Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases

The plaintiffs filed suit against the City and Mayor, along with a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to declare the consent judgment reached in AICC v. Sterling Heights (E.D. Mich.) invalid and unenforceable. That consent judgment resolves the lawsuit by the American Islamic Community Center, Inc. (“AICC”), and was incorporated into a consent order resolving a lawsuit by the United States, United States v. Sterling Heights (E.D. Mich.). The United States had alleged that the City violated RLUIPA when it denied the AICC special land use application to build a mosque in the City. The statement of interest focuses on the plaintiffs’ argument that the City did not have authority to enter into a settlement agreement unless it admitted liability or a court made a finding that it violated federal law. In short, the statement argued that the AICC’s original application fit the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, making the City free to agree to a settlement that approved a largely similar place of worship through a settlement agreement, without admitting liability or a court finding a violation of federal law.

On June 2, 2017, the United States and the defendants entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Pritchard (D. Kan.), a HUD election case alleging the owners and operators of a rental apartment complex in Wichita, Kansas violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status. The defendants include Paul Jeffrey Pritchard, individually and as the trustee of the Paul Jeffrey Pritchard Trust; the Paul Jeffrey Pritchard Trust; the Kim Susanne Pritchard Trust; Kim Susanne Pritchard, as the trustee of the Kim Susanne Pritchard Trust; and Debra M. Schmidt. The complaint, which was filed on April 10, 2017, alleged that in 2014, the owners and manager of a 16-unit multifamily building terminated the lease of a tenant who asked to add her baby granddaughter to her lease and made statements indicating that they had a policy of not renting to households with children. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the defendants will pay $25,000 in monetary damages to compensate the HUD complainant. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.