U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Collier (W.D. La.)
On October 7, 2015, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Collier (W.D. La.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint, filed on November 19, 2014, alleged that Cecil Carroll Collier harassed, threatened, and intimidated his neighbor because of her race or national origin, and because she had participated in a prior Department of Justice investigation of a federal fair housing complaint filed against Collier’s older brother Reggie Collier, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The consent order requires the payment of $10,000 to the complainant.
Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential (D. Md.)
On March 31, 2016, the District Court entered an opinion and order on the parties’ partial summary judgment motions in Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential (D. Md.), an FHA design and construction case involving multiple properties in numerous states. On November 13, 2014, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of the Equal Rights Center’s summary judgment motion. 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; and 2) the failure to design and construct accessible multifamily housing is a discrete violation of the Fair Housing Act and does not require that an individual be denied housing based on disability. The court’s opinion adopted the United States’ argument that the plaintiff in a design-and-construction case may demonstrate liability by showing that the defendant did not follow the HUD FHA Guidelines, and that the defendant may overcome this showing only by demonstrating compliance with another, comparable accessibility standard. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that a more subjective standard for accessibility should control. Finally, the court agreed that demonstrating violations of the FHA’s accessibility requirements did not require a showing that an actual buyer or renter was denied housing.
United States v. Avatar Properties, Inc. (D. N.H.)
On May 3, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Avatar Properties, Inc. (D. N.H.), a HUD election case. The complaint, filed on November 10, 2014, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they denied a resident with a spinal cord injury a reasonable accommodation by refusing to assign him an accessible parking space. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $25,000 to the HUD complainant, to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and 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. Wygul (W.D. Tenn.)
On December 15, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Wygul (W.D. Tenn.), the complaint, which was filed on November 10, 2014, alleged that the defendant engaged in quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment of the plaintiff-intervenor over a three-month period by, among other things, bombarding her with telephone text messages demanding sexually-provocative photographs and requests that she pose nude for him, offering to reduce or waive her rent if she acquiesced, and evicting her when she refused. Under the terms of the decree, the defendant will pay $15,000 in damages to the plaintiff-intervenor and exit the real estate rental business by a date certain. 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. Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park, Inc. (W.D. Wis.)
On December 17, 2015, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park (W.D. Wis.), a pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint, filed on October 17, 2014, alleged that the owner and managers of a 230-unit mobile home community in Whitewater, Wisconsin enforced explicit policies making sections of the community unavailable to families with children, imposed discriminatory limitations on children and their families, and obstructed the sale of a mobile home to a single mother with a two-year-old child. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay monetary damages of $100,000, including cash payments to two identified victims; establish a fund to compensate unidentified victims; provide credits to complainants to eliminate all back rent allegedly due; and pay a $10,000 civil penalty. In addition, the defendants agreed to standard injunctive relief, renounce lease clauses that referred to their discriminatory practices, modified their lot map to remove barriers to families, and paid the cost of restoring utility service to one complainant, after the defendants’ actions allegedly caused damage to her utility connections. Further, the settlement requires the defendants to permit the sale of a mobile home to a single mother and to approve her lease at a lot previously designated as off-limits to children. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received complaints conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.)
On May 17, 2017, after a six-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States in United States v. Katz and All Real Estate Services in Montana, LLC (D. Mont.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The jury awarded a total of $37,000 in damages, consisting of approximately $31,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the former tenant and approximately $6,000 in compensatory damages to the fair housing group that assisted her with her HUD complaint. The complaint, which was filed on October 6, 2014, alleged 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 alleged that defendant Katz threatened to evict the tenant after she sought the return of the deposit in violation of sec. 818 of the FHA.
United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio)
On September 16, 2015, the court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio). In this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, the court denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio). In this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, filed on September 16, 2014, and amended on December 12, 2014, the United States alleged that the aggrieved individuals, two former students (a couple), were denied the right to keep their assistance animal in their university apartment. In their motion to dismiss, the individually named University defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that the Fair Housing Act applied to student housing. The district court squarely rejected this argument, relying on both the clear language of the statute, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3602(b) and (c), as well as HUD’s 1989 regulations, which defined “dwelling” to include dormitory rooms. The United States alleges that the aggrieved individuals, two former students (a couple), were denied the right to keep their assistance animal in their university apartment. In their motion to dismiss, the individually named University defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that the Fair Housing Act applied to student housing. The district court squarely rejected this argument, relying on both the clear language of the statute, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3602(b) and (c), as well as HUD’s 1989 regulations, which defined “dwelling” to include dormitory rooms.
United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio)
On September 20, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, filed on September 16, 2014, and amended on December 12, 2014, alleged that Kent State University, the Board of Trustees of Kent State University, and four individual university officials violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation in university housing for a student and her husband who requested to live with an assistance animal that ameliorated the effects of her disability. The consent decree provides for $130,000 for the students and a local fair housing organization involved in the case, a $15,000 payment to the United States, and injunctive relief requiring the University to implement a policy on reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, as well as training and regular reporting. The case was referred to the Department after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.)
On December 2, 2016, the court entered a final consent order in United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.) resolving the United States’ claims against the Mississippi-based developers Ike W. Thrash, Dawn Properties, Inc., Southern Cross Construction Company, Inc. and other affiliated companies. The complaint, which was filed on May 23, 2014 and amended on June 23, 2016, alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by building apartment complexes that were inaccessible to persons with disabilities. As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make substantial retrofits to remove accessibility barriers at the six complexes, which have nearly 500 covered units. The consent order also requires the defendants to pay $250,000 to 25 identified aggrieved persons, pay $100,000 in civil penalties, and undergo training. On December 18, 2014, November 3, 2015, September 2, 2016, and November 30, 2016, the court entered consent orders with Rule 19 Defendants 14510 Lemoyne Boulevard, LLC, Summer Miss, LLC, Belmont RS Apartments, LLC and Lexington Mill Mississippi Owner, LLC. The pattern or practice case was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
United States v. The Durst Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.)
On November 13, 2015, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. The Durst Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 16, 2014, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct The Helena, a residential apartment complex at 601 West 57th Street, New York, New York, with the features of accessible and adaptive design and construction required by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This decree resolves the litigation with respect to the developers. Litigation against the architect is continuing. The decree provides for standard injunctive relief, retrofits of non-compliant features, and covers several additional properties subsequently determined by the United States to have been designed or constructed by the developers. The decree provides for a $250,000 settlement fund for payments to aggrieved persons and for a civil penalty of $55,000. The settlement fund may be increased up to $515,000 if the initial amount proves insufficient to compensate all aggrieved persons at the Helena and the additional properties. This case was litigated by the United States Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York.
United States v. The Town of Oyster Bay (E.D. N.Y.)
On April 10, 2014, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Town of Oyster Bay (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 which requires LIHP to ensure that residency preferences it administers do not violate fair housing laws, and to provide education regarding the requirements of fair housing laws. The claims against the remaining defendants were stayed between 2016 and 2019 pending resolution of criminal charges against the town supervisor.
Press Release (4/10/2014)