Skip to main content

Housing and Civil Enforcement

Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

(Updated February 24, 2026)

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division is responsible for the Department's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), along with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Housing Rights subpart of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA 2022).

Under the FHA, the Department of Justice may bring lawsuits where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. The Department of Justice also brings cases where a housing discrimination complaint has been investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD has issued a charge of discrimination, and one of the parties to the case has "elected" to go to federal court. In FHA cases, the Department can obtain injunctive relief, including affirmative requirements for training and policy changes, monetary damages and, in pattern or practice cases, civil penalties.

Several cases we have filed or resolved recently exemplify our efforts to ensure the availability of the housing opportunities guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act. (1) The complaints and settlement documents for the cases discussed in the text, as well as other cases handled by the Housing Section, can be found on the Housing Section’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/caselist.php

While we endeavor to ensure that the electronic copies of court documents available on this site are complete and accurate (apart from formatting changes necessitated by the conversion to HTML or PDF format), errors or omissions may occur. The official versions of court documents are the versions available from the court.

Design and Construction
Public Accommodations (Title II)
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Disability
Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Race, Color, National Origin, Familial Status and Religion
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)
Sexual Harassment
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Other


 

Design and Construction

  • On April 29, 2025, the court approved a consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendants Lettire Construction, Lettire 124th Street LLC, UBC Chestnut Commons LLC, and UBC Sumner LLC in United States v. Lettire Constr. Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.).  Under the settlement, Lettire Construction will make the necessary retrofits at the Atrium at Summer and pay a civil penalty of $20,000, and the other three defendants will each pay a civil penalty of $10,000. Also on April 29, 2025, the court approved a consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendant East 124th Street LLC.  Under the settlement, this defendant will make the necessary retrofits at the Tapestry, pay a civil penalty of $10,000, and pay compensatory damages of $20,000 to individuals who were harmed by the inaccessible conditions at the Tapestry. The complaint, which was filed on January 16, 2025, by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, alleged a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/denial of rights by Lettire Construction, a developer of residential rental apartment buildings in New York City, and others who designed and constructed The Tapestry, a 185-unit building in Manhattan, Chestnut Commons, a 275-unit building in Brooklyn, and Atrium at Sumner, a 190-unit building in Brooklyn, without required accessible features. Litigation is continuing against the two remaining defendants.
  • On March 25 and 27, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed two proposed settlement agreements in United States v. Toll Bros., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), regarding accessibility retrofits at, respectively, The Kendrick, in Needham, Massachusetts, and Emerson at Edge on the Hudson, in Sleepy Hollow, New York.  The complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2024, alleges that several Toll-related entities and others violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with the required accessibility features.  The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  The complaint is also based on evidence obtained by the Department of Justice’s Fair Housing Testing Program.  On June 25, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant Lendlease Construction LMB Inc.  The decree requires Lendlease not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty.  On July 28, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant GreenbergFarrow Architecture, Inc.  The decree requires GreenbergFarrow not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty.  On January 8, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a second amended complaint.  On March 1, 2025, the court approved a settlement agreement regarding retrofits at Parc at Princeton Junction, in Princeton, New Jersey.  On March 4, 2025, the court approved a proposed settlement agreement regarding retrofits at another property, The Morgan, in Jersey City, New Jersey.
  • On January 16, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/denial of rights complaint in United States v. Lettire Constr. Corp. (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that Lettire Construction, a developer of residential rental apartment buildings in New York City, and others designed and constructed The Tapestry, a 185-unit building in Manhattan, Chestnut Commons, a 275-unit building in Brooklyn, and Atrium at Sumner, a 190-unit building in Brooklyn, without required accessible features.  Also on January 16, the USAO submitted to the court a proposed consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendants Lettire Construction, Lettire 124th Street LLC, UBC Chestnut Commons LLC, and UBC Sumner LLC. Under the settlement, Lettire Construction will make the necessary retrofits at the Atrium and pay a civil penalty of $20,000, and the other three defendants will each pay a civil penalty of $10,000.  On January 17, the USAO submitted to the court a proposed consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendant East 124th Street LLC.  Under the settlement, this defendant will make the necessary retrofits at the Tapestry, pay a civil penalty of $10,000, and pay compensatory damages of $20,000 to individuals who were harmed by the inaccessible conditions at the Tapestry.

