Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

(Updated March 8, 2023)

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.

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

Fair Lending

On March 2, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Park National Bank (S.D. Ohio). On February 28, 2023, the United States filed the complaint and a proposed consent order. The complaint alleges that, from at least 2015 to 2021, Park National Bank (Park National) violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act on the basis of race, color, and national origin by engaging in unlawful redlining of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods within the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. The consent order requires Park National to invest at least $7.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Columbus area; $750,000 in outreach, advertising, consumer financial education, and credit counseling initiatives; and $500,000 in developing community partnerships to provide services that expand access to residential mortgage credit. Park National will also open a new branch and a new loan production office in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and ensure that a minimum of four mortgage lenders, at least one of whom is Spanish-speaking, are assigned to serve these areas.
On January 31, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City National Bank (C.D. Cal.). On January 12, 2023, the United States filed a complaint alleging that City National Bank (City National), violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Division (Los Angeles County) by avoiding providing credit services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods because of the race, color, and national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods. The consent order requires City National to invest at least $29.5 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Los Angeles County; invest $750,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit in those neighborhoods; invest $500,000 for advertising and outreach in those neighborhoods; and invest $500,000 for consumer financial education.
On October 17, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Evolve Bank and Trust (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed on September 29, 2022, alleges that from at least 2014 through 2019, the bank engaged in lending discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin in the pricing of its residential mortgage loans. The consent order requires the bank to amend its pricing policies, employ a fair lending officer who will work closely with the bank’s leadership, and have employees undergo fair lending training. The consent order also includes a $1.3 million settlement fund to remediate borrowers harmed by this pricing discrimination and a $50,000 civil penalty.
On September 29, 2022, the court approved the entry of consent order in United States v. Lakeland Bank (D.N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2022, alleged that from at least 2015 to 2021, Lakeland violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act on the basis of race, color, and national origin by failing to provide mortgage lending services to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark, New Jersey, metropolitan area. The complaint also alleges that all of Lakeland’s branches were located in majority-white neighborhoods and that its loan officers did not serve the credit needs of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Newark. Under the settlement, the Bank will invest at least $12 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark area; $750,000 for advertising, outreach and consumer education; and $400,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit. Lakeland will also open two new branches in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, including at least one in the city of Newark; ensure at least four mortgage loan officers are dedicated to serving all neighborhoods in and around Newark; employ a full-time Community Development Officer who will oversee the continued development of lending in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark area; and maintain an expanded Community Reinvestment Act Assessment Area that includes Essex, Somerset and Union counties.
On September 14, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Trident Mortgage Company, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed jointly by the United States and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on July 27, 2022, alleges that Trident Mortgage Company (Trident), which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Philadelphia metropolitan area by avoiding providing credit services to neighborhoods of color because of the race, color, and national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods. The complaint also alleges that Trident’s loan officers and other employees sent and received work e-mails containing racial slurs and referring to communities of color as “ghetto.” The consent order requires the defendant to invest at least $18.4 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of predominantly neighborhoods of color in the Philadelphia metropolitan area; invest $750,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit in those neighborhoods; invest $875,000 for advertising and outreach in those neighborhoods; and invest $375,000 for consumer financial education. Trident will also pay a civil money penalty of $4 million.
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.
On August 31, 2021, the court approved the entry of a consent order resolving all claims in United States v. Cadence Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ga.). On August 30, 2021, the United States filed the complaint and proposed consent order. The complaint alleged that, from 2013 to 2017, Cadence engaged in unlawful redlining in the Houston area by avoiding providing credit services to predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods because of the race, color, and national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods. The department also alleged that Cadence’s branches were concentrated in majority-white neighborhoods, that the bank’s loan officers did not serve the credit needs of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and that the bank’s outreach and marketing avoided those neighborhoods. Under the consent order, the Bank will invest $4.17 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Houston area, $750,000 for development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit in those neighborhoods, and at least $625,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit repair initiatives. Cadence will also dedicate at least four mortgage loan officers to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston and open a new branch in one of those neighborhoods.

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

On January 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Louis et al. v. SafeRent, et al. (D. Mass.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Louis lawsuit was filed on behalf of two plaintiffs, Mary Louis and Monica Douglas, Black rental applicants who use housing vouchers to pay part of their rent. Plaintiffs applied for rental housing but allege they were denied due to their “SafeRent Score,” a score derived from Defendant SafeRent’s algorithm-based screening software. The plaintiffs allege that SafeRent scores result in an unlawful disparate impact against Black and Hispanic rental applicants because the underlying algorithm relies on certain factors that disproportionately disadvantage Black and Hispanic applicants, such as credit history and non-tenancy related debts, while failing to consider one highly-relevant factor, that the use of housing vouchers funded by HUD makes such tenants more likely to pay their rents. In its Statement of Interest, the United States sets out the appropriate standard for pleading disparate impact claims under the FHA and clarifies that the FHA’s text and caselaw support the FHA’s application to companies providing residential screening services.
