U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Trump Village Section IV Inc. (E.D.N.Y.)
On July 18, 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement in United States v. Trump Village Section IV Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, which was filed on December 23, 2015, alleged that a housing cooperative in Brooklyn, New York refused to allow three residents, including an Army combat veteran with PTSD, to live with their emotional support dogs, and then retaliated against them for exercising their fair housing rights. The settlement agreement provides a total of $40,000 to the three families and a $10,000 civil penalty. 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. Sage Bank (D. Mass.)
On November 30, 2015, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Sage Bank (D. Mass.). The complaint alleged that Sage Bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in the pricing of its residential mortgage loans in violation of Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The consent order require Sage Bank to amend its pricing and compensation policies, establish a monitoring program, and have employees undergo fair housing/lending training, among other injunctive relief, as well as establish a settlement fund of $1,175,000 to compensate for direct and indirect damages that aggrieved borrowers and applicants may have suffered. This case is based on a referral from the FDIC. The court entered the consent order on December 1, 2015.
United States v. Parkside East, Inc. (E.D. Mich.)
On September 1, 2016, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Parkside East, Inc. (E.D. Mich.). The pattern or practice complaint, filed on November 19, 2015, alleged the owners and manager of seven complexes located in Michigan violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by prohibiting families with children from renting one-bedroom units. Those complexes include: Parkside East Apartments in East Lansing, Michigan; Holt Manor Apartments and C and H Apartments in Holt, Michigan; Kelly Manor Apartments in Owosso, Michigan; Camelot Apartments in Lansing, Michigan; Pine Cove Apartments in DeWitt, Michigan; and Park Place Apartments in Williamston, Michigan. Under the terms of the consent decree, which still must be approved by the court, the defendants will establish a settlement fund of $20,000 to compensate victims, pay $5,000 in civil penalties to the United States, eliminate the restrictions on children, and provide training on the Fair Housing to their staff. The allegations were based on evidence generated by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan. This case was handled jointly by the Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices of the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.
United States v. Loecher (D. Colo.)
On August 8, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Loecher (D. Colo.), a HUD election/pattern or practice case. The complaint, filed on November 9, 2015, alleged that the owners and property manager of Westland Apartments (Westland), a two building, 28-unit apartment complex in Lakewood, Colorado, discriminated on the basis of familial status by implementing a policy of generally not allowing families with children to live in the front building of the complex, and generally restricting them to apartments in the rear building. This case was based on a HUD complaint filed by the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center (DMFHC), a non-profit organization that works to promote equal housing opportunities in the Denver metropolitan area. DMFHC sent testers posing as prospective renters to Westland which revealed that the property manager told prospective renters that families with children were generally placed in apartments in the rear building and did not offer prospective renters with children the opportunity to consider available apartments in the front building. DMFHC also filed a complaint against the defendants on December 22, 2015. The cases were consolidated on March 3, 2016. The consent order requires that the defendants pay $25,000 to establish a settlement fund to compensate aggrieved persons, $45,000 to DFMHC, and a $5,000 civil penalty as well as standard injunctive relief, fair housing training, adoption of a nondiscrimination policy, and reporting requirements. This case was handled jointly by the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado.
United States v. Kansas City, Kansas Housing Authority (D. Kan.)
On September 29, 2017, the United States executed a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Kansas City, Kansas Housing Authority (D. Kan.) a Fair Housing Act sexual harassment election/pattern or practice referral from HUD. The original complaint, filed on October 26, 2015, and amended on September 22, 2016, alleged that three Housing Authority employees engaged in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing female housing applicants and residents, and that some incidents of sexual harassment by employees of the Housing Authority were known to Housing Authority management. Under the settlement, KCKHA, former Administrative Coordinator Victor Hernandez, former Property Manager Derrick Estelle, Sr., and former Director of Housing Management Ronald Cobb, will pay a total of $360,000 in monetary damages to 14 current and former KCKHA residents and applicants who were subjected to sexual harassment, as well as $5,000 to the United States in civil penalties. The settlement also requires KCKHA to conduct training, to adopt new policies and procedures to prevent sexual harassment by its employees, and to provide a mechanism by which tenants and applicants can register complaints about sexual harassment with KCKHA management. 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. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich.)
On October 14, 2016, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on October 26, 2015, alleged the Township’s denial of a zoning amendment to permit construction of an Islamic school imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the school without a compelling governmental justification pursued through the least restrictive means. The consent order requires the Township to allow construction of the Islamic school, and provides for other injunctive relief, such as training, notice, and reporting.
United States v. Lincolnshire Senior Care LLC (N.D. Ill.)
On October 5, 2015, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Lincolnshire Senior Care LLC (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging that a Continuing Care Retirement Community discriminated on the basis of disability in its dining and live-in care policies. The consent order requires policy changes at this facility and other facilities owned or operated by the defendants, the establishment of a $210,000 settlement fund to compensate victims and a $45,000 civil penalty. The court entered the court order on October 19, 2015.