Public Accommodations (Title II)

  • On June 9, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara, et al. (Jerusalem Coffee House) (N.D. Cal.).  The complaint alleges that the owners of the Jerusalem Coffee House in Oakland, California, discriminated against and refused to serve Jewish customers based on their race and religion.  The complaint alleges that, on at least three separate occasions over a four-month period, the coffee house’s owner, Fathi Abdulrahim Harara, and his employees refused to serve two Jewish customers, who were wearing baseball caps displaying the Star of David, and ordered them to leave the premises.  Harara and the employees also followed these individuals outside and continued to hurl threats and insults at them.  The complaint alleges that the defendants have a policy or practice that denies Jewish individuals the full and equal enjoyment of access to the services, accommodations, and privileges of the Jerusalem Coffee House based on race and religion, in violation of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including by enjoining defendants from discriminating against Jewish customers and to remedy the effects of their discriminatory policies and practices.
  • On February 5, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. AWH Orlando Property, LLC, d/b/a DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Orlando at SeaWorld (M.D. Fla.).  The complaint, which was filed on January 16, 2025, alleged that the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Orlando at SeaWorld (the “DoubleTree”) adopted and implemented a discriminatory policy against hosting guests of Arab descent, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by unilaterally canceling a conference that was to be held by the Arab America Foundation, a non-profit educational and cultural organization. The consent order requires the defendant to issue a statement to the Arab America Foundation that all guests are welcome at the DoubleTree, establish a written anti-discrimination policy, notify employees of their obligations under the consent decree and defendant’s commitment to ensuring equal access to the DoubleTree, provide training on Title II, conduct outreach to Arab American groups, and make regular reports to the department to demonstrate its compliance with the consent decree.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons (RLUIPA)