On December 27, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Hesperia, et al. (C.D. Cal.). The supplemental complaint, filed on July 22, 2021, alleged that the City of Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Black and Latinx individuals and communities in Hesperia, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through the adoption and enforcement of a so-called “crime-free” rental housing program. The original complaint was filed on December 2, 2019, and an amended complaint was filed on September 10, 2020. The amended complaint added a Title VI claim against the City. The supplemental complaint added factual allegations concerning a rental housing law that the City adopted during the litigation. As part of the case’s resolution, Hesperia has repealed its “crime-free” ordinance, modified the related rental housing business license ordinance, and reduced fees associated with rental housing business licenses. The Sheriff’s Department also has agreed to stop enforcement of Hesperia’s “crime-free” program. Under the order, the defendants will spend $950,000 and commit to injunctive relief, including: a settlement fund of $670,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the program; the payment of $100,000 in civil penalties; affirmative marketing to promote fair housing in Hesperia; partnerships with community-based organizations; notifications to property managers, landlords, and owners of the changes to the ordinances and fee schedule; submission of certain policies, procedures, and ordinances for the United States’ review and approval; adoption of non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures; designation of civil rights coordinators; anti-discrimination training; a fair housing needs assessment; and reporting to the court and the United States during the order’s five-year term.
On December 13, 2022, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority of Ashland, AL, et al. (N.D. Ala.). After filing a complaint on December 1, 2020, the United States filed an amended complaint on January 25, 2021, alleging that the Ashland Housing Authority engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons on the basis of race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by steering Black applicants away from four overwhelmingly white properties that it manages and steering White applicants away from two disproportionately Black properties that it manages, and by maintaining those properties as largely segregated. The complaint also named as defendants the private owners and agent of two of these properties. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $275,000 in damages to 23 current or former tenants who were allegedly harmed by the defendants’ conduct; pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States; implement policies and procedures to remedy the alleged segregation and to ensure nondiscrimination, transparency, and consistency in processing applications and offering units to applicants; contact a group of approximately 145 individuals who are disproportionately Black who applied to two overwhelmingly white properties but were not placed on the waiting lists for those properties, and offer them spots on the waiting list based on their original dates of application if they still qualify; undergo fair-housing training; and submit periodic compliance reports to the Justice Department.
On November 1, 2022, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. SSM Properties, LLC, et al. (S.D. Miss.). The complaint, which was filed on November 11, 2020, alleged that the owners and manager of three apartment complexes in Pearl, Mississippi discriminated on the basis of race by steering Black testers toward one complex and falsely representing that the other two complexes did not have vacancies. On August 3, 2022, the court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment on liability, finding, as a matter of law, that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $110,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees and $13,000 in civil penalties; prohibits the manager-defendant from working at any residential rental property; and requires the owner-defendants to hire an independent manager, implement nondiscriminatory standards and procedures, undergo fair housing training and provide periodic reports to the Department.
On October 6, 2022, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Concord Court at Creative Village Partners, LTD, et al. (M.D. Fla.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, Concord Court at Creative Village Partners LTD., Concord Management LTD., related entities and a property manager, discriminated against families with children in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to issue building access devices to minor residents, prohibiting children from common areas and amenities unless supervised by adults, and misrepresenting the availability of units to families with children at an apartment complex in Orlando, Florida. The proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendants to pay $260,000 to residents who were harmed by their practices and a civil penalty to the United States. The settlement also requires the defendants to implement nondiscrimination policies and provide fair housing training to employees with management or leasing responsibilities at all the properties they own or operate in Florida. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received several complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued multiple charges of discrimination.
On September 30, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Louis Liberty & Associates, PLC, et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by targeting Hispanics for predatory loan modification services. 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 12, 2022, the Division filed a statement of interest in Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, et al. v. Rainbow Realty Group, et al. (S.D. Ind.). The plaintiffs challenge defendants’ “rent-to-buy” program in Indianapolis, Indiana, alleging that it exploits consumers in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods by selling properties in poor condition at inflated prices through contracts that are designed to fail. The statement of interest aims to assist the court in evaluating plaintiffs’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) claims. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ ECOA claims on summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. The brief explains that a contract can both be a lease and also be an “aspect of a credit transaction” for purposes of ECOA. The brief analyzes the record using the definitions in ECOA, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to find that the rent-to-buy agreement used by defendants may extend “credit” as defined by ECOA, and that defendants may fall within ECOA’s definition of “creditor.”
On July 8, 2022, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss in CNY Fair Housing v. Swiss Village LLC, et al. (N.D.N.Y.), a lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to applicants who are limited English proficient (LEP) unless someone who speaks and reads English lives in the unit. On April 1, 2022, the Department filed a Statement of Interest explaining how a restrictive language policy may violate the Fair Housing Act when it has a disparate impact or is used as a proxy or pretext for discrimination based on national origin or race, as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. It also discussed how the plaintiff’s allegations are consistent with the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Guidance on Fair Housing Act Protections for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, which clarifies how restrictive language policies may run afoul of the Fair Housing Act. The Court first found that, contrary to the Defendant’s position, the HUD LEP Guidance did not assert that LEP status alone is a protected class under the FHA, but rather that language criteria may be evidence of discrimination, the same as any other potentially discriminatory criteria. The Court held that the HUD LEP Guidance was “persuasive and entitled to deference” because it was consistent with case law regarding the use of language as a proxy for race and national original, was consistent with other HUD Guidance, and that the Fourth Circuit had given it deference in a recent case, Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park LP, 903 F.3d 415, 432 & n.10 (4th Cir. 2018). The Court also found that the Complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a disparate impact claim (it repeated statistical Census data allegations regarding national origin and race made in the Complaint). The Court found that the Complaint stated a claim for intentional discrimination in that “[d]iscriminatory intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, and this Court discerns no reason why” that “would not include evidence of a language policy being used as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of national origin or race.” Finally, the Court held that a “Plaintiff does not need to identify the specific national origin or race of particular tenants in order to state a prima facie case of discrimination under the FHA” and that “neither disparate impact nor discriminatory statement claims require a showing that Defendants were aware of the national origin or race of the prospective tenants.”
