IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                          Plaintiff,

v.                                                                          CASE NO.

RESURRECTION RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY, INC.; and
RESURRECTION HEALTH
CARE, INC.,

                           Defendants.

The United States files this Consent Order simultaneously with its Complaint against Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. and Resurrection Health Care, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Defendants") alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C.§§ 3601-3619 (the Act).

Defendant Resurrection Health Care, Inc. ("RHC") is the owner of Resurrection Retirement Community ("RRC"), which provides rental housing for persons 62 years of age and older which is located in Chicago, Illinois. RRC consists of approximately 500 apartment units and extensive common use areas. The common use areas include among other things a dining area, a bank, laundry facilities, and several common area rooms used for recreational purposes. RRC provides both housing with no assisted living services and housing with assisted living services.

Defendant Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Resurrection Health Care, Inc.

In October 2000, the United States Department of Justice began an investigation to determine if Defendants were complying with the Fair Housing Act. As part of its investigation, the Department of Justice sent testers to RRC seeking apartment units for persons with a disability. ⁽¹⁾ Testers are persons who, without the intent to rent an apartment unit, seek information about the availability of dwellings to determine whether a housing provider is engaged in discriminatory conduct in violation of the Act.

In April 2001, the Department of Justice conducted a test in which two testers visited RRC. The first tester posed as someone searching for an apartment for her uncle who used a wheelchair. The second tester posed as someone searching for an apartment for her father-in-law who did not have a disability or use a wheelchair. The first tester met with the marketing agent of RRC who asked the tester if her uncle was "healthy and independent?" The tester responded that her uncle was perfectly fine, independent, and used a wheelchair. The marketing agent then began to question the tester as to the nature and severity of her uncle's disability. The agent also claimed that the apartment units were not "wheelchair equipped." The agent then told the tester that she should consider an assisted living facility. Finally, the agent took the tester to a nurse who worked at RRC. The nurse also asked questions about the nature and severity of the person's disability and stated that because he used a wheelchair "[e]verybody would probably come down on him. . . he doesn't need that kind of aggravation. . . it would not be fair to him . . . he won't be comfortable in his own apartment." The nurse then suggested that the tester look at other "retirement homes" in the area for her uncle's own "convenience." Approximately two hours after the first tester left RRC, the second tester visited the development and met with the same marketing agent. The marketing agent asked if the tester's father-in-law was healthy to which the tester responded that he was healthy. The agent did not ask the tester any other questions regarding the health or "independence" of the tester's father-in-law.

In August 2001, the Department of Justice conducted another test. The first tester was sent to RRC posing as someone who was looking for an apartment for his father who used a wheelchair. The tester met with the same marketing agent who asked the tester if his father was "independent? Able to maintain an apartment- take care of himself- all that good stuff?" The tester informed the marketing agent that he was independent and able to take care of himself. The tester later revealed that his father used a wheelchair. The agent responded by stating, "[o]h. He definitely cannot move in here in a wheelchair. What is he in a wheelchair for?" The Agent then made discouraging statements to the tester stating that the apartments at RRC are not "wheelchair equipped" and added, that anyone who had lived in Resurrection who used a wheelchair "extensively damaged" their unit. The Agent also stated that the dining area of RRC was not wheelchair accessible. The United States did not observe any barriers to accessibility in the dining area during a site visit to RRC. The tester asked the agent and the director of RRC if a contractor could make modifications to make it accessible to his father. The agent and director informed him that they were not "ruling it out," but that the tester's father would have to come in for an "assessment" before they would decide whether his father could make accessibility modifications. A second and third tester subsequently visited RRC seeking an apartment for a relative who did not have a disability or use a wheelchair. The marketing agent did not ask these testers disability based questions, nor steer them to independent living facilities.

The testing and subsequent investigation conducted by the Department of Justice revealed, among other things, that Defendants treat applicants and tenants with disabilities differently in the terms and conditions of tenancy at RRC than other non-disabled applicants and tenants. Specifically, the investigation revealed that Defendants, through their agents, are:

1. Imposing as a term or condition of tenancy that applicants and tenants must be healthy and able to live independently;

2. Limiting the number of hours that tenants with a disability may receive assistive services which are necessary because of their disability in their apartment units, including services which are arranged and paid for by such tenants;

3. Inquiring to determine whether an applicant for an apartment unit at Resurrection has a disability and inquiring as to the nature and severity of such disability;

4. Requiring selected applicants to submit to a medical assessment conducted by an employee of Defendants as a term or condition of tenancy;