  • On September 5, 2025, the United States executed a settlement agreement with the defendant resolving the United States’ claims in United States v. Brunswick (S.D. Ga.). The complaint, which was filed on December 16, 2024, alleges that the City of Brunswick violated RLUIPA in its many efforts to shut down The Well, a daytime resource center for those experiencing homelessness, run as an expression of The Well’s staff and leadership’s faith. The Settlement Agreement requires the City to dismiss its state court lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against The Well, post notice of the Settlement Agreement on the City’s website, circulate the Settlement Agreement to relevant employees, include a link to file RLUIPA complaints on its website, train the City Commissioners on the substantive provisions of RLUIPA, and periodically report on compliance to the United States. The Settlement Agreement will be in place for three years.
  • On July 29, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Yeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals et al., (S.D.N.Y.) a private lawsuit alleging that the Zoning Board of Appeals and Town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by making a final determination that prevented the Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva from engaging in its proposed educational religious use.  The Zoning Board of Appeals and Town had concluded that the Yeshiva’s educational religious use was really a “summer camp,” a use not permitted in the Town. This determination prevented the Yeshiva from developing its proposed religious use anywhere in the Town.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that the plaintiff’s claims are not “prudentially ripe,” i.e., the claims are not ready to be heard by the Court, because the plaintiff had not sought a use variance from the Town. The department’s statement of interest refutes this contention, explaining that the plaintiff’s claims are ripe because the Board of Appeals made a final determination that plaintiff’s proposed religious use was not allowed anywhere in the Town and that in such a situation, the Yeshiva was not required to apply for a variance before seeking relief under RLUIPA.
  • On May 20, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Troy, Idaho (D. Idaho), alleging that the City of Troy, Idaho, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it denied a conditional use permit (CUP) application sought by Christ Church, a small evangelical church.  The lawsuit alleges that Christ Church had outgrown the space where it had been worshipping and was unable to find a space to rent.  It then sought a CUP to operate a church in the City’s C-1 zoning district, where nonreligious assembly uses such as clubs, museums, auditoriums, and art galleries were allowed.  Local residents vociferously opposed the Church’s CUP application, and many of their written and verbal comments reflected animus against Christ Church’s beliefs.  In its denial of the Church’s CUP application, the City cited the fact that the public was “heavily against” it and that the “great majority of the city residents” opposed granting the CUP.  The lawsuit alleges that the City’s denial of the CUP imposed a substantial burden on Christ Church and was based on the community’s discriminatory animus against the Church.  It also alleges that the City’s zoning code treats religious assembly use worse than nonreligious assembly use.  The lawsuit alleges violations of RLUIPA’s substantial burden, equal terms, and discrimination provisions.
  • On April 29, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Grace New England v. Town of Weare (D.N.H.), a private lawsuit alleging that the Town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by threating fines against a small home-based church and its pastor. The fines were allegedly an attempt to force the church to undergo the Town’s site plan review process even though New Hampshire state law prohibits local governments from requiring this process for religious land use. The Town filed a motion for summary judgment, contending in part that the plaintiffs’ claims are not ready to be heard by the court because the plaintiffs have not gone through the full site review process and have not exhausted potential administrative appeals. The department’s statement of interest refutes these contentions, explaining that the plaintiffs’ claims are ripe due to the nature of the RLUIPA claims and the Town’s cease-and-desist order. The statement of interest also explains that RLUIPA does not require a plaintiff to pursue every possible administrative appeal before filing a lawsuit.
  • On April 18, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in The Summit Church-Homestand Heights Baptist Church, Inc. v. Chatham County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners (M.D.N.C.), a lawsuit alleging that the County violated RLUIPA by denying the church’s application to rezone several parcels of land to allow the church to build a new place of worship. Summit Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring the County to approve Summit Church’s rezoning request and associated site plan. The County responded in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction with a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in part that the zoning decision is a “legislative act” under state law and that the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction under RLUIPA to grant injunctive relief to the church, requiring the Court to dismiss the complaint. The department’s statement of interest argues that the church has standing to pursue its RLUIPA claims and that its alleged injury is redressable through the relief it seeks, including injunctive relief that would require the County to grant the rezoning.
  • On April 17, 2025, the court issued an opinion ruling in favor of the plaintiff, granting a preliminary injunction on the church’s RLUIPA substantial burden and equal terms claims, and adopting several of the arguments from the United States’ statement of interest in Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.).  The lawsuit alleges that the City’s professional district allows, as of right, nonreligious assembly uses like museums and art galleries, but only allows religious assembly uses with the City’s discretionary approval of a conditional use permit (CUP).  The lawsuit alleges that Anchor Stone is a small Christian church of first-generation Chinese and Taiwanese Americans.  It obtained space within the City’s professional district and applied for a CUP to operate a Church but was denied by the City.  The Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order allowing it to worship at its property.  The Department’s statement of interest, which was filed on March 14, 2025, supports the Church’s argument that the zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the City has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
