U.S. Department
of Justice
Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases
United States v. Fox, et al. (W.D. Okla.)
On August 18, 2025, the United States filed an “election” 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.
Yeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals and Town of Highland
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.
United States v. David Jones, et al. (E.D. Okla.)
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.
Paul D Etienne v Robert Ferguson
On July 15, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in intervention in Etienne v. Ferguson/United States v. State of Washington (W.D. Wash.). The complaint alleges that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it passed Senate Bill 5375, which amends Washington’s mandatory reporting law for child abuse and neglect to include Catholic priests as mandatory reporters. As a result, priests will have to reveal information they hear in Confession, which would result in their automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. On June 25, 2025, the United States filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of this law.
United States v Greystar Management Services, LLC
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.
United States v JWB Property Management LLC
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.
Teleguam Holdings, LLC D/B/A GTA
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.
United States v Five Properties, LLC and APMT, LLC, dba Tonti Management (E.D. La.)
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.
United States v. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara et al. (N.D. Cal.)
On June 9, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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.
Press Release (6/9/2025)
United States v. David Montanus and Lisa Montanus (D.N.H.)
On May 23, 2025, the United States filed a 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.
United States v City of Troy - D. Idaho
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.
Press Release (5/20/2025)
Grace New England and Pastor Howard Kaloogian v Town of Weare
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.