Skip to main content

Housing and Civil Enforcement

Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

(Updated April 2, 2025)

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division is responsible for the Department's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), along with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Housing Rights subpart of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA 2022).

Under the FHA, the Department of Justice may bring lawsuits where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. The Department of Justice also brings cases where a housing discrimination complaint has been investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD has issued a charge of discrimination, and one of the parties to the case has "elected" to go to federal court. In FHA cases, the Department can obtain injunctive relief, including affirmative requirements for training and policy changes, monetary damages and, in pattern or practice cases, civil penalties.

Several cases we have filed or resolved recently exemplify our efforts to ensure the availability of the housing opportunities guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act. (1) The complaints and settlement documents for the cases discussed in the text, as well as other cases handled by the Housing Section, can be found on the Housing Section’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/caselist.php

While we endeavor to ensure that the electronic copies of court documents available on this site are complete and accurate (apart from formatting changes necessitated by the conversion to HTML or PDF format), errors or omissions may occur. The official versions of court documents are the versions available from the court.

Design and Construction
Discriminatory Land Use and Zoning
Public Accommodations (Title II)
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Disability
Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Race, Color, National Origin, Familial Status and Religion
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)
Sexual Harassment
 

Design and Construction

  • On March 25 and 27, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed two proposed settlement agreements in United States v. Toll Bros., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.), regarding accessibility retrofits at, respectively, The Kendrick, in Needham, Massachusetts, and Emerson at Edge on the Hudson, in Sleepy Hollow, New York.  The complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2024, alleges that several Toll-related entities and others violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with the required accessibility features.  The case was referred to the Department of Justice after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.  The complaint is also based on evidence obtained by the Department of Justice’s Fair Housing Testing Program.  On June 25, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant Lendlease Construction LMB Inc.  The decree requires Lendlease not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty.  On July 28, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant GreenbergFarrow Architecture, Inc.  The decree requires GreenbergFarrow not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty.  On January 8, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a second amended complaint.  On March 1, 2025, the court approved a settlement agreement regarding retrofits at Parc at Princeton Junction, in Princeton, New Jersey.  On March 4, 2025, the court approved a proposed settlement agreement regarding retrofits at another property, The Morgan, in Jersey City, New Jersey.
  • On January 16, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/denial of rights complaint in United States v. Lettire Constr. Corp. (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that Lettire Construction, a developer of residential rental apartment buildings in New York City, and others designed and constructed The Tapestry, a 185-unit building in Manhattan, Chestnut Commons, a 275-unit building in Brooklyn, and Atrium at Sumner, a 190-unit building in Brooklyn, without required accessible features.  Also on January 16, the USAO submitted to the court a proposed consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendants Lettire Construction, Lettire 124th Street LLC, UBC Chestnut Commons LLC, and UBC Sumner LLC. Under the settlement, Lettire Construction will make the necessary retrofits at the Atrium and pay a civil penalty of $20,000, and the other three defendants will each pay a civil penalty of $10,000.  On January 17, the USAO submitted to the court a proposed consent decree resolving the United States’ claims against Defendant East 124th Street LLC.  Under the settlement, this defendant will make the necessary retrofits at the Tapestry, pay a civil penalty of $10,000, and pay compensatory damages of $20,000 to individuals who were harmed by the inaccessible conditions at the Tapestry.

Discriminatory Land Use and Zoning

  • On November 19, 2024, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. (M.D. Pa.).  The complaint alleges that a requirement in Pennsylvania’s statewide building code requiring all “community homes” for four or fewer persons with intellectual disabilities or autism to install automatic sprinkler systems, regardless of the age of the dwelling, violates the Fair Housing Act.  The building code does not require single-family homes occupied by households without disabilities to install automatic sprinklers, even when newly constructed.  The complaint alleges that this requirement discriminates based on disability and should be imposed only when warranted by the unique and specific needs and abilities of the residents of a particular home.
  • On September 16, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Stanton Square, LLC v The City of New Orleans (E.D. La.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The amended complaint in this case alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA and Title VI by blocking Plaintiff from developing a multifamily apartment complex that complied with the City’s zoning requirements and Master Plan based on discriminatory objections raised by constituents. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support Plaintiff’s FHA and Title VI claims. First, the United States argues that comments like those alleged to have been made by opponents of the development can be indicative of discriminatory intent, and that Plaintiff has put forth adequate circumstantial evidence that the City capitulated to the discriminatory objections of its constituents. Second, the United States explains that Defendants misconstrue the legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims and that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the City’s actions have a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic residents and perpetuate segregation in violation of the FHA.  On December 29, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest responding to arguments made by Defendants in their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint. After Plaintiff amended its complaint, the court denied Defendants’ prior motion as moot.
  • On June 28, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Town of Franklinton (E.D. La.).  The complaint, which was filed on June 27, 2024, alleged that the Town of Franklinton discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when it obstructed, delayed, and denied zoning for a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing development that would have disproportionately served Black residents and would have been built in a predominantly white neighborhood. The consent decree requires the Town of Franklinton to pay $205,000 in damages to developers and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States, facilitate the development of new affordable housing to replace the units that the town previously blocked, amend its zoning ordinance and policies, and support the development of affordable housing by rezoning land to multi-family use and establishing a land donation program.
  • On June 4, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Anoka, Minnesota (D. Minn). The complaint, which was filed on May 21, 2024, alleged that defendant violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act by enforcing its “crime free” housing ordinance in a manner that denies tenants with mental health disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from emergency response services. The complaint alleged that calls related to medical emergencies could be flagged as a “nuisance,” and tenants with mental health disabilities and those associated with them were deterred from calling for emergency help and faced the threat of eviction, fines, or loss of the landlord’s rental license. The complaint further alleged defendant improperly disclosed confidential medical information to all landlords relating to calls for emergency services. The consent decree requires defendant to revise its program rules and enforcement practices; adopt non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures; notify landlords and tenants of changes to the program; designate an ADA compliance coordinator; train staff; and pay $175,000 to compensate harmed individuals. The complaint and consent decree follow a letter of findings that the United States issued on November 7, 2023.