  • On April 16, 2025, the court issued an opinion ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and expressly referencing and adopting several of the arguments from the United States’s statement of interest in Lawrence County Recovery v. Village of Coal Grove (S.D. Ohio). The United States’ statement of interest, the United States filed a Statement of Interest The case concerns housing for persons in recovery from substance abuse disorders, individuals who qualify as disabled persons under the FHA. Lawrence County Recovery operates two self-directed “independent living” homes with no on-site staff in Coal Grove for persons in addiction recovery; each home has a maximum of six residents. Plaintiffs filed suit following the Village of Coal Grove’s attempts to prohibit housing for persons in recovery in a variety of ways, including enacting a moratorium on recovery homes. The United States’s Statement of Interest which was filed on December 6, 2024, clarifies that the FHA extends to persons in addiction recovery and that municipalities are subject to the FHA. Ensuring that courts recognize the FHA’s protections extend to persons recovering from addiction is particularly important in Ohio, where rates of deaths from drug overdoses remain notably higher than the national average.
  • On April 11, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Muslims on Long Islands v. Township of Oyster Bay (E.D.N.Y.), a lawsuit alleging that the Town violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing parking provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than secular places of assembly.  The lawsuit alleges that Muslims on Long Island (MOLI) has worshipped at a mosque in Bethpage, Long Island, since 1998, but that it has grown and now needs additional space for prayer, religious education, ritual washing and religious counseling. In its complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction, MOLI claims that the Town’s recently revised zoning code imposes more onerous parking requirements on houses of worship than on comparable nonreligious places of assembly like theaters, museums and libraries.  MOLI alleges that the Town denied its application to expand its house of worship, relying on the Town’s recently revised parking code.  The Department’s statement of interest supports MOLI’s argument that the zoning code treats religious uses less favorably than non-religious uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the Town has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
  • On March 18, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Sugar Grove Township, Pennsylvania, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on January 30, 2025, alleges that Sugar Grove Township, PA (“Township”), and the Sugar Grove Area Sewage Authority (“SUGASA”) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by enacting and enforcing two ordinances against Old Order Amish residents: one mandating that certain households connect to the Township’s and SUGASA’s municipal sewage system, which requires the use of an electric grinder pump, and one banning privies on property intended for permanent residence.  The lawsuit alleges that these acts substantially burdened Old Order Amish residents’ religious exercise, which restricts the use of electricity and requires adherents to remain separate and apart from the modern world.  The consent order requires the Township and SUGASA to exempt certain Old Order Amish households from mandatory connection to the municipal sewage system, permit Old Order Amish residents to use privies on their properties, and forgive any outstanding liens, fines, or other monetary penalties against Old Order Amish households for prior noncompliance with the two ordinances. Among other things, the consent order also requires the Township and SUGASA to train their officials and employees on RLUIPA’s provisions, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and provide reports to the United States.
  • On March 14, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a lawsuit alleging that the City violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than secular places of assembly.  The lawsuit alleges that the City’s professional district allows, as of right, nonreligious assembly uses like museums and art galleries, but only allows religious assembly uses with the City’s discretionary approval of a conditional use permit (CUP).  The lawsuit alleges that Anchor Stone is a small Christian church of first-generation Chinese and Taiwanese Americans.  It obtained space within the City’s professional district and applied for a CUP to operate a Church but was denied by the City.  The Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order allowing it to worship at its property.  The Department’s statement of interest supports the Church’s argument that the zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the City has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
  • On March 3, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Hope Rising Community Church v. Borough of Clarion (W.D. Pa.), a lawsuit alleging that the Borough violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than similar secular assemblies.  The lawsuit alleges that the Church has outgrown its current facility and that the only suitable property in the Borough is located in the Borough’s C-2 Commercial District.  This District does not allow houses of worship, but permits nonreligious assembly uses like theaters and civic/cultural buildings.  When the Church approached the Borough about using the property for religious purposes, Borough officials allegedly told the Church that the Borough would not grant zoning approval and that the Borough did not “need any more Churches.”  The Borough filed a motion to dismiss the Church’s lawsuit, arguing in part that the Church had failed to properly allege an equal terms claim under RLUIPA and that the Church was not sufficiently injured by the Borough’s conduct to assert such a claim.  The statement of interest refutes these contentions, explaining that the Church has properly alleged an equal terms claim and that the Church, which cannot develop its proposed religious facility, has suffered a concrete injury.   

Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Disability

  • On January 26, 2026, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. Nourse, et al. (D. Idaho).  The “election” complaint, which was filed by the United States on October 9, 2024, alleges that defendants, the managers and owners of Decoy RV Park in Caldwell, Idaho, discriminated based on disability, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants refused a reasonable accommodation to a tenant with disabilities by prohibiting her from keeping her assistance dog because it was over fifteen pounds and by charging her a “pet fee.”  The complaint also alleges that the manager made discriminatory statements that defendants would not allow assistance animals that were over fifteen pounds. Finally, the complaint alleges that defendants retaliated against the tenant by evicting her shortly after she requested the accommodation and filed a fair housing complaint against defendants with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $20,000 in damages to the complainant, to participate in fair housing training and to adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy.  The case was referred to the Division after HUD received the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On January 12, 2026, the United States entered into a Settlement Agreement in United States v. Greenbriar Partners, LLC, et al. (N.D. Fla.). The Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” complaint, which was filed on January 10, 2025, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by denying the complainant’s request to live with an assistance animal.  The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $9,750 in damages to the complainant, adopt a new assistance animals accommodations policy, attend fair housing training, and provide a neutral rental reference for the complainant. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On August 22, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the United States’ allegations in United States v. Tammy Estrada, et al. (E.D. Wis.).  The complaint, which was filed on November 19, 2024, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow the complainants to live with their assistance animals and by retaliating against them for exercising their fair housing rights. Ramiro Estrada was also named as a defendant in the case.  The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $20,000 in damages to the complainants, adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy, attend fair housing training, and provide a neutral rental reference.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On August 7, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. Onyx Asset Management LLC, et al. (D.N.H.). The Fair Housing Act “election” complaint, which was filed on January 6, 2025, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by denying the complainant’s request to live with an assistance animal.  MVV, LLC and Jonathan Warren are also named as defendants in the case.  The settlement agreement prevents the defendants from future discrimination on the basis of disability under the Fair Housing Act and requires them to adopt and notify residents of a reasonable accommodations policy, obtain Fair Housing Act training, and adopt nondiscrimination policies.  The settlement agreement resolves the United States’ claims against the defendants; the complainant has intervened and will continue the litigation.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On July 22, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement to resolve United States v. Gregory Estates LLC, et al. (W.D. Mo.).  The complaint, which was filed on November 18, 2024, by the United States Attorney’s Office, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow complainant to live with his assistance animal and by terminating his tenancy.  Parker Gregory was also named as a defendant in the case.  The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $17,000 in damages to the complainant, to attend fair housing training, to adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy, and to send reports to the United States Attorney’s Office for three years.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On July 3, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. Menendez, et al. (D.P.R.).  The “election” complaint , which was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office on June 6, 2022, alleges that the owners and managers of a four-unit apartment building in San Juan, Puerto Rico and the real estate agent retained to find tenants for the property discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow the complainants, one of whom is legally blind, to rent a unit because they had a guide dog.  Josefina Amparo De La Fuente-Mundo, Alicia De La Fuente-Mundo, and Rosalia De La Fuente-Mundo are also named as defendants in the complaint.  The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $12,000 in damages to the complainants, to attend fair housing training, to adopt a new reasonable Menedez accommodations policy, and to send reports to the United States for three years.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On June 17, 2025, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Five Properties, LLC and APMT, LLC, doing business as Tonti Management (E.D. La.).  The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Kenner, Louisiana discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to grant a tenant’s requests for a reasonable accommodation to live with her emotional assistance animal and retaliated for the exercise of rights protected by the FHA.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On February 24, 2025, the court entered three consent orders in United States & Vollmer v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.).  The complaint, which was filed on April 11, 2024, alleged that defendants discriminated against a tenant on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by failing to grant her request to transfer to a ground-floor unit and threatening her with an early lease termination fee. The owner, property management company, property manager, housing authority, and relocation company were all defendants in this matter. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The consent order with the owner and property manager includes $16,666 in monetary damages for the complainant and $3,334 in attorney’s fees for the complainant’s attorney. The consent orders with the housing authority and relocation company each include $14,167 in monetary damages for the complainant and $3,333 in attorney’s fees for the complainant’s attorney. All three consent decrees also include mandatory fair housing training for current and future employees, an updated reasonable accommodation and modification policy, and a two-year compliance and reporting period.
  • On January 29, 2025, the court entered a final consent order in United States v. Kailua Village Condominium Association, et al. (D. Haw.), requiring defendants Jacqueline Frame and Kona Now LLC to pay $50,000 in damages to the complainant and to obtain fair housing training.  The complaint , which was filed on August 19, 2024, alleges that a homeowners association, board members, property managers, sellers, and selling agents of a unit at a condominium complex in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii violated discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to sell a unit to a man with paraplegia, subjecting him to discriminatory terms and conditions, making discriminatory statements, refusing to make reasonable accommodations, refusing to permit reasonable modifications, and harassing him.  On October 11, 2024, the court entered a partial consent order with all of the defendants except for Ms. Frame and Kona Now, requiring them to pay $112,500 in damages to the complainant, obtain fair housing training, adopt a reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications policy, and submit to retention and reporting requirements for a four-year period.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Race, Color, National Origin, Familial Status and Religion