United States v. City of Des Plaines, Illinois (N.D. Ill.)
On June 6, 2017, the United States and the City of Des Plaines, IL, entered into a settlement agreement resolving the United States’ claims in United States v. City of Des Plaines, Illinois (N.D. Ill.) that it violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by denying a rezoning request by an Islamic group to use a vacant office building as a place of worship. The United States’ complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2015, alleged substantial burden, equal terms, and discrimination. The settlement agreement requires the City to obtain training, to provide notice to the public that it adheres to RLUIPA, establishes a RLUIPA complaint process, and places limitations on the discretion the City can exercise in its consideration of religious land use applications, among other requirements. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court for the North District of Illinois ruled that the United States’ claims should proceed to trial, and further ruled that the City misapplied its parking regulations to impose heightened parking requirements on the Islamic group that were not imposed on non-Muslim groups, and that the City did not use the least restrictive means in addressing purported concerns with the group’s rezoning request.
United States v. Rappuhn (N.D. Ala.)
On March 8, 2016, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Rappuhn (N.D. Ala.), a design & construction lawsuit involving the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2015, alleged that Allan Rappuhn and his affiliated entities were involved in the design and construction of 71 multifamily housing developments with approximately 4,090 total units and 2,717 FHA-covered units located in Alabama (36 properties), Georgia (25), North Carolina (nine), and Tennessee (one). Of the 71 properties, 69 were built using either Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”) and/or funds from the HOME Partnership Investment Program (“HOME funds”). The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of designing and constructing multifamily housing developments or denying rights to a group of persons in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1). The principal violations at the properties include, among other things, a lack of accessible routes to many covered units and public and common use areas due to steps, the absence of curb cuts, vertical level changes, and steep running and cross slopes; a lack of accessible routes into and through the dwelling units due to high thresholds, narrow passage ways, and narrow doors; and adaptive design violations in the bathrooms and kitchens. The consent order requires an injunction, fair housing training, record keeping obligations, reporting to the United States for a period of four years, a settlement fund of $300,000 to compensate victims, a civil penalty of $50,000, and retrofits to alleged non-compliant barriers on the accessible routes, in the public and common use areas, and in the covered dwelling units at the 71 properties.
United States v. Encore Management Company, Inc. (S.D. W. Va.)
On March 20, 2017, the court entered a default judgment against defendants, Anthony James, Christopher Terrill James and Kisha James in United States v. Encore Management Co. (S.D. W. Va.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case. The complaint, which was filed on November 14, 2014, alleged that the owner, property management company, district manager, and maintenance employee of a 56-unit apartment building located in Cross Lanes, West Virginia violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants on the basis of sex (both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment), and that the owner, manager, district manager, and site manager retaliated against tenants who complained about the sexual harassment. The judgment awards civil penalties of $55,000 against Anthony James, $30,000 against Christopher Terrill James, and $5,000 against Kisha James; and prohibited Anthony James and Christopher Terrill James from directly or indirectly participating in property management at residential rental properties in the future. On August 12, 2016, the court entered a consent order with Encore Management Co. and Perkins Parke Limited Partnership, which required payment of $110,000 to seven adult and four minor victims and a $10,000 civil penalty. The case came 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. Southwind Village, LLC (M.D. Fla.)
On December 15, 2015, the court entered a partial consent order in United States v. Southwind Village, LLC (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case developed by the Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program. The complaint, filed September 30, 2015, alleged that the owner and the manager of a mobile home and recreational vehicle park discriminated on the basis of race or color. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the park manager, Carl Bruckler, falsely told prospective African American renters that there were no available recreational vehicle lots at the park and made other discouraging statements. The partial consent order is only as to Defendant Southwind Village, LLC, the owner of the park, and requires Southwind Village, LLC to amend its rental policies, have employees undergo fair housing training, take steps to identify victims, establish a $35,000 victim compensation fund, and pay a $25,000 civil penalty. On November 8, 2016 the court entered a default judgment against Carl Bruckler which requires him to pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States.
United States v. Eagle Bank and Trust Co. of Missouri (E.D. Mo.)
On September 29, 2015, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Eagle Bank and Trust Company of Missouri (E.D. Mo.), alleging that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of “redlining” predominantly African-American neighborhoods in and around St. Louis. “Redlining” is the discriminatory practice by banks or other financial institutions to deny or avoid providing credit services to a consumer because of the racial demographics of the neighborhood in which the consumer lives. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit financial institutions from discriminating on the basis of race and color in their mortgage lending practices. As a result of the settlement Eagle Bank will open two new locations to serve the residents of African American neighborhoods in northern St. Louis. The bank will also invest at least $975,000 to provide banking and borrowing opportunities to residents and small businesses in those areas. The court entered the consent order on October 1, 2015.