5. Discouraging persons with a disability from renting apartment units at Resurrection because of their disability; and

6. Steering persons with a disability from RRC to assisted living facilities because of their disability.

Based on the investigation, policies and procedures implemented and enforced by the Defendants, as well as the statements and conduct of the Defendants, the United States alleges in its Complaint that the Defendants: (i) denied or otherwise made housing unavailable to a group of persons because of disability in violation of § 804(f)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1); (ii) discriminated against persons with disabilities in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of housing, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, in violation of § 804(f)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2); (iii) have refused to make reasonable accommodations in their rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing in violation of § 804(f)(3)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); and (iv) made statements with respect to the rental of dwellings that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on disability, in violation of § 804(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). The United States further alleges that this conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Act and a denial of rights under the Act, which raises an issue of general public importance.

The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. The United States and Defendants desire to avoid costly and protracted litigation and have voluntarily agreed, as indicated by the signatures below, to resolve the United States' claims against the Defendants without the necessity of trial.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

1. Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with them are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the basis of disability as prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§§ 3601 et seq.

2. Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, shall, with respect to rental housing at RRC, refrain from the following:

   1. Imposing as a term or condition of tenancy that applicants and tenants must be healthy and able to live independently of any assistive services which are necessary because of such applicant's or tenant's disability, including services which are arranged and paid for by such applicant or tenant;

   2. Limiting the number of hours that tenants with a disability may receive assistive services which are necessary because of their disability in their apartment units, including services which are arranged and paid for by such tenants;

   3. Making statements and/or applying policies and practices indicating that persons cannot or should not live at RRC if they have difficulty walking and/or use a walker, wheelchair, motorized scooter or other assistive device for mobility;

   4. Inquiring to determine whether an applicant for an apartment unit at RRC has a disability and inquiring as to the nature and severity of such disability, except in so far as such questions relate to whether the person's tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others; ⁽²⁾

   5. Requiring applicants to submit to a medical assessment conducted by an employee of Defendants as a term or condition of tenancy;

   6. Discouraging persons with a disability from renting apartment units at RRC because of their disability; and

   7. Steering persons with a disability from RRC to assisted living facilities because of their disability.

3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Consent Order, Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, shall adopt objective, non-discriminatory standards and procedures for marketing and showing rental housing units, processing rental applications, establishing waiting lists for rental units, approving applicants for available dwelling units and/or positions on waiting lists, and tenant rules at RRC. These standards and procedures shall be applied to all applicants, prospective applicants, and tenants without regard to disability. A copy of these standards and procedures shall be provided to counsel for the United States within thirty days after the date of entry of this Order. These standards and procedures shall be implemented within fifteen days after their receipt by the United States, unless the United States objects to the proposed standards and procedures in writing within those fifteen days. In that event, the standards and procedures shall not be implemented until the parties have resolved the dispute or, in the event they are unable to resolve it, the Court has resolved it. Upon their implementation, Defendants and their rental agents and employees shall adhere to these written policies and procedures.

4. A summary of these standards and procedures shall be posted in the rental office at RRC and in any office where there is rental activity and/or personal contact with applicants for, or tenants of, rental units. A copy of the summary of these standards and procedures shall be provided upon request to current tenants and to any applicant for a rental unit at RRC. This summary shall include the telephone number of RRC's headquarters office and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (1-800-765-9372) in the event an individual has a complaint. For the duration of this Order, these rental standards and procedures may be modified only upon thirty days prior written notice to counsel for the United States. In the event that the United States objects to the proposed change in writing within twenty days of receipt of notice, the change shall not be implemented until the parties have resolved their dispute or, in the event they are unable to resolve it, the Court has resolved it.
   III. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF DEFENDANTS' NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

5. Defendants shall post and prominently display in the rental office of RRC and all other RHC housing facilities, a sign no smaller than ten (10) by fourteen (14) inches indicating that all dwellings are available for rent on a nondiscriminatory basis. A poster that comports with 24 C.F.R. Part 110 will satisfy this requirement.

6. For the duration of this Consent Order, in all future advertising in newspapers, and on pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature regarding RRC, Defendants shall place, in a conspicuous location, a statement that the dwelling units include features for persons with disabilities required by the federal Fair Housing Act. During the period that this Consent Order is in effect, all of RRC's advertising, pamphlets, brochures, web site, and other promotional literature which display human models shall include at least one model using a manual or motorized wheelchair.

   IV. EDUCATION AND TRAINING