  • On August 18, 2025, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Fox, et al. (W.D. Okla.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to rent to the complainant upon learning that she would be living with her then-three-year-old son. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On July 9, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in in United States v. Payseur (D.N.J.).  The Fair Housing Act “election” complaint, which was filed on January 15, 2025, alleges that the defendants—Juliet Payseur and 20-22 McGregor Avenue, LLC—discriminated against a Black tenant based on race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the landlord demanded higher rent and other less favorable lease terms from the tenant than a similarly situated White tenant; and that the landlord retaliated against the tenant after she reported this discrimination. The complainant has moved to intervene in the lawsuit, and the settlement agreement resolves the United States’ claims against the defendants. The settlement agreement prevents the defendants from future discrimination on the basis of race and/or color under the Fair Housing Act; bars Ms. Payseur from personally performing property management responsibilities at, or contacting tenants of, defendants’ residential rental properties; and imposes requirements for Fair Housing Act training, nondiscrimination policies and advertising. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On June 6, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. Airbnb, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.) with Sandlot05 LLC and Jarrod Blake. The complaint, which was filed on January 10, 2025, alleges that Airbnb and property owners Sandlot05 LLC and Jarrod Blake discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when they refused to rent complainants an apartment because they have children.  Under the settlement, Sandlot05 LLC and Jarrod Blake will implement a written nondiscrimination policy and a formal complaint procedure that requires them to comply with the FHA, include a statement that they are equal housing opportunity providers in any new advertising for their units, require virtual live training on the FHA, the settlement agreement, and their nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, report regularly to the United States, and pay compensatory damages of $15,000 to complainants who were harmed by the refusal to rent to them on the basis of their familial status. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  This settlement does not resolve the United States’ claims against Airbnb, Inc.
  • On March 7, 2025, the United States filed a second Statement of Interest in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (S.D.N.Y.), a private Fair Housing Act lawsuit alleging that the Town of Forestburgh and other municipal defendants engaged in a series of discriminatory acts to prevent an Orthodox Jewish developer from building a subdivision in Forestburgh because the defendants believed that it would attract Orthodox Jews.  The statement was filed in response to a motion filed by the defendants seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claims as prudentially unripe under BMG Monroe I, LLC v Vil. of Monroe, 93 F4th 595 (2d Cir. 2024).  The statement explains that Monroe did not alter existing law on prudential ripeness and that the Court had correctly rejected the defendants’ ripeness arguments in a prior ruling.  The statement also explains that no additional land use proceedings would help define the plaintiffs’ injury because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint plausibly alleged that the Township had used the land use process in a discriminatory fashion to delay the proposed housing development, which had inflicted economic and other injuries on plaintiffs.   On March 27, 2023, the United States filed its first Statement of Interest, arguing that the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims, premised in part on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of their building permit applications, were ripe and that the plaintiffs, who alleged lost profits and lost home sales, had standing to assert their FHA claims.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

  • On February 23, 2026, CarMax, Inc. agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 28 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders. As part of the settlement, CarMax must pay at least $420,000 to compensate servicemembers and a $79,380 civil penalty to the United States.  The settlement also requires CarMax to revise its policies, procedures, and training materials to prevent future SCRA violations.
  • On October 30, 2025, Defendant Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc. agreed to a settlement agreement in United States v. City of El Paso, et al. (W.D. Tex.), requiring it to deposit $140,000 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers and pay a civil penalty of $20,000.  On August 26, 2025, Defendant City of El Paso agreed to a settlement agreement requiring it to maintain and implement policies and procedures that comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA); provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; and cause to be paid a civil penalty of $20,000.  On June 30, 2025, Defendant United Road Towing, Inc. agreed to a settlement agreement requiring it to develop policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980.  The United States’ complaint, which was filed February 2, 2023, alleged that the City of El Paso and its contractors, United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the SCRA by auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders.   
  • On September 29, 2025, New City Funding Corp.  agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing vehicles owned by SCRA-protected without obtaining court orders.  As part of the settlement, New City must pay at least $60,000 to compensate servicemembers and pay a $60,000 civil penalty to the United States.  The settlement also requires New City to revise its policies and training to avoid future SCRA violations.
  • On June 24, 2025, Greystar Management Services, LLC agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing early termination charges on servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early because they had received military relocation orders, including by using software that automatically imposed early termination charges without regard to military status.  As part of the settlement, Greystar must set aside $1.35 million to compensate servicemembers, including triple damages to servicemembers who paid Greystar’s early termination charges, and a $77,370 civil penalty to the United States.  The settlement also requires Greystar to revise its policies to ensure that eligible military servicemembers can end their residential leases without incurring illegal early termination charges.
  • On June 19, 2025, JWB Property Management LLC dba JWB Rental Homes agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that JWB violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing early termination charges on six servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early because they had received military relocation orders.  As part of the settlement, JWB will pay $39,168.50 in compensation to servicemembers and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires JWB to revise its policies to ensure that eligible servicemembers can end their leases without incurring illegal early termination charges.
  • On June 17, 2025, Teleguam Holdings, LLC d/b/a GTA agreed to a settlement resolving allegations that GTA violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by imposing early termination charges on over 1,300 servicemembers who terminated their cell phone service contracts because they had received military relocation orders.  As part of the settlement, GTA will pay $450,000 in compensation to servicemembers, including double damages to servicemembers who paid GTA’s early termination charges, and a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States.  The settlement also requires GTA to revise its policies to ensure that eligible military servicemembers can end their cell phone service contracts without incurring illegal early termination charges.
  • On April 22, 2025, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Tony’s Auto Center (S.D. Cal.).  The complaint, which was filed on August 23, 2024, alleges that Tony’s Auto Center, a towing company in Chula Vista, California, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by auctioning, without a court order, a vehicle belonging to a Navy Lieutenant while he was deployed at sea aboard an aircraft carrier.  The settlement agreement requires Tony’s Auto Center to adopt new SCRA-compliant procedures, pay $7,500 in damages to the Navy Lieutenant, and pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the United States.