On June 26, 2022, the court approved the parties’ settlement agreement and entered a final judgment in United States v. Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on June 21, 2022, alleged that Meta’s housing advertising system discriminated against Facebook users based on their race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Specifically, the complaint alleged, among other things, that Meta uses algorithms in determining which Facebook users receive housing ads and that those algorithms rely, in part, on characteristics protected under the FHA. Under the settlement, which was approved by the court, Meta will stop using an advertising tool for housing ads (known as the “Special Ad Audience” tool) and also will develop a new system to address racial and other disparities caused by its use of personalization algorithms in its ad delivery system for housing ads. Under the terms of the settlement, Meta will not provide any ad targeting options for housing advertisers that directly describe or relate to FHA-protected characteristics. The settlement also requires Meta to pay a civil penalty of $115,054, the maximum penalty available under the FHA. The case involves a Secretary-initiated HUD complaint and was referred to the Justice Department after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
On June 10, 2022, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Advocate Law Groups of Florida, P.A. (M.D. Fla.). The second amended complaint, which was filed on August 16, 2021, alleges that Advocate Law Groups of Florida, P.A., Jon B. Lindeman, Jr., Ephigenia K. Lindeman, Summit Development Solutions USA, LLC, and Haralampos “Bob” Kourouklis violated the Fair Housing Act by interfering with Hispanic homeowners’ exercise of their fair housing rights by targeting Hispanic homeowners for a predatory mortgage modification and foreclosure rescue scheme. As part of the scheme, defendants charged Hispanic homeowners thousands of dollars for their mortgage modification services, instructed Hispanic homeowners to stop paying their mortgages, and instructed them to stop communicating with their lenders. But defendants did little to provide the promised services, resulting in homeowners paying thousands of dollars in fees with no benefit, and, in many cases, resulting in foreclosures and the loss of homes. The original complaint was filed on October 29, 2018. The Consent Order permanently enjoins defendants from providing any mortgage relief assistance services, requires them to implement nondiscriminatory policies in all real estate-related businesses, and requires reporting and recordkeeping. The Consent Order requires defendants to pay $95,000 to three Plaintiff-Intervenors and enters a $4,500,000 judgment, which is suspended based on sworn financial statements showing inability to pay submitted by defendants to the Department. Defendants will be required to resubmit financial statements every six months, and, if any material misrepresentation or omission is found, the entire judgment will be reinstated. Defendants must also pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States.
On May 27, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Crimson Management, LLC, Benefield Housing Partnership d/b/a Cedartown Commons, and Cedartown Housing Association, d/b/a Cedarwood Village (N.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on May 13, 2020, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the bases of race and color when they steered African-American housing applicants who were elderly and/or had a disability away from Cedarwood Village, a predominantly white housing complex for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, to less desirable units at Cedartown Commons, a predominantly African-American general occupancy complex. The complaint also alleged that defendants maintained and perpetuated racial segregation of the elderly and disabled population at Cedarwood Village and Cedartown Commons. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $83,000 in damages to three former tenants who were harmed as a result of the defendants’ racial steering, pay a civil penalty to the United States, implement nondiscriminatory policies and procedures, complete fair-housing training, and submit periodic reports to the Justice Department.
On February 28, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Orchard Village, LLC, et al. (E.D. Mo.). The complaint, filed on May 28, 2021, alleged that the defendants discriminated against the complainants on the basis of familial status by imposing overly restrictive policies on families with children, including prohibiting children under the age of 18 from accessing the computer room, on-site movie theater, fitness center, or pool at the apartment complex without being accompanied by an adult leaseholder. The complaint also alleges that the defendants interfered with the complainants’ fair housing rights by ejecting complainant’s 16-year-old daughter from those facilities and issuing complainants a lease violation notice and notice of eviction based in part on the daughter’s access of those amenities. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $16,000 to the complainants and adopt new rules and policies regarding access to amenities at 24 residential rental properties that Defendants own, operate, and manage that comply with the Fair Housing Act. 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.
On February 14, 2022, the Department filed a statement of interest in Austin, et al. v. Miller, et al. (N.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit alleging that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race in connection to a residential home appraisal. The statement of interest explains that appraisers may be liable under the Fair Housing Act and provides guidance on pleading and proof standards for Fair Housing Act claims.
On February 1, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Bacchus (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on August 18, 2021, alleges that defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status and disability related to their refusal to allow the complainant, who was recovering from addiction to alcohol, to move his pregnant girlfriend and her child into his unit. Under the consent order, the defendants will pay a total of $75,000 to the complainant and his child and take actions directed towards preventing future unlawful discrimination, including undergoing training and implementing nondiscrimination policies on the FHA in connection with the rental and management of residential properties. 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.
