U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
Sentinel Real Estate Corp., et al. (N.D. Ga.)
Sentinel Real Estate Corp., et al. (N.D. Ga.): On December 30, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a HUD election referral alleging that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of his race (black) and his disability when they delayed approval of his request for a reasonable accommodation to allow him to keep a service/emotional support animal, and when they issued him a notice of non-renewal of his lease. The settlement agreement requires the respondents to pay $35,000 to the complainant’s estate, obtain fair housing training, and adopt new reasonable accommodation policies. 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. Eilman (E.D. Wis.)
On August 25, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Eilman et al. (E.D. Wis.). The amended complaint*, which was filed on December 22, 2021, alleged that defendants Chad Eilman, Jeffrey Eilman, and Christine Neigum – the owners and managers of a Wisconsin apartment complex – discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow a prospective tenant with a disability to live with her assistance animal at the complex. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $33,250, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, and notify the United States of any denied requests for reasonable accommodations.
*The amended complaint posted here is a minimally redacted version of the complaint filed in District Court.
United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)
On August 15, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, which was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office on December 6, 2021, alleges that a 175-unit cooperative apartment building in New York, New York and the president of its board of directors discriminated on the basis of disability by denying a tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation for her assistance animals and by retaliating against her for having exercised rights protected by the Act. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $165,000 and to offer to buy her shares in the co-op for $585,000 (about $85,000 over market value). It also requires defendants to dismiss their pending eviction against the tenant with prejudice, adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy, and obtain fair housing training. 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.
United States v. Trustmark National Bank (W.D. Tenn.)
On October 27, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Trustmark National Bank (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, filed on October 22, 2021, alleges that Trustmark National Bank, through its residential real estate lending-related policies and practices, engaged in a pattern or practice of redlining in the Memphis MSA in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Under the consent order, the Bank will invest $3.85 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase credit opportunities for current and future residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis area; dedicate at least four mortgage loan officers or community lending specialists to those neighborhoods; and open a loan production office in a majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhood in Memphis. Trustmark will also devote $400,000 to developing community partnerships to provide services to residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis to increase access to residential mortgage credit and spend at least $200,000 per year for five years on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit repair initiatives in and around Memphis.
United States v. The Links South at Harbour Village Condominiums Association, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)
On December 10, 2021, the court entered the consent order resolving this Fair Housing Act lawsuit alleging that the defendant, Links South, discriminated because of disability. The complaint alleged, based on an “election” referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that Links South failed to grant a reasonable accommodation to Mr. Charlie Burge, who has diagnosed upper respiratory disabilities stemming from his having spent 18 months with the New York City Department of Sanitation clearing debris from the World Trade Center site following the attacks on 9/11. Because of his disabilities, Mr. Burge had a practice of removing his shoes before entering his condominium and placing them outside his front door to avoid tracking allergens inside his unit and aggravating his disabilities. Links South issued Mr. Burge rule violation notices, and Mr. Burge, through his counsel, sent a letter to Links South requesting a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to leave his shoes outside his front door. Despite receiving this request and supporting medical documentation, Links South constructively denied Mr. Burge’s request by repeatedly asking for more information and questioning the nexus between Mr. Burge’s disability and his need to leave his shoes outside his unit. Under the consent order, the defendant will pay Mr. Burge $40,000, grant Mr. Burge’s reasonable accommodation request, adopt a non-discrimination policy and a reasonable accommodation policy, undergo training, and submit periodic reports to the government.
United States v. The Pendergraph Companies, LLC, et al. (E.D.N.C)
On October 18, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. The Pendergraph Companies, LLC, et al. (E.D.N.C). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2021, alleged that Defendants – the owners, developers and builders of multifamily housing developments in North Carolina and South Carolina - have discriminated against persons with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings in a manner that makes them accessible to persons with disabilities. The consent order requires the defendants to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers in housing units and common areas at the 6 subject properties and at 40 additional properties, pay all costs related to the retrofits, pay $275,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay a civil penalty of $25,000 to the United States. The settlement also requires the defendants to receive training about the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to take steps to ensure that their future multifamily housing construction complies with those laws.
United States v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital (N.D. Tex.)
On October 1, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2021, alleged that Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), by unlawfully rejecting ten (10) requests from qualified servicemembers to terminate their motor vehicle leases early. The consent order require Defendant provide for changes to procedures and training, $94,282.62 in compensation for ten servicemembers, and a $40,000 civil penalty.
United States v. White River Regional Housing Authority and Duane Johnson (E.D. Ark.)
On October 14, 2021, the court entered a consent order in in United States v. White River Regional Housing Authority and Duane Johnson (E.D. Ark.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2021, alleged that the White River Regional Housing Authority (WRRHA) and its former employee, Duane Johnson, violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating on the basis of sex when Defendant Johnson subjected the complainant to severe or pervasive sexual harassment. The consent order requires WRRHA to pay $70,000 to the complainant, adopt and maintain an anti-discrimination policy with a complaint procedure, and provide training to its employees on the Fair Housing Act. The settlement also permanently bars Johnson from directly or indirectly participating in the management of any residential rental property and from directly or indirectly participating in any public housing program, including being a manager or employee for any public housing program or having any ownership interest in any entity that provides housing that is the subject of federally funded assistance payments or tenant-based assistance. 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. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.)
On October 6, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed along with the proposed consent order on September 29, 2021, alleged that American Honda Finance Corporation violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by failing to refund pre-paid lease amounts - in the form of capitalized cost reduction (“CCR”) from vehicle trade-in value – that were paid in advance by servicemembers who lawfully terminated their motor vehicle leases upon receipt of qualifying military orders. The consent order requires Honda to pay $1,585,803.89 to 714 servicemembers, pay a $64,715 civil penalty to the United States, make changes to its lease termination and SCRA interest rate benefit policies, and provide employee training.
United States v. Mills Construction Company, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C.)
On October 26, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Mills Construction Company, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on September 28, 2021, alleged that Mills Construction Company, Inc. and six related owners and developers discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct North Carolina multifamily apartment complexes that are accessible to persons with disabilities. Specifically, the United States’ complaint allege that Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by designing and/or constructing 38 properties funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits without the required accessibility features. The consent order requires Defendants to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers at the apartment complexes, pay $225,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay $50,000 to the United States.
United States v. New Jersey Higher Ed. (D. N.J.)
On October 21, 2021, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. New Jersey Higher Ed. (D. N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on September 20, 2021, alleges that the New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) when it obtained improper student loan default judgments against two active duty servicemembers by filing affidavits with the court stating that the servicemembers were not in military service when they were, in fact, in military service. The consent decree requires the state agency to pay $15,000 in damages to the each of the two servicemembers and a $20,000 civil penalty (total of $50,000), in addition to adopting various policy changes to prevent future SCRA violations.
United States v. Brisas del Mar Ltd Partnership, et al. (S.D. Fla.)
On September 7, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Brisas del Mar Ltd Partnership, et al. (S.D. Fla.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, which was filed on August 31, 2021, alleges that the owners and managers of a rental property in Miami, Florida discriminated on the basis of national origin when they rejected a man of Iranian descent for a unit because he was not Hispanic. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $21,500 in damages to the HUD complainant, attend fair housing training, and submit to other standard injunctive relief. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.