure that South Bank Apartment employees are trained in the relevant provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order will remain in effect for two years. 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. Albert Zadow (in his "official capacity" as Marshall of the Village of Vinita Terrace) and the Village of Vinita Terrace, Missouri (E.D. Mo.)

On April 23, 2003, the court entered a settlement agreement in United States v. Albert Zadow (in his "official capacity" as Marshall of the Village of Vinita Terrace) and the Village of Vinita Terrace, Missouri (E.D. Mo.). The complaint filed on December 5, 2001, alleged that the Defendant, Albert Zadow and the Village of Vinita Terrace discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race, and intimidated, threatened, and interfered with them in the exercise of, and on account of their having exercised, their federally-protected fair housing rights. The complaint alleged the defendant Albert Zadow, who is white, interfered with, intimidated and threatened real estate sales associate (FS)and prospective homebuyer (CV) who are African-American while they exercised their respective rights to show and view residential real estate listed for sale in contemplation of a purchase. The property was owned by (BK) and listed for sale by sales associate, (MK) who are white. Defendant Zadow lives on the same block as the subject property. When sales associate (FS) showed the property to (CV), the defendant drove slowly by in his patrol car and parked nearby. After (FS) showed the property to Defendant, Zadow demanded (FS) driver’s license then threatened to have her arrested if she did not accept a ticket. The settlement agreement requires the defendants to: issue a written letter of apology; host and attend a training session on the Fair Housing Act; and pay the complainants $39,500.

United States v. Zellpac Inc., and Guy Emery (S.D. Ill.)

A trial was held in Benton, Illinois on June 19-20, 2006 in the case of United States v. Zellpac Inc., and Gary Emery (S.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on February 17, 2005, alleged that the defendant Guy Emery, the rental manager discriminated on the basis of disability. In late November 2001, the complainant responded to an ad in the local newspaper for an apartment and told defendant Guy Emery that he was looking for an apartment for his mother who used a wheelchair. On or about December 17, 2001, the complainant met with defendant Guy Emery and viewed the apartment. During this meeting, the plaintiff again told defendant Guy Emery that he was looking at the apartment on behalf of his mother who used a wheelchair. On or about December 17, 2001, Guy Emery and Zellpac, Inc., refused to rent to plaintiff's mother. According to the complaint, Defendant Guy Emery told the son he would not rent to her because he did not want the liability of her slipping on the ice and getting injured. The complainant told Mr. Emery that refusing to rent to her because she used a wheelchair violated federal anti-discrimination laws. The Defendant Emery responded "so sue me."

At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Zellpac and Emery had violated the disability provision’s of the Fair Housing Act. Although the jury answered "No" to the verdict question "Do you find by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to (DNA), or otherwise making an apartment unavailable to her, because she used a wheelchair?" They awarded damages based on their "Yes" to "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by Guy Emery's statement, either to (CN) or (DNA), with respect to the rental of an apartment, that indicated a preference, limitations, or discrimination, or an intention to make such a preference, limitation, or discrimination, on the basis that (DNA) used a wheelchair." The jury awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages, $3,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Emery, and $7,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Zellpac, Inc. On February 27, 2006, the United States filed an Opposition to Defendant Zellpac’s Inc.’s Motion For Partial Judgment.

United States v. Zenith of Nevada, Inc., f/k/a Perma-Bilt, et al. (D. Nev.)

On October 31, 2005, the court entered the settlement agreement resolving United States v. Zenith of Nevada, Inc., f/k/a Perma-Bilt, et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Election case alleged the defendant discriminated on the basis of disability when they refused to test building studs for mold and cancelled the complainants' purchase agreement after learning the complainants' children had severe asthma. The complaint, filed on October 21, 2005, alleged that the complainants, a married couple with two children with asthma, had a purchase agreement to buy a single family house under construction. The complainants' noticed mold and asked that the wood be tested and treated and did not wish to cancel the agreement. The defendant's attorney stated "Perma-Bilt did not contemplate being required to build a completely mold-free or ‘sterile' home to accommodate the hypersensitivity of your asthmatic children" and cancelled the agreement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement the defendants shall post non-discriminatory policies, train employees, provide periodic reports to the United States, pay $50,000 to the adult complainants, and $5,000 in trust to each of the two children.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (E.D. Pa.)

On April 28, 2011, the United States filed a statement of interest in support of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). In this case, USAA sought to enjoin PHRC's investigation of an individual's Fair Housing Act complaint. The complaint, which was referred to PHRC for investigation by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleged that USAA discriminated on the basis of nation origin in making a home loan. USAA's injunction lawsuit alleged that federal banking law preempts state agencies, including PHRC, which enforce state laws prohibiting lending discrimination from investigating a federally chartered bank. The statement of interest argued that preemption does not apply because the Fair Housing Act specifically provides for state agencies to investigate housing discrimination complaints when they are certified by HUD as having laws and enforcement procedures that are substantially equivalent to the federal law. PHRC has been certified by HUD as one such agency.

On August 23, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of PHRC and refused to enjoin the investigation. The court's opinion held PHRC's investigation "is not subject to federal preemption" because it is specifically authorized and required by federal law," as set out in the Fair Housing Act. The court reasoned that granting USAA's request "would render the FHA anti-discrimination provision a nullity and unenforceable where a federal savings and loan institution discriminated" and "would frustrate the antidiscrimination enforcement scheme intended by Congress." The court also stated that federal banking law does not preempt state antidiscrimination laws that require banks to follow the same requirements as federal fair lending law.

United States v. Zaremba Management, et al. (N.D. Ohio)

On September 5, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Zaremba Management, et al. (N.D. Ohio), a pattern or practice FHA case alleging familial status discrimination. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2013, alleged that Zaremba and Ivanskis maintained a policy of refusing to rent units at Linden House to families with children. It also alleged that the Linden House has a policy of evicting tenants or asking tenants to relocate if they have children while living at Linden House. Pursuant to the consent order, the defendants agree to certain injunctive relief, and to pay a total of $100,000: $90,000 for victims of discrimination and a $10,000 civil penalty. This case was developed through the Division's testing program.

General Information Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
 
Leadership
Steven H. Rosenbaum
Chief
Contact
Housing & Civil
Enforcement Section
(202) 514-4713
TTY - 202-305-1882
FAX - (202) 514-1116
To Report an Incident of Housing Discrimination:
1-800-896-7743
Mailing Contact
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, NWB
Washington, D.C. 20530

Email: fairhousing@usdoj.gov

Stay Connected YouTube MySpace Twitter Facebook Sign Up for E-Mail Updates Subscribe to News Feeds