Sexual Harassment

  • On February 17, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement in United States v. Shalash, et al. (E.D. Ky). The United States filed its original complaint on November 18, 2024, and an amended complaint on June 27, 2025. The United States’ lawsuit alleged that Adnan and Mohammad Shalash, owners and operators of rental properties, as well as 17 owners of rental properties in Lexington, Kentucky, violated the Fair Housing Act when they subjected female tenants and applicants to severe and pervasive sexual harassment since at least 2004. According to the amended complaint, Adnan and Mohammed Shalash offered housing-related benefits in exchange for sexual contact, made unwelcome sexual comments and advances to female tenants, fondled themselves in the presence of female tenants, entered the homes of female tenants without their permission, subjected female tenants to unwelcome touching and groping and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused their sexual advances. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General participated in the investigation that resulted in the United States’ lawsuit. The settlement prohibits Adnan and Mohammad Shalash from managing rental properties and requires them to hire an independent manager for any properties they still own and adopt non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment in the future. Under the settlement, Defendants will pay $845,000 in damages to the aggrieved persons and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States.
  • On January 28, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the claims against the defendants in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of Bloomfield and Eddie Joe Hankins (E.D. Mo.).  The United States’ complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2025, alleges that Eddie Joe Hankins sexually harassed a female housing applicant.  The United States’ lawsuit also alleges that the Housing Authority of the City of Bloomfield is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment committed by Hankins as their agent. In the settlement agreement, the defendants are required to pay $35,000 to the female housing applicant who was harmed by Hankins’ sexual harassment.  The settlement agreement also permanently bars Hankins from contacting the tenant harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties.  The settlement agreement also requires the Housing Authority to implement a sexual harassment policy for its rental properties and provide fair housing training for its employees.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On January 8, 2026, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the claims against Kurt Williams and his company Gearhead Properties, LC in United States v. Kurt Williams, et al. (S.D. Iowa).  According to the terms of the agreement, Williams and Gearhead Properties have agreed to pay $315,000 to tenants who were harmed by Williams’ harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States.  The settlement agreement permanently bars Williams from contacting the tenants harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties.  The Department’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in January 2025, alleges that for more than two decades, property manager Williams sexually harassed female tenants at various rental dwellings throughout Davenport, Iowa.  The suit alleges that Williams’ conduct included making unwelcome sexual comments and sexual advances to female tenants, exposing his genitals to female tenants, requesting sex or sex acts from female tenants in exchange for tangible housing benefits like reductions in rent, and taking adverse housing actions, such as initiating evictions or refusing to make repairs, against female tenants who objected to and/or refused his sexual advances.  The Department’s lawsuit also named as a defendant Gearhead Properties, LC, the owner of the rental dwellings where the sexual harassment occurred.  The lawsuit alleges that Gearhead Properties is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment committed by Williams as their agent.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General participated in the investigation that uncovered the evidence leading to the lawsuit.
  • On December 2, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. William Aaron Asper (E.D. Mich.).  The complaint alleges that defendant Asper discriminated because of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing female tenants of rental properties that he owned or managed. The complaint also names as defendants the William Aaron Asper Irrevocable Living Trust dated August 1, 2005, and REPSA Enterprises, LLC, which owned the rental properties during at least part of the time that Asper sexually harassed female tenants there.
  • On November 18, 2025, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Thomas Ray Kelso and Avatar Investments LLC (E.D. AR).  The complaint alleges that defendant Kelso discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in sexual harassment of female tenants of rental properties that he owned and managed. The complaint also names as defendant Avatar Investments LLC, which owned the rental properties during Kelso’s management and sexual harassment of female tenants.