On January 18, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Arlington (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on January 13, 2022, alleged that the City of Arlington, Texas violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating on the basis of familial status when it blocked the development of an affordable housing project for families with children that had been proposed by a developer, Community Development, Inc. (CDI), and would have been financed using federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The complaint alleged that the City refused to issue a Resolution of Support or a Resolution of No Objection to CDI because the City had a policy of supporting LIHTC developments only for new senior housing intended for persons 55 years of age or older. Under the consent order, the City will pay $395,000 in damages to CDI, maintain a non-discrimination policy for future LIHTC developments, provide Fair Housing Act training to certain city officials, and submit to compliance and reporting requirements for three years. This 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.
On December 29, 2021, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Lone Wolf Housing Authority (W.D. Okla.). The complaint, filed on December 15, 2020, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when they rejected a housing application from complainant and her minor child on the pretext of lack of available housing and when they further misrepresented the availability of housing to a Black tester after showing numerous available units to the white companion tester. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $75,000 in monetary damages to the complainant, her child, and the fair housing organization that conducted testing. The Housing Authority must also implement nondiscriminatory procedures, train all employees and board members on fair housing, maintain records of applications and availability, and report to the United States on their compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. 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.
On December 21, 2021, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Chicopee Housing Authority (D. Mass.). The amended complaint 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 amended complaint includes allegations that are considerably broader than those in the original complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2021. 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 September 15, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Hideaway Village Community Management Association, et al. (E.D. Tenn.). On July 9, 2021, the United States filed the Fair Housing Act complaint and proposed consent order. The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status by adopting and enforcing policies and practices that prohibited children from using the community pool without adult supervision. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $10,000 in monetary damages to the HUD complainants, attend fair housing training, and submit to other standard injunctive relief. This 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.
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.
On August 19, 2021, after a three-day jury trial on damages, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States in United States v. Rupp, et al. (E.D. Mo.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election case referred by HUD alleging that the owners of rental properties in St. Louis discriminated against the complainants, a family with children, on the basis of familial status, by terminating their lease after the birth of their second child. Specifically, the jury awarded a total of $74,400 to the complainants -- $14,400 in compensatory damages and $60,000 in punitive damages. Previously, on May 28, 2021, the court had granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment on liability and denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants used a lease and application that stated that “no [] children” were allowed; rented an apartment to the complainants, with one minor child at the time, “on a trial basis” in light of their “no children” lease condition; and later terminated the complainants’ lease after the landlord learned they had had a second child. The court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in which they argued that the United States’ case is barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata based on prior state court actions, holding that none of the required elements for collateral estoppel were present. The court granted the United States’ motion in full, finding that Defendants’ conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (b), and (c). It held that the lease termination notice, which identified the complainants’ two children as lease violations, discriminated “[o]n its face,” and therefore one Defendant’s subsequent deposition testimony about his purported non-discriminatory reasons for terminating the lease did not create a genuine dispute.
On April 5, 2021, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Village Realty of Staten Island Ltd. (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2020, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) on the basis of race when Defendant Denis Donovan, a sales and rental agent at Village Realty, treated African-Americans who inquired about available rental units differently and less favorably than similarly-situated white persons. The complaint also alleged that Defendant Village Realty is vicariously liable for Donovan’s discriminatory conduct. The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt nondiscriminatory standards and procedures, undergo fair housing training, contribute $15,000 to a victim fund, and pay a civil penalty. The complaint was based on testing evidence developed by the Section’s Fair Housing Testing Program.

Sexual Harassment:
On February 23, 2023, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Joel Nolen et at. (E.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that defendant 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. Shirlee Nolen and Nolen Properties, LLC, are also named as defendants because they co-own or co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times.
On January 23, 2023, the United States Attorney’s office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Morgan (D. Colo.). The complaint alleges that the defendant discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing the complainant when she rented housing in a building the he owned and managed and by retaliating against her by ordering her to move out after she objected to his advances.
On September 22, 2022 the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Ukejnovic (E.D. Mo.), alleging that Nedzad Ukejnovic, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Saint Louis, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by sexually harassing a female tenant in 2018. The complaint also alleges that Ukejnovic’s conduct frustrated the mission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council (EHOC), a private, not-for-profit organization in Saint Louis, and caused EHOC to divert resources. EHOC investigated the tenant’s allegations, helped her file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and created an education and action plan for the affected community. The United States’ complaint also includes 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 complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On September 9, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC, et al. (E.D. Wis.). The complaint alleges 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’s conduct included 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. In addition, the complaint also names as defendants Leaf Property Investments, LLC, which owns the property where the harassment occurred, and Sam Leaf, who manages the property. The complaint alleges that Parker acted as an agent of these defendants and managed the property on their behalf. 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.
On May 23, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Goitia, et al. (S.D. Iowa). The complaint, originally filed on June 29, 2020 and amended on November 6, 2020, alleged that the defendants, owners and property managers of several rental housing properties in Davenport, Iowa, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that, since at least 2010, owner/manager Juan Goitia sexually harassed numerous female tenants. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $135,000 in monetary damages, pay a civil penalty, and, among other injunctive relief, hire an independent manager to manage any rental properties that defendants own or manage.