Public Accommodations (Title II)

  • On February 5, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. AWH Orlando Property, LLC, d/b/a DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Orlando at SeaWorld (M.D. Fla.).  The complaint, which was filed on January 16, 2025, alleged that the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Orlando at SeaWorld (the “DoubleTree”) adopted and implemented a discriminatory policy against hosting guests of Arab descent, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by unilaterally canceling a conference that was to be held by the Arab America Foundation, a non-profit educational and cultural organization. The consent order requires the defendant to issue a statement to the Arab America Foundation that all guests are welcome at the DoubleTree, establish a written anti-discrimination policy, notify employees of their obligations under the consent decree and defendant’s commitment to ensuring equal access to the DoubleTree, provide training on Title II, conduct outreach to Arab American groups, and make regular reports to the department to demonstrate its compliance with the consent decree.
  • On November 29, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Retsel, et al., (D.S.D.). The complaint, which was filed on October 19, 2022, alleged that that the Retsel Corporation and the owners, Connie Uhre and her son Nicholas Uhre, discriminated against Native American customers through policies and practices that denied Native Americans the full and equal enjoyment of access to the services, accommodations and privileges at the Grand Gateway Hotel and the Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Grand Gateway and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino are in Rapid City, South Dakota.  The consent order enjoins Connie Uhre from being a director or officer of the Retsel Corporation and from engaging in any of the hotel’s operations for four years.  The consent order also enjoins Defendants from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race and requires that they issue an apology to be distributed to the tribal communities and posted on the company’s website.  Defendants must also undergo training, develop an anti-discrimination policy, complaint procedure and marketing plan.  Defendants must also hire a compliance officer to monitor Defendants’ compliance with the consent order.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons (RLUIPA)

  • On March 18, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Sugar Grove Township, Pennsylvania, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on January 30, 2025, alleges that Sugar Grove Township, PA (“Township”), and the Sugar Grove Area Sewage Authority (“SUGASA”) violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by enacting and enforcing two ordinances against Old Order Amish residents: one mandating that certain households connect to the Township’s and SUGASA’s municipal sewage system, which requires the use of an electric grinder pump, and one banning privies on property intended for permanent residence.  The lawsuit alleges that these acts substantially burdened Old Order Amish residents’ religious exercise, which restricts the use of electricity and requires adherents to remain separate and apart from the modern world.  The consent order requires the Township and SUGASA to exempt certain Old Order Amish households from mandatory connection to the municipal sewage system, permit Old Order Amish residents to use privies on their properties, and forgive any outstanding liens, fines, or other monetary penalties against Old Order Amish households for prior noncompliance with the two ordinances. Among other things, the consent order also requires the Township and SUGASA to train their officials and employees on RLUIPA’s provisions, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints, and provide reports to the United States.
  • On March 14, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Anchor Stone Christian Church v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a lawsuit alleging that the City violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than secular places of assembly.  The lawsuit alleges that the City’s professional district allows, as of right, nonreligious assembly uses like museums and art galleries, but only allows religious assembly uses with the City’s discretionary approval of a conditional use permit (CUP).  The lawsuit alleges that Anchor Stone is a small Christian church of first-generation Chinese and Taiwanese Americans.  It obtained space within the City’s professional district and applied for a CUP to operate a Church but was denied by the City.  The Church filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order allowing it to worship at its property.  The Department’s statement of interest supports the Church’s argument that the zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, and that the City has failed to justify this unequal treatment.
  • On March 3, 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Hope Rising Community Church v. Borough of Clarion (W.D. Pa.), a lawsuit alleging that the Borough violated RLUIPA by enacting and enforcing zoning provisions that treat religious uses less favorably than similar secular assemblies.  The lawsuit alleges that the Church has outgrown its current facility and that the only suitable property in the Borough is located in the Borough’s C-2 Commercial District.  This District does not allow houses of worship, but permits nonreligious assembly uses like theaters and civic/cultural buildings.  When the Church approached the Borough about using the property for religious purposes, Borough officials allegedly told the Church that the Borough would not grant zoning approval and that the Borough did not “need any more Churches.”  The Borough filed a motion to dismiss the Church’s lawsuit, arguing in part that the Church had failed to properly allege an equal terms claim under RLUIPA and that the Church was not sufficiently injured by the Borough’s conduct to assert such a claim.  The statement of interest refutes these contentions, explaining that the Church has properly alleged an equal terms claim and that the Church, which cannot develop its proposed religious facility, has suffered a concrete injury.   
  • On December 16, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Brunswick (S.D. Ga.), alleging that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) through its efforts to interfere with and permanently close The Well, a faith-based resource center affiliated with the United Methodist Church for those experiencing homelessness.  The complaint alleges that, since 2014, The Well, as an expression of its staff’s Christian faith, has operated a daytime hospitality and religious resource center for those experiencing homelessness, offering showers, laundry, meals and other services. In public filings seeking federal funding, the city touted The Well’s services as part of the city’s efforts to reduce and end homelessness, but the city later engaged in a campaign to close The Well, blaming it for unrelated criminal activity in Brunswick. Even after The Well adopted safety and security measures suggested by the Brunswick Police Department, the city filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to close it.  The complaint alleges that the city’s efforts to close The Well have imposed a substantial burden on The Well’s religious exercise and that the city lacks a compelling interest and has not employed the least restrictive means of enforcing its purported interest. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the city from substantially burdening The Well’s religious exercise.
  • On December 4, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Hendricks County (S.D. Ind.).  The complaint, which was filed on September 18, 2024, alleges that Hendricks County (the County) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by twice unlawfully denying zoning approval to Al Hussnain Inc., an Islamic educational organization, seeking to develop a religious seminary, school and residential housing in Hendricks County.  The complaint alleged that the County, facing significant community animus and opposition, denied Al Hussnain’s rezoning applications to develop a mixed-use community containing a residential neighborhood, community center, K-12 religious school, Islamic seminary, and dormitories for seminary students at two different locations in the County, citing concerns that lacked a legitimate basis.  The complaint further alleged that Hendricks County repeatedly departed from its own zoning ordinances as well as the county’s processes and procedures for reviewing zoning applications and treated Al Hussnain’s application worse than similar applications brought by non-Muslim developers.  The complaint alleged that the County engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons because of religion in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic organization’s religious exercise, treated the organization on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions and discriminated against the organization on the basis of religion in violation of RLUIPA.  The consent decree requires Hendricks County to pay monetary damages of $295,000 to Al Hussnain, Inc., pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States, adopt Fair Housing and Religious Land Use policies, train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints.
  • On March 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island, et al. v. County of Hawaii, et al. (D. Haw.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs, a Chabad Jewish Center and its Rabbi, Levi Gerlitzky, filed their complaint against the County of Hawaii and its planning director after the County assessed thousands of dollars in fines against Plaintiffs and prohibited them from operating a house of worship in a residential zone without a use permit, even though analogous nonreligious meeting facilities do not require a use permit. The complaint, filed in conjunction with a motion for preliminary injunction, alleges that the County’s zoning code and conduct has substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and treats Plaintiffs’ worse than comparable secular uses in violation of RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States supports Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hawaii County zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.
  • On March 27, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the City’s motions for summary judgment and to dismiss in St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, et al. v. City of Brookings (D. Or.).  Consistent with the United States’ arguments in its Statement of Interest, the court held that the City violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by imposing a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise when it enacted an ordinance that limited the number of days on which a church was permitted to serve free meals to persons experiencing homelessness or in need.  The court further found that the City lacked a compelling governmental interest to justify these restrictions.  The court concluded, “The homeless are not ‘vagrants,’ but are citizens in need.  This is a time for collaboration, not ill-conceived ordinances that restrict care and resources for vulnerable people in our communities.”
  • On December 4, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Millburn (D.N.J.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).  After the township denied an Orthodox Jewish congregation’s application to build a synagogue on res judicata grounds, the congregation filed the complaint in this case, alleging that the denial imposed a substantial burden on the congregation’s religious exercise, discriminated against the congregation based on its religion, unreasonably limited its religious assembly, and treated it worse than comparable secular uses.  The township filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the RLUIPA claims should be dismissed based on a state-law standard of review for zoning appeals and that the RLUIPA claims are not ripe because the zoning denial was based on procedural grounds.  In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains that state-law standards of review do not apply to RLUIPA claims and that the RLUIPA claims are ready to be adjudicated because the township reached a final decision on the zoning application, which has harmed plaintiffs.  On May 23, 2024, the Court denied the township’s motion, finding that res judicata did not bar the congregation’s claims and that they were ripe.
  • On October 19, 2023, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Village of Airmont (S.D.N.Y.).  The complaint, which was filed on December 2, 2020, alleged that the Village of Airmont violated the substantial burden, nondiscrimination, and unreasonable limitation provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).  The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.
  • On May 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).  The complaint in the case alleges that the City of Santa Ana substantially burdened Micah’s Way’s religious exercise when it refused to grant a certificate of occupancy to allow Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that provides services to persons that are homeless, to provide food and drinks to its clients in accordance with its religious beliefs.  The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that feeding persons who are homeless is not religious exercise and that it did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise.  The United States’ Statement of Interest responds to the City’s contentions and explains that feeding persons who are homeless may be religious exercise under RLUIPA and that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the City’s denial of its certificate of occupancy and threats of fines and criminal prosecution had substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.

Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Disability

  • On February 24, 2025, the court entered three consent orders in United States & Vollmer v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.).  The complaint, which was filed on April 11, 2024, alleged that defendants discriminated against a tenant on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by failing to grant her request to transfer to a ground-floor unit and threatening her with an early lease termination fee. The owner, property management company, property manager, housing authority, and relocation company were all defendants in this matter. 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. The consent order with the owner and property manager includes $16,666 in monetary damages for the complainant and $3,334 in attorney’s fees for the complainant’s attorney. The consent orders with the housing authority and relocation company each include $14,167 in monetary damages for the complainant and $3,333 in attorney’s fees for the complainant’s attorney. All three consent decrees also include mandatory fair housing training for current and future employees, an updated reasonable accommodation and modification policy, and a two-year compliance and reporting period.
  • On January 29, 2025, the court entered a final consent order in United States v. Kailua Village Condominium Association, et al. (D. Haw.), requiring defendants Jacqueline Frame and Kona Now LLC to pay $50,000 in damages to the complainant and to obtain fair housing training.  The complaint , which was filed on August 19, 2024, alleges that a homeowners association, board members, property managers, sellers, and selling agents of a unit at a condominium complex in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii violated discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to sell a unit to a man with paraplegia, subjecting him to discriminatory terms and conditions, making discriminatory statements, refusing to make reasonable accommodations, refusing to permit reasonable modifications, and harassing him.  On October 11, 2024, the court entered a partial consent order with all of the defendants except for Ms. Frame and Kona Now, requiring them to pay $112,500 in damages to the complainant, obtain fair housing training, adopt a reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications policy, and submit to retention and reporting requirements for a four-year period.  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.
  • On January 10, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Greenbriar Partners, LLC, et al. (N.D. Fla.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by denying the complainant’s request to live with an assistance animal.  Erwin Jackson and Jackson Properties and Financial Services, LLC are also named defendants in the case.  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.
  • On January 6, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Onyx Asset Management LLC, et al. (D.N.H.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by denying the complainant’s request to live with an assistance animal. MVV, LLC and Jonathan Warren are also named as defendants in the case.  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.
  • On December 17, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Stapula (D. N.H.). The complaint, which was filed on December 4, 2024, alleges that the defendants, the landlords of a multifamily property in Manchester, New Hampshire, discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow a tenant with a mental health disability to live with her assistance animal and by retaliating against her by attempting to evict her three times for exercising her fair housing rights. 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. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the tenant $8,500, attend fair housing training, and adopt and implement a reasonable accommodation policy for their rental properties.
  • On November 19, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Tammy Estrada, et al. (E.D. Wis.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow complainant to live with her assistance animals and by retaliating against her for exercising her fair housing rights.  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.
  • On November 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Gregory Estates, LLC, et al. (W.D. Mo.).  The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of an apartment building in Albany, Missouri discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to grant the complainant’s request to live with an emotional assistance dog and terminating his tenancy.  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.
  • On October 23, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Indian Oaks Apartments LTD, et al. (M.D. Ga.). The complaint alleges that the (now former) owners and property manager of an apartment complex in Fort Valley, Georgia violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B), by failing to grant complainant's request (beginning in June 2021) for a reasonable accommodation to move to a ground-floor unit to accommodate her child's mobility impairment, despite repeated requests and multiple available units. Complainant and her children were finally transferred to a ground-floor unit in November 2022 after the property was sold and the new owner granted the request.  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.
  • On October 9, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Nourse, et al. (D. Idaho).  The complaint alleges that defendants, the managers and owners of Decoy RV Park in Caldwell, Idaho, discriminated based on disability, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants refused a reasonable accommodation to a tenant with disabilities by prohibiting her from keeping her assistance dog because it was over fifteen pounds and by charging her a “pet fee.”  The complaint also alleges that the manager made discriminatory statements that defendants would not allow assistance animals that were over fifteen pounds. Finally, the complaint alleges that defendants retaliated against the tenant by evicting her shortly after she requested the accommodation and filed a fair housing complaint against defendants with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  The case was referred to the Division after HUD received the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • 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.
  • On May 9, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. East Hampton Housing Authority, et al. (E.D.N.Y.).  The complaint alleges that the owners and managers of a 50-unit project-based Section 8 apartment building in East Hampton, New York violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), (f)(3)(B), and (c), on the basis of disability by refusing to allow the complainant and her minor son to live with the son’s emotional assistance dog for a 20-month period.  Seymour Schutz LLC and Catherine Casey are also named as defendants in the case.  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.
  • On April 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Carlos Vazquez, et al. (D.P.R).  The complaint in this Fair Housing Act “election” case, which was filed on April 3, 2024, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by making discriminatory statements to a former tenant that expressed a preference against renting to him because of his disability, rescinding an offer to extend the former tenant’s lease because of his disability, and interfering with the former tenant’s right to pursue a reasonable accommodation. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 in damages to the former tenant and waive any claims against him for outstanding unpaid rent or other amounts, adopt a non-discrimination policy, obtain fair housing training, and submit periodic reports to the United States. 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.
  • On April 1, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC, et al. (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that the owner and property managers of a condominium complex in Rockaway Park, New York violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide a black buyer with an accessible parking space even though it had agreed earlier to provide an accessible parking space to a white resident. Delkap Management, Inc. and Joei Losito are also named as defendants in the case.  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.
  • On January 22, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Aqua 388 Community Association, et al.  (C.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” case.  The complaint, which was filed on April 3, 2023, alleges that the managers of two neighboring high-rise condominium towers in Long Beach, California violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide the complainant, who has paraplegia, a reserved accessible parking space for over three years.  FirstService Residential California, LLC, Rebecca Hawkins, Christopher Harrington, and Aqua Maintenance Corp. are also named as defendants in the case.  On October 10, 2023, the court granted the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability.  The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt new reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications policies, provide fair housing training to employees working at the approximately 950 properties managed by one of the defendants, and provide a properly marked, accessible parking space to the complainant for as long as she lives at the subject property.

Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Race, Color, National Origin, Familial Status and Religion

  • On March 7, 2025, the United States filed a second Statement of Interest in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (S.D.N.Y.), a private Fair Housing Act lawsuit alleging that the Town of Forestburgh and other municipal defendants engaged in a series of discriminatory acts to prevent an Orthodox Jewish developer from building a subdivision in Forestburgh because the defendants believed that it would attract Orthodox Jews.  The statement was filed in response to a motion filed by the defendants seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claims as prudentially unripe under BMG Monroe I, LLC v Vil. of Monroe, 93 F4th 595 (2d Cir. 2024).  The statement explains that Monroe did not alter existing law on prudential ripeness and that the Court had correctly rejected the defendants’ ripeness arguments in a prior ruling.  The statement also explains that no additional land use proceedings would help define the plaintiffs’ injury because the plaintiffs’ amended complaint plausibly alleged that the Township had used the land use process in a discriminatory fashion to delay the proposed housing development, which had inflicted economic and other injuries on plaintiffs.   On March 27, 2023, the United States filed its first Statement of Interest, arguing that the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims, premised in part on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of their building permit applications, were ripe and that the plaintiffs, who alleged lost profits and lost home sales, had standing to assert their FHA claims.
  • On January 17, 2025, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Rockland County & Village of Spring Valley (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that the defendants—Rockland County and the Village of Spring Valley—breached a March 23, 2018, Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The VCA resolved administrative complaints filed with HUD that alleged a private developer—a subrecipient of HUD grant funding—designed and marketed affordable housing units specifically for use by White Hasidic Jewish homebuyers and excluded prospective Black homebuyers. The VCA and a 2021 amendment required the defendants to develop additional affordable housing units and ensure they are marketed to the entire community. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached the agreement because they have not completed the required units. The case was referred to the Division for enforcement by HUD after notifying the defendants of the breach and giving them an opportunity to respond.
  • On January 15, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Payseur (D.N.J.). The complaint alleges that the defendants—Juliet Payseur and 20-22 McGregor Avenue, LLC—discriminated against a Black tenant based on race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the landlord demanded higher rent and other less favorable lease terms from the tenant than a similarly situated White tenant. The complaint also alleges that the landlord retaliated against the tenant after she reported this discrimination. 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.
  • On January 10, 2025, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Dunaway (S.D. N.Y.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race, color, and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by coercing, intimidating, threatening, and interfering with Hispanic neighbors and their guests with epithets, threats of bodily harm, and other harassing language and conduct.
  • On January 10, 2025, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Airbnb, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when Airbnb and property owners refused to rent complainants an apartment because they have children.  Airbnb permits property owners to designate a property as not suitable for children and infants and Airbnb’s customer service reaffirms property owners’ designated restrictions.  Sandlot05 LLC and Jarrod Blake are also named as defendants in the case.  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.
  • On December 4, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Hendricks County (S.D. Ind.).  The complaint, which was filed on September 18, 2024, alleges that Hendricks County (the County) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by twice unlawfully denying zoning approval to Al Hussnain Inc., an Islamic educational organization, seeking to develop a religious seminary, school and residential housing in Hendricks County.  The complaint alleged that the County, facing significant community animus and opposition, denied Al Hussnain’s rezoning applications to develop a mixed-use community containing a residential neighborhood, community center, K-12 religious school, Islamic seminary, and dormitories for seminary students at two different locations in the County, citing concerns that lacked a legitimate basis.  The complaint further alleged that Hendricks County repeatedly departed from its own zoning ordinances as well as the county’s processes and procedures for reviewing zoning applications and treated Al Hussnain’s application worse than similar applications brought by non-Muslim developers.  The complaint alleged that the County engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons because of religion in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic organization’s religious exercise, treated the organization on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions and discriminated against the organization on the basis of religion in violation of RLUIPA.  The consent decree requires Hendricks County to pay monetary damages of $295,000 to Al Hussnain, Inc., pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States, adopt Fair Housing and Religious Land Use policies, train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints.
  • On November 13, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Burlington Preservation Associates et al. (D.N.J.). The complaint alleges that the defendants—Arbor Management, LLC; Burlington Preservation Associates, LLC; and Leon N. Weiner & Associates, Inc.— discriminated against a Black and Hispanic tenant based on race and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the property management company changed the locks of the tenant’s apartment in Wrightstown, New Jersey, and tried to evict him during a brief period of incarceration but treated a white tenant more favorably during his own period of incarceration. The complaint also alleges that the property management company and owner of the property retaliated against the tenant after he reported this discrimination. 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.
  • On October 11, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Chicopee Housing Authority and Monica Blazic (D. Mass.). The amended complaint, which was filed on December 21, 2021, alleges that the defendants discriminated against Housing Authority residents based on race, national origin, and disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that, since at least 2013, defendant Blazic, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, made discriminatory statements to and about Black and Hispanic tenants, including using racial slurs to describe current and potential residents, indicating a preference against having Black and Hispanic residents and demanding that Spanish-speaking residents speak English, which intimidated and threatened Black and Hispanic tenants. The amended complaint also alleges that residents with disabilities who requested reasonable accommodations, such as transfers to first-floor or elevator-accessible units, have waited for years, even though the Housing Authority could have accommodated them, in violation of the FHA.  The consent order requires the Housing Authority to pay $435,000 to compensate individuals harmed by its discriminatory practices and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires the Housing Authority to make broad changes to protect the rights of tenants with disabilities, including hiring a Disability Rights Coordinator, implementing new policies for handling tenant requests for reasonable accommodations and transfers, and building nine new accessible housing units for persons with disabilities. The Consent Order also bars future discrimination and requires the Housing Authority to implement new discrimination complaint procedures and employee training.  Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Housing Authority’s Director, Monica Blazic, will resign from her role at CHA by the end of 2024 and will not have further involvement with the Housing Authority.  The case was originally referred to the Department of Justice after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint of disability discrimination, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On October 3, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Suburban Heights LLC, et al. (E.D. Mo.). The complaint alleges that four companies (Suburban Heights LLC, Crestline Property LLC, Triline Properties LLC, and Jingle Properties LLC) discriminated based on race in violation of the Fair Housing Act by posting and enforcing a complete ban on tenants with certain criminal convictions at Suburban Heights Apartments in Kinloch, Missouri.
  • On September 18, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States et al. v. Teruel et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on July 17, 2023, alleges that the manager of a two-story, seven-unit apartment complex in Burlingame, California, discriminated based on familial status by pressuring a couple, who had two babies during their tenancy, to move out of their one-bedroom apartment. The complaint also alleges that the manager falsely claimed that the family caused significant damage to the apartment after the couple told the manager that she could not discriminate against children. The complaint names the manager as a defendant both in her individual capacity and as trustee to a revocable trust, which owned the property during the family’s tenancy. 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. The couple intervened in the case. The consent order requires a payment of $137,500 to the couple and injunctive relief.
  • On April 2, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County, South Carolina, et al. (D.S.C.), a case that includes claims brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA when Florence County passed an ordinance to prevent the development of Plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartment complex based on discriminatory objections raised by community members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. First, the United States explains that Defendants misstate the legal standard for assessing disparate treatment FHA claims and that Plaintiff has put forth circumstantial evidence that may be indicative of discriminatory animus. Next, the United States explains the correct legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims. Applying the correct legal standard, Florence County’s ordinance is the kind of “policy” that may cause a disparate impact, and Defendants fail to counter Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence that Florence County’s ordinance was passed for illegitimate reasons and disproportionately affects Black residents.
  • On January 8, 2024, the court entered consent decrees resolving the Department’s claims against each of the three defendants in United States v. Isle of Paradise "B", Inc., Isle of Paradise "C", Inc., and Isle of Paradise "E", Inc. (S.D. Fla.). The complaint in this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice lawsuit, which was filed on November 30, 2023, alleges that the defendants—nonprofit cooperative corporations that each own a residential building on an island known as Isle of Paradise in Hallandale Beach, Florida—discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by maintaining and/or enforcing a no-children-under-12 policy. The consent decrees require defendants to remove their no-children-under-12 policy (except that one defendant, Isle of Paradise “C”, Inc., can instead show that it is exempt as housing for older persons); to undergo other standard injunctive relief; and to pay a total of $52,000 in monetary relief, composed of $20,000 in damages to a mother and son who were turned away and $6,000 to their real estate agent, $13,000 in settlement funds, and $13,000 in civil penalties. 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

  • On November 26, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.).  The complaint, which was filed on May 8, 2024, alleges that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 26 motor vehicles leased or owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders.  The consent order requires the defendant to develop policies and procedures for motor vehicle possessions that comply with the SCRA; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; pay $10,000 plus any lost equity and provide credit repair to affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $74,941.
  • On November 1, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Morningstar Properties, LLC dba Morningstar Storage (M.D. Fla.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case. The complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2024, alleges that the manager and operator of a nationwide chain of storage facilities violated Section 3958 of the SCRA by auctioning the property of at least three SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order includes $80,000 in monetary relief for one servicemember, $5,000 each for two additional servicemembers, and a $40,000 civil penalty, as well as requirements for SCRA-compliant policies and procedures.
  • On August 23, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Tony’s Auto Center (S.D. Cal.).  The complaint alleges that Tony’s Auto Center, a towing company in Chula Vista, California, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act case by auctioning, without a court order, a vehicle belonging to a Navy Lieutenant while he was deployed at sea aboard an aircraft carrier.
  • On August 1, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc. in United States v. City of El Paso, et al. (W.D. Tex.), requiring it to establish a $140,000 settlement fund to compensate the affected servicemembers and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.  On August 1, 2024, the Division also filed a proposed consent order with the City of El Paso, requiring it to develop new policies and procedures to ensure that its contractors that are responsible for auctioning or otherwise disposing of impounded vehicles comply with the SCRA in the future and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.  On May 7, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with United Road Towing, Inc., requiring United Row Towing, Inc. to develop policies and procedures that comply with Section 3958; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980.  The United States’ complaint, which was filed February 2, 2023, alleged that the City of El Paso and its contractors, United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders.    
  • On February 1, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Billy Joe Goines d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery (E.D.N.C.).  The complaint, which was filed on March 3, 2023, alleged that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off, selling, or otherwise disposing of servicemembers’ motor vehicles pursuant to court judgments obtained without filing proper military affidavits.  The SCRA requires a plaintiff seeking a default judgment in court to file an accurate military affidavit stating whether or not the defendant is in military service, or that the plaintiff is unable to determine the defendant’s military service status.  The complaint alleged that since at least 2017, Goines disposed of motor vehicles belonging to SCRA-protected servicemembers after failing to file, or filing inaccurate, military affidavits in court proceedings against those servicemembers.  The consent order requires Goines to pay $66,805.06 in relief for the impacted servicemembers, return one vehicle in storage to its servicemember owner, forgive storage fees assessed to certain servicemembers, attend SCRA training, and institute new policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA.
  • On January 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. McGowan Realty, LLLC, d/b/a RedSail Property Management (E.D. Va.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case.  The complaint, which was filed on January 8, 2024, alleges that a property management company operating throughout Hampton Roads area in Northern Virginia refused to honor the residential lease termination of a U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class and were assessing early lease termination charges and additional rent against him. RedSail allegedly erroneously insisted that the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) placed a 35-mile limitation on a servicemember’s SCRA residential lease termination rights. The complaint alleges that the Petty Officer paid $3,408.55 in early termination charges and additional rent to RedSail, which placed a considerable financial burden on him.  Under the consent order, RedSail will pay $10,225.65 to the Petty Officer and a $3,000 civil penalty.  The consent order also requires RedSail to provide SCRA training to its employees, develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA, and refrain from imposing the VRLTA’s 35-mile limitation on servicemembers who lawfully terminate a lease under the SCRA.
  • On November 20, 2023, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Portee v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.).  This is the first case brought nationwide under a new Servicemembers Civil Relief Act’s (SCRA) provision that guarantees the portability of certain professional licenses held by U.S. servicemembers and their spouses when they relocate pursuant to military orders. In its order, the court held that Texas state licensing authorities violated the SCRA by refusing to recognize plaintiff’s out-of-state licenses because she had not used them continuously for the two years preceding her relocation to Texas. The judgment followed the court’s July 21, 2023 order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The United States had filed a Statement of Interest on July 13, 2023, arguing that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her school counseling licenses are covered under the new provision, vigorous enforcement of the provision serves the public’s exceptionally strong interest in national defense and military readiness, and plaintiff had standing to bring her case.

Sexual Harassment

  • On February 14, 2025, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ariel Solis Veleta, et al. (D.N.M.). The amended complaint, which was filed on February 13, 2025, alleges that between 2010 and 2022, Ariel Solis Veleta (Solis), a property manager in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit further alleges that Solis’s employer and the Apartment’s owners and managers are vicariously liable for Solis’s discriminatory conduct because Solis acted as their agent when he sexually harassed tenants. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $350,000 to female tenants harmed by Solis’s harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree permanently bars Solis from contacting tenants harmed by his harassment and from managing residential rental properties. It also requires that defendants provide training and adopt policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination at residential rental properties that they own or manage.
  • On January 17, 2025, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Kurt Williams, et al. (S.D. Iowa).  The complaint alleges that the defendants – the manager and owner of multiple rental dwellings in the Davenport, Iowa area - discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  Specifically, the complaint alleges that, since at least 2010, Defendant Kurt Williams engaged in severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment of female tenants on multiple occasions by, among other things, making unwelcome sexual comments and unwelcome sexual advances; sending unwanted sexual text messages, requests for photos, and exposing his genitals; offering housing-related benefits in exchange for sex or sex acts; and taking adverse housing actions against female tenants who objected to and/or refused his sexual advances.
  • On December 3, 2024, the Division filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Johnson (E.D. Ky.). The Complaint alleges that Joseph ("Joe") Johnson, a landlord in Lexington, Kentucky, has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons on the basis of sex. According to the Complaint, since at least the early 1980s, Johnson has sexually harassed female tenants by, among other things, offering housing-related benefits in exchange for sexual contact, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances to female tenants, subjecting female tenants to unwelcome touching and groping, taking adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances, and failing to act when made aware of similar harassing behaviors by one or more of his employees.
  • On November 18, 2024, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Shalash, et al. (E.D. Ky.). The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons on the basis of sex. For at least 20 years, Adnan Shalash has sexually harassed numerous female tenants by offering housing-related benefits in exchange for sexual contact, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, entering their homes without permission, subjecting them to unwelcome touching and groping, and taking adverse housing-related actions against those who refused his sexual advances.
  • On October 28, 2024 the court entered a default judgment in United States v. Salazar, et al. (E.D. Cal.).  The complaint, which was filed on August 28, 2023, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating and retaliating against the tenant of a single-family home in Bakersfield, California. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the maintenance worker of the property, Salazar Jr., repeatedly asked the tenant to engage in sexual acts with him, persistently commented on her appearance, touched her body without her consent and took digital photographs of framed print pictures in her home of her and her daughter. The tenant reported the harassing behavior to the property manager, Salazar Sr., who is also the maintenance worker’s father. After she reported the harassment and threatened to contact a lawyer or the police if it continued, the maintenance worker and manager refused to fix a leaking gas line in her dwelling, causing her to go without heat for one month and consequently forcing her to move out. The complaint also alleges that the property owner, Covarrubias, is vicariously liable for the maintenance worker’s and manager’s conduct. The court awarded the tenant $45,000 dollars in compensatory and punitive damages and awarded injunctive relief that prohibits the sexual harasser from contacting the tenant or engaging in property management for ten years. The injunction requires all Defendants to attend fair housing training and requires the property owner to adopt a written policy against sexual harassment. 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.
  • On September 27, 2024, the Court entered a consent order resolving the claims against the Canale Defendants and requiring them to establish a $100,000 settlement fund to compensate aggrieved persons in United States v. Joel Nolen, et al. (E.D. Cal.).  On April 6, 2023, the United States filed an amended complaint. The original complaint, which was filed on February 23, 2023, alleged that Joel Nolen discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because he sexually harassed multiple female tenants since at least 2011. The original complaint also named as defendants Shirlee Nolen and Nolen Properties, LLC because they co-own or co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times. The amended complaint added defendants Nancy Canale, as trustee of the Bernard Canale and Nancy Canale 1998 Revocable Trust, and Bernard Canale, by and through his successor in interest Nancy Canale, (the “Canale Defendants”) because they co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times.
  • On September 17, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Martin (S.D. Ohio).  The complaint, which was filed on August 15, 2024, alleges that Kevin Martin, who owns and manages residential rental properties in and around Athens, Ohio, sexually harassed female tenants and housing applicants in violation of the Fair Housing Act from at least 2010 to 2020.  The consent order requires Martin to pay $165,000 to former female tenants and applicants harmed by his harassment and pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States.  It also bars Martin from managing residential rental properties, requires him to retain a property manager for properties he continues to own, and mandates training and the adoption of policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination.
  • On August 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Yellowstone Apartments, LLC (D. Mont.).  The complaint, which was filed on July 15, 2024, alleges that the owner and manager of two apartment buildings in Livingston, Montana violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, by taking steps to evict the complainant after she complained that the property manager had behaved inappropriately with her daughter.  The consent order requires the defendants to obtain fair housing training, adopt a nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, submit to reporting requirements, and have no contact with the complainant.  The order also refers to a separate settlement and release between the complainant and defendants that includes a payment of $25,000 in damages to the complainant.  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.
  • On July 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. DeWitte (C.D. Ill.) alleging that Michael DeWitte, a landlord in central Illinois, violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that DeWitte has sexually harassed actual and prospective female tenants since at least 2002 by, among other things, offering to strip for female tenants, removing his pants while giving a tour to a female housing applicant, exposing his genitals to female tenants, requesting sex in exchange for reduced rent, and evicting female tenants when they did not give in to his sexual advances.
  • On June 18, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Joseph Pedaline and YLP LLC (N.D. Ohio).  The complaint, which was filed on September 6, 2023, alleged that Joseph Pedaline sexually harassed numerous female tenants since at least 2009 at properties he owned or managed in Youngstown, Ohio. The consent decree requires the defendants to establish a settlement fund of $189,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, pay a $10,000 civil penalty, and comply with injunctive relief provisions, including limits on future property management, completing fair housing training, and taking steps to repair tenants’ credit and eviction records.
  • On June 6, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Butters (D. Colo.).  The complaint, which was filed on June 5, 2024, alleges that defendant property manager Kathryn Butters discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a husband and wife and their two minor children.  The consent order permanently enjoins Kathryn Butters from serving as a property manager and requires the defendants to pay $300,000 in monetary damages to the complainant family.  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.
  • On June 3, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Methuselah Tree, LLC, et al. (D. Me.), alleging that a property manager and maintenance worker violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a female tenant at two properties where she lived.  The complaint also names as defendants the owners and management company of the properties.  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.
  • On May 2, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.).  The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2022, alleged that Dennis Parker, the on-site manager of a 19-unit rooming house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing a male tenant because of the tenant’s sex, including the tenant’s sexual orientation, and because of the tenant’s disability. The complaint alleges that Defendant Parker engaged in verbal and virtual harassment, as well as one instance of punching the tenant in the groin and threatening to evict him in retaliation for reporting the harassment to the police. The complaint also named as defendants Leaf Property Investments, LLC and Sam Leaf (the “Leaf defendants”), who own the property where the harassment occurred.  The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination, and the tenant elected to have the matter litigated in federal court.   The consent order requires defendants to pay the tenant $40,000 in damages, prohibits Dennis Parker from managing residential properties and from contacting the tenant, requires the Leaf defendants to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and requires the Leaf defendants to undergo fair housing training. 
  • On April 29, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Shambayati, et al. (S.D. Ga.). Defendant Shambayati is a landlord who owns and manages over 45 residential properties in and around Savannah, Georgia. The complaint, which was filed on August 8, 2023, alleged that since at least 2008, Shambayati harassed female tenants and prospective tenants by making repeated and unwelcome sexual comments and advances, inappropriately touching their bodies without their permission, entering their homes without their permission, requesting sexual acts in exchange for rent or other housing-related benefits, and taking retaliatory actions against female tenants who rejected his sexual advances or complained about the harassment. The consent order requires Shambayati and two other defendants, 1511 Rosewood LLC and IDHD Properties LLC, to pay $590,000 in monetary damages to female tenants and prospective tenants harmed by Shambayati’s conduct, and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The order requires defendants to vacate any retaliatory eviction judgments obtained against these tenants and to take steps to correct the tenants’ credit histories. The defendants are also prohibited from managing residential rental properties in the future. The consent order further requires defendants to retain an independent property manager for the properties, implement a sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure, and submit detailed reports regarding property management activities and compliance with the terms of the consent order.
  • On April 8, 2024, the court entered a consent order United States v. Hussein (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on March 14, 2023, alleged that, Mohamad Hussein, the owner and manager of rental properties in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing actual and prospective female tenants. The consent decree requires Hussein to pay $185,000 in monetary compensation to 8 aggrieved persons, and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. It also permanently enjoins Hussein from managing rental properties in the future, and requires that Hussein retain an independent property manager, obtain Fair Housing Act training, and implement non-discrimination policies to prevent sexual harassment at his properties in the future.
  • On March 25, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Jimmie Bell, et al. (W.D. Mo.). The “election” complaint alleges that Jimmie Bell, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Springfield, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), by sexually harassing a female tenant from 2017 through 2019. The United States’ complaint also included a “group of persons” claim under the Fair Housing Act, based on additional victims that were identified during the Department’s investigation. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
  • On February 16, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Donahue (W.D. Wis.).  The complaint, which was filed on May 13, 2022, alleged that, since at least 2000, defendant Richard “Rick” Donahue sexually harassed numerous female tenants of residential rental properties owned by the defendants in Janesville, Wisconsin by offering to reduce monthly rental payments in exchange for sex, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, and evicting or threatening to evict female tenants who objected to or refused his sexual advances. The complaint alleged that both defendants were liable for discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The consent order requires the defendants to pay $623,965 in monetary compensation, including $500,000 to 13 aggrieved persons, and a $123,965 civil penalty to the United States. It also permanently enjoins the defendants from managing rental properties in the future. The consent decree also bars future discrimination and retaliation; requires that property management responsibilities be turned over to an independent property manager; mandates the implementation of a sexual harassment policy, complaint procedure, and Fair Housing Act training; and requires detailed reporting regarding property management activities and compliance with the terms of the consent decree.

  • On January 11, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Petties, et al. (W.D. Okla.).  The complaint alleges that Shevis D. Petties discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants at residential rental properties he owned and/or operated and managed in the Western District of Oklahoma since at least 2016.  The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Petties, among other things, subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual comments and contact, physically assaulted female tenants, photographed and/or filmed female tenants in their bedrooms and bathrooms without their knowledge and permission, and demanded that female tenants engage in sexual acts with him in order not to lose housing.  The lawsuit further alleges that the other defendants, the owners of these residential rental properties, are vicariously liable for the actions of their agent, Mr. Petties.

     

Updated April 4, 2025