  • On July 24, 2025, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed an “election” complaint in United States v. David Jones, et al. (E.D. Okla.) The complaint alleges that the Defendant subjected his former tenant to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, and evicted her for complaining about his conduct, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.  The complaint also names as a defendant D Jones Properties LLC, which owned the property where the alleged violations occurred. The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, completed an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On July 16, 2025, the court entered a consent order involving one defendant in United States v. Methuselah Tree, LLC, et al. (D. Me.).  The consent order resolves the United States’ claims against defendant Methuselah Tree, LLC and requires it to pay the complainant $35,000 in damages.  The complaint, which was filed on June 3, 2024, alleges that a property manager and maintenance worker discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a female tenant at two properties where she lived.  The complaint also names as defendants the owners and management company of the properties.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  The litigation will continue with the remaining defendants.
  • On June 20, 2025, the court entered a consent order resolving the claims against Joel Lynn Nolen, Shirlee Nolen, and Nolen Properties, LLC in United States v. Joel Nolen, et al. (E.D. Cal.).  The consent order permanently bars Joel and Shirlee Nolen from contacting tenants harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties and requires defendants to provide training and adopt policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination at residential rental properties that they own or manage. Joel and Shirlee Nolen must establish a $960,000 settlement fund to compensate 19 aggrieved persons and pay a $40,000 civil penalty to the United States.  On September 27, 2024, the Court entered a consent order resolving the claims against the defendants Nancy Canale, as trustee of the Bernard Canale and Nancy Canale 1998 Revocable Trust, and Bernard Canale, by and through his successor in interest Nancy Canale (the “Canale Defendants”), and requiring them to establish a $100,000 settlement fund to compensate aggrieved.  On April 6, 2023, the United States filed an amended complaint. The original complaint, which was filed on February 23, 2023, alleged that Joel Nolen discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because he sexually harassed multiple female tenants since at least 2011. The original complaint also named as defendants Shirlee Nolen and Nolen Properties, LLC because they co-own or co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times. The amended complaint added the Canale Defendants because they co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times.
  • On February 14, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ariel Solis Veleta, et al. (D.N.M.). The amended complaint, which was filed on February 13, 2025, alleges that between 2010 and 2022, Ariel Solis Veleta (Solis), a property manager in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit further alleges that Solis’s employer and the Apartment’s owners and managers are vicariously liable for Solis’s discriminatory conduct because Solis acted as their agent when he sexually harassed tenants. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $350,000 to female tenants harmed by Solis’s harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree permanently bars Solis from contacting tenants harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties. It also requires that defendants provide training and adopt policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination at residential rental properties that they own or manage.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

  • On May 23, 2025, the United States filed complaint in United States v. David Montanus and Lisa Montanus (D.N.H.). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Housing Rights Subpart of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA) when they unlawfully penalized Complainant by evicting her after she sought police assistance for domestic violence. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

Other

  • On October 14, 2025, based on a stipulated motion by the parties, the Court entered a permanent injunction in Etienne v. Ferguson/United States v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.), barring enforcement of Senate Bill 5375 law as applied to information disclosed solely in the Catholic Sacrament of Confession and/or other privileged communications made to members of the clergy or Christian Science practitioners.  The law amended Washington’s mandatory reporting law for child abuse and neglect to include Catholic priests as mandatory reporters.  This would have required priests to reveal information they hear in Confession, which would result in their automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.  On July 15, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in intervention alleging that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by passing this law. 
Updated February 24, 2026