On May 13, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Donahue (W.D. Wis.). The defendants own residential rental properties in Janesville, Wisconsin, and defendant Richard “Rick” Donahue manages them. The complaint alleges that Rick Donahue sexually harassed numerous female tenants since at least 2000 and that both defendants are liable for discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
On December 17, 2021, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Centanni (D. N.J.). The complaint, filed on August 5, 2020, alleged that Joseph Centanni, who owned and managed hundreds of rental units in and around Elizabeth, New Jersey, violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against tenants and housing applicants since at least 2005. Centanni’s alleged conduct included demanding sexual favors like oral sex to get or keep housing, offering housing benefits like reduced rent in exchange for sexual favors, touching tenants and applicants in a way that was sexual and unwelcome, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances to tenants and applicants, and initiating or threatening to initiate eviction actions against tenants who objected to or refused his sexual advances. The consent decree reflects that Centanni has sold all of his residential rental properties. Under the terms of the consent decree, Centanni is permanently enjoined from owning and managing residential rental properties in the future. Under the consent decree, Centanni must also dismiss housing court judgments, including evictions, obtained in proceedings deemed to be retaliatory and take steps to repair the credit of any affect tenants. Under the terms of the consent decree, Centanni will pay $4,392,950 in monetary damages to tenants and prospective tenants harmed by his harassment and a $107,050 civil penalty to the United States.
On December 13, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Whitescarver (W.D. Ky.). The complaint, filed on April 1, 2020, alleged that Gordon Whitescarver subjected multiple female tenants to sexual harassment and retaliation. According to the complaint, he made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments, entered the homes of female tenants without their consent, touched female tenants without their consent, requested sexual acts, offered reduced rent or free rent in exchange for sexual acts, and took adverse housing-related action against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint also alleged that Betsy Whitescaver, Gordon Whitescarver’s wife, threatened and retaliated against women who complained about her husband’s harassment. The consent order requires the Whitescarvers to pay $220,000 to 11 women who are current or former tenants who were harmed by the Whitescarvers’ discriminatory conduct and pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The Whitescarvers must also take steps to dismiss any pending eviction actions against the victim, vacate any adverse judgments they obtained against the victims, and repair the credit of any affected victim. The consent decree also permanently bars the Whitescarvers from engaging in property management and mandates Fair Housing Act training and reporting to the United States.
On December 2, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Prashad (D. Mass.). The complaint, filed on September 9, 2019, alleges that Defendants Mohan Prashad, David Besaw, Lanaton, LLC, and Savton, LLC engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendant Prashad sexually harassed female tenants of rental properties he owned or managed, and that Defendant Besaw, who was employed by Prashad to assist with the management and maintenance of his rental properties, also sexually harassed and assaulted female tenants. The complaint also alleges that Prashad received notice of Besaw’s harassment but failed to take action to prevent it, and that he retaliated against one female tenant by filing an eviction action against her after she complained to him about Besaw’s harassment. The consent order requires Defendants to pay $65,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States, vacate a judgment that defendants had obtained against a former tenant in housing court, and implement a sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure. It also requires that responsibility for management of Prashad’s rental properties be turned over to one or more individuals approved by the United States and prohibits Prashad and Besaw from participating in property management responsibilities at any residential rental properties.
On October 25, 2021, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Pfeiffer (D. Minn.). The complaint, which was filed on September 16, 2020, alleged that, from at least 2014 through at least 2019, defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing female tenants at properties they own and operate in and around Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Consent Decree requires defendants to pay $750,000 in monetary compensation, including $736,000 to 23 aggrieved persons, and a $14,000 civil penalty to the United States. It also requires the engagement of an independent property manager, and permanently enjoins Reese Pfeiffer from managing rental properties in the future.
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.
On September 30, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Woodcock (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on April 12, 2021, alleges that defendants Allen and Heidi Woodcock, who own and manage the subject property, discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The complaint alleges that Defendant Allen Woodcock sexually harassed a female tenant while he was at the subject property to perform maintenance, and that Defendants retaliated by initiating eviction proceedings after she reported the harassment. The consent order permanently enjoins Allen Woodcock from directly or indirectly performing any property management responsibilities including performing or supervising repairs or maintenance, advertising, showing or renting dwelling units, and negotiating rent and security deposits, and requires Defendants to pay $13,000 to the female tenant and forgive any outstanding back rent or other amounts she purportedly owes. 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.
On August 24, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Crank (E.D. Ky.). The Fair Housing Act lawsuit, filed on March 6, 2019, alleged that Gus Crank sexually harassed female tenants while managing a Dayton, Kentucky rental property owned by his wife, Penny Crank. Under the consent order, the Cranks must pay $48,000 in damages to four female tenants harmed by Gus Crank’s harassment and a $2,000 civil penalty to the United States. The Cranks are also prohibited from being involved in property management of rental units in the future.
On August 11, 2021, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Peter McCarthy and Steps to Solutions, Inc. (D. Mass.). The complaint alleges that Peter McCarthy, who operates a group of residential sober homes in or near Boston, Massachusetts through his company, Steps to Solutions, Inc., discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing residents of his sober homes since at least 2012. The complaint also alleges that Defendant McCarthy unlawfully retaliated against residents who reported his conduct.
On August 10, 2021, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Hernandez (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on January 13, 2020, alleged that from at least 2006, Property Manager Filomeno Hernandez violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at two Los Angeles, California apartment buildings owned by Ramin Akhavan, Bonnie Brae Investment Services LLC, and Westlake Property Services LLC. Hernandez engaged in harassment that included, among other things, frequently and repeatedly engaging in unwanted sexual touching, including sexual assault, making unwelcome sexual advances and comments, offering to reduce rent or excusing late or unpaid rent in exchange for sex, and entering the homes of female tenants without their consent. The consent decree requires defendants to pay a total of $105,000, which includes $100,000 in monetary damages to women who were harmed as a result of the sexual harassment, and a $5,000 civil penalty. The consent decree also bars Hernandez from participating in the rental or management of residential properties in the future, and requires that Hernandez vacate the premises and leave his post as on-site property manager.
On August 3, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Pelfrey, et al. (W.D. Okla.). The amended complaint, which was filed on November 21, 2018, alleged that John or Jane Doe, executor of the Estate of Walter Pelfrey; Rosemarie Pelfrey, as trustee of the Rosemarie Pelfrey Revocable Trust, and as trustee of the W. Ray Pelfrey Revocable Trust; Pelfrey Investment Company, LLC; and Omega Enterprises, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) violated the Fair Housing Act because Walter Ray Pelfrey, who managed dozens of residential properties owned by the Defendants, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants and prospective tenants. The consent order provides $1.2 million in monetary damages to aggrieved persons, a $50,000 civil penalty, and injunctive relief, including filing release and satisfaction of judgments in all wrongful evictions against aggrieved persons.
On July 23, 2021, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Hubbard (N.D. Ohio.). The complaint, which was filed on October 30, 2020, alleged Anthony Hubbard, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in and around Toledo, Ohio, since at least 2007, sexually harassed multiple female tenants by, among other things: sending them unwanted sexual text messages, videos, and photos; offering to reduce or excuse their monthly rental payments, security deposits, and utility fees in exchange for sex acts; and entering the homes of female tenants without their consent and without prior notice. The decree consent requires the Defendants to pay $90,000 in monetary damages to three victims of Hubbard’s harassment, and $10,000 in civil penalties.
On June 3, 2021 the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Nelson (S.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that Larry Nelson, who has owned and managed several four-unit rental properties in the San Diego, California area, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of and retaliation against female tenants from at least 2005 to the present. The consent order includes a permanent injunction against the harasser-defendant’s personal participation in property management; entry of a $580,000 judgment, $205,000 of which is immediately payable to the 13 identified aggrieved persons, $25,000 as a civil penalty, and $350,000 suspended in reliance on defendant’s certification of his inability to pay; agreement to vacate eviction and small claims actions against aggrieved persons; and other injunctive provisions.

Rental and Sales Discrimination based on Disability:

On March 3, 2023, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Fox Run Apartments, LLC, et al. (D. Kan.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow the HUD complainant and his son to rent an apartment with the complainant’s prescribed assistance animal, because the complainant’s doctor did not return a form by a specific deadline. Peterson Properties, Inc., Marilyn Light, Christy Donnici, and Deborah Alexander 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 February 22, 2023, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. MA Partners 2, et al. (N.D. Tex.), alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow complainants, who received their SSI and SSDI payments around the third of every month, to pay their rent by the fifth of the month. 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 February 7, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Premiere Holdings, Inc. (D. Nev.). The complaint, which was filed on February 2, 2023, alleged that the owners and managers of an apartment building in Las Vegas, Nevada violated the Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to a resident with an assistance animal (a pit bull), and by threatening to “enforce the terms of the lease” if the dog was present on the property. The consent order requires the defendants to undergo fair housing training, adopt non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, submit periodic reports to the United States, pay $35,000 to compensate the complainants, and vacate a small claims judgment against one complainant.
On January 3, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Perry Homes, Inc. (W.D. Pa.). The amended complaint, which was filed on October 8, 2021, alleged that defendants Perry Homes Inc., Robert Whittington and Allyson Whittington discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by implementing a policy of excluding emotional support animals from rental properties they owned or operated in Cranberry, Zelienople, and Harmony, Pennsylvania. The original complaint was filed on July 23, 2021. The case is based on a HUD complaint that was filed by Southwestern Pennsylvania Legal Services (“SWPLS”), a non-profit legal aid organization whose mission includes combating housing discrimination, after the organization conducted fair housing testing. The consent order requires the defendants to pay SWPLS $15,000 in damages, to comply with the Fair Housing Act, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, publicize the policy in applications, leases, tenant renewals, and in its rental office, provide training for its employees, and comply with other equitable terms. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On January 3, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Perry Homes, Inc. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on April 5, alleged that Perry Homes, the owner of a multifamily rental property in Cranberry, Pennsylvania, discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant requests for reasonable accommodations made by two different tenant households who sought permission to keep an assistance animal in their apartments. The case was based on HUD complaints filed by each household. The consent order requires the defendants to pay two former tenants, Alison and Jesse Noce, the sum of $12,000, and a current tenant, Sarah Jamison, $3000. In addition, the Consent Order requires that Defendants issue confirmation to Sarah Jamison that she can live with her emotional support cat as a reasonable accommodation while she remains a tenant at the property. In addition to damages, the Defendants must comply with the Fair Housing Act, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, publicize the policy in applications, leases, tenant renewal and the rental office, provide training for its employees, and comply with other equitable terms. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On December 19, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Pereos (D. Nev.). The complaint, which was filed on January 14, 2021, alleged that the owners and operators of rental properties in Reno, Nevada violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow one set of complainants to live at a subject property with a service animal, and by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation request by another set of complainants at another subject property to be allowed to reside at the property with an assistance animal. The consent order requires the defendants to implement a reasonable accommodation policy, obtain fair housing training, and pay $27,500 in damages to the complainants.
On November 23, 2022, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Group Home on Gibson Island LLC v. Gibson Island Corporation (D. Md.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The complaint in the case alleges, among other things, that a private homeowners’ association discriminated on the basis of disability when it refused to allow a small assisted living home for seniors with disabilities to operate unless it complied with certain conditions. Both sides moved for summary judgment on this claim. In its Statement of Interest, the United States addressed the correct legal standard for the Court to apply when determining whether subjecting the home to these conditions would have afforded persons with disabilities an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” under the FHA.
On November 21, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint in United States v. Hannah, et al. (W.D. Mo.), alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to allow the complainant to live with her assistance animal.
On November 14, 2022, after a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States on its claim that the defendants interfered with the complainants’ exercise of a right protected by the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in United States v. Gainfort (W.D. Pa.). The jury awarded a total of $3,750 in monetary damages to the complainants. The complaint, which was filed on December 15, 2020, alleged that the defendants, LRG Rentals and Lewis R. Gainfort, discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow complainants (a mother and her son) to keep an assistance animal, and terminating their tenancy on the ground that the son’s assistance animal violated their “no pets” policy. 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.
On November 4, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint in United States v. Madison Property L.L.C., et al. (D. Minn.), alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the complainant to rent a unit with her emotional assistance cat.
On October 11, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Larpenteur Estates Apartments, LLC, et al. (D. Minn.). The complaint, which was filed on August 29, 2022, alleged that the owner and managers of an apartment complex in St. Paul, Minnesota refused to allow a rental applicant to move in with her emotional assistance cat. The consent order requires the defendants to adopt an assistance animal policy, obtain fair housing training, and pay $12,900 in damages to the complainant.
On August 29, 2022, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Havre de Grace Associates, LP, et al. (D. Md.), alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the complainant, who used a wheelchair, to have aides help him clean and prepare his unit for bed bug treatments. 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 25, 2023, the court entered a final judgment on a June 10, 2022 jury verdict in favor of the United States in United States v. Dorchester Owners Association ("DOA") (E.D. Pa.). The court ordered defendant to pay the aggrieved persons, a married couple, $37,431 in compensatory damages, entered an injunction requiring the defendant to promptly respond to requests for accommodations for assistance animals, maintain records, and follow the policies it adopted after the jury verdict for the next three years, and assessed a civil penalty of $1. The court also issued a memorandum opinion explaining its rulings.

The United States alleged in this case that the DOA discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to grant a reasonable accommodation to its no-pets policy to a HUD complainant, and alleged that DOA engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and/or a denial of rights against a group of persons by adopting a discriminatory policy and refusing to grant reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities who need assistance animals. The jury found that the Defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities and had denied rights protected by the Fair Housing Act to a group of such persons. The jury also found that the Defendant had violated the Fair Housing Act rights of three persons – a married couple who owned a unit and another woman who was also a unit owner - whose requests for accommodations for assistance animals were denied or unreasonably delayed. The jury also found that the United States had not proven that Defendant unlawfully denied the accommodation requested by a unit owner who had filed a HUD complaint and intervened as a plaintiff. The United States filed its complaint in this case on March 12, 2020. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received two complaints from unit owners, completed an investigation on the first complaint, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On June 6, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Maria Trini Menendez (D.P.R.). The complaint alleges that the owners and managers of a four-unit apartment building in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and the real estate agent retained to find tenants for the property, discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow the complainants, one of whom is legally blind, to rent a unit because they had a guide dog. Josefina Amparo De La Fuente-Mundo, Alicia De La Fuente-Mundo, and Rosalia De La Fuente-Mundo are also named as defendants in the complaint. 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 8, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Carl Torkelson, et al. (E.D. Wash.). The complaint, which was filed on January 28, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by imposing an unreasonable set of restrictions on the complainant’s assistance animal and by making statements indicating a preference on the basis of disability. Additional defendants named in the complaint include Candi Torkelson, Tina Bryant, and Torkelson Construction Inc. The consent order requires the defendants to institute a new assistance animal policy and pay the complainant $6,000. 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 March 29, 2022, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Karen and Daniel Miyamoto (D. Wy.), resolving allegations that Defendants, the owners of rental housing in Laramie, Wyoming, discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to their no pets policy to allow a potential tenant with a disability to rent a unit with her assistance animal. The consent order requires training on the Fair Housing Act, adoption of a compliant reasonable accommodation policy, reporting, and $7,000 in monetary damages for 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 February 8, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Midtown Motel (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on November 5, 2020, alleged that the owners and operators of a building with eleven efficiency units in Dansville, New York discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow the complainant to live at the property with her assistance animal. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $30,000 in damages and comply with standard injunctive provisions. 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.
On February 1, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Bacchus (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on August 18, 2021, alleges that defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status and disability related to their refusal to allow the complainant, who was recovering from addiction to alcohol, to move his pregnant girlfriend and her child into his unit. Under the consent order, the defendants will pay a total of $75,000 to the complainant and his child and take actions directed towards preventing future unlawful discrimination, including undergoing training and implementing nondiscrimination policies on the FHA in connection with the rental and management of residential properties. 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.
On January 20, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Howitt-Paul Road, LLC (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on December 3, 2021, alleges that Defendants -- the owner and property managers of a 110-unit townhouse complex in Rochester, New York -- violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a unit to the complainant because she had an assistance dog. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $10,000, adopt a new assistance animal policy, and obtain Fair Housing Act training. 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.
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.
On December 28, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Meyer (E.D. Mo.). The complaint, filed on January 7, 2021, alleged that Defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they denied the complainants’ reasonable accommodation request for permission to keep an assistance animal and ordered a mother and her son, both of whom have disabilities, to vacate their apartment because they had an emotional support animal. The consent order requires the defendants to pay complainants $18,000 in monetary damages. This 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.
On December 22, 2021, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Eilman (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, originally filed on December 16, 2021, alleges 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 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 21, 2021, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Chicopee Housing Authority (D. Mass.). The amended complaint 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 amended complaint includes allegations that are considerably broader than those in the original complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2021. 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 December 10, 2021, the court entered the consent order in United States v. The Links South at Harbour Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc. (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, which was filed on October 8, 2021, alleges 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. 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 6, 2021, the United States Attorney’s office filed a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election complaint in United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that the Rutherford Tenants Corp. and James Ramadei discriminated on the basis of disability when they sought to evict Complainant for living with emotional support animals and that they retaliated against her by wrongfully refusing to approve the sale of her co-operative apartment and preventing her from mitigating her damages. 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 8, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Las Vegas Jaycees (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2020, alleged that Defendants Las Vegas Jaycees Senior Citizens Mobile Home Community, Newport Pacific Capital Company, and Sherry Polley-Tompkins discriminated against the Complainants on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to grant a reasonable accommodation to its breed restriction policy to allow a woman with PTSD to visit her mother at the mobile home community with her assistance animal and that the Defendants interfered with the Complainants’ fair housing rights by banning the daughter and evicting the mother from the community. The consent order requires Defendants to pay a combined $100,000 to the Complainants, revise their reasonable accommodation policy, attend fair housing training, maintain records regarding reasonable accommodation requests and report to the United States on their compliance with the terms of the Consent Order. 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.
On September 1, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Smolnik (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, which was filed on October 30, 2020, alleges that the owners and managers of a 15-lot mobile home park in West Plains, Missouri discriminated on the basis of disability by requiring a pet deposit for the complainants’ assistance animal and verbally harassing the complainants, brandishing a gun, and physically attacking one of the complainants. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $40,000 to the HUD complainants, 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.
On August 30, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an election complaint in United States v. Ruredy808, LLC, et al. (N.D. Miss.) alleging that the owners of an apartment complex in Oxford, Mississippi violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a tenant with disabilities to remain in his unit with an assistance dog and by taking steps to evict the tenant and his roommates. 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.
On June 30, 2021, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint and settlement agreement in United States v. Fairfield Properties (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that a 42-unit condominium association in Commack, New York and its property management company violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow two tenants to live with an emotional assistance dog. The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay $47,500 in damages to the tenants, attend fair housing training, and adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy. This 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.
On April 11, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election complaint in United States v. John J. Flatley d/b/a John J. Flatley Company and Luke Page (D. N.H.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability when they refused to make a reasonable accommodation allowing the tenant to live with her emotional assistance Saint Bernard dog. 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.

On February 22, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Vandelay Group (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, which was filed on July 28, 2020, alleged that the owners and operators of a two-story duplex in Milwaukee, Wisconsin violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to rent an apartment to the HUD complainants because they made a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance dog. The consent order requires the defendants to adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy, obtain fair housing training, and pay $27,500 in damages to the HUD complainants. 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.

Design and Construction:

On November 22, 2022 the court in United States v. Humphrey-Stavrou Associates, Inc., et al. (D. Md.) entered a partial consent order in which Defendant Stavrou Associates, Inc. and related entities agreed to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers in housing units and common areas at 11 multi-family housing complexes in Maryland, pay all costs related to the retrofits, pay $175,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the United States. The United States’ complaint raises similar allegations against a second Maryland-based developer, Humphrey-Stavrou Associates Inc., and related entities, which were involved in building six other multi-family housing complexes in Maryland. The lawsuit involving these properties is unaffected by the proposed partial consent order.
On October 6, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), et al. (E.D. La.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by designing and constructing eight multi-family housing properties without the accessibility features required by the FHA and ADA. Seven private developers who worked in concert with HANO are also named as defendants in the case. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $200,000 in damages to aggrieved persons and a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States and to retrofit the eight properties to be compliant with the FHA and ADA.
On September 28, 2022, the Court entered a partial consent order resolving the United States’ claims against Parry in United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C. (“Parry”) (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on December 11, 2020, alleges that Parry, the main defendant and architect, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and denial of rights to a group of persons on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failing to design and construct at least 15 multifamily senior living complexes in four states with the required accessibility features. The consent order requires Parry to contribute $350,000 to a retrofit fund to be used for retrofits at the properties, to pay $75,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and to pay a civil penalty of $25,000 to the government to vindicate the public interest. The retrofits will, among other things, make the kitchens and bathrooms at the properties more accessible and usable. The consent order also includes other injunctive relief, such as training on the FHA and ADA, and plan review by the government. The United States previously resolved its claims against some owners and Rule 19 owners; the lawsuit against the remaining owners of the properties is unaffected by the consent order with Parry.
On September 26, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. LJLD, LLC (Bridgewater), et al. (E.D. Mo), alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by designing and constructing a multifamily apartment complex without the accessible and adaptable features required by the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint filed by the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
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.
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.
On September 21, 2021, the court entered an amended consent order in United States v. Dominion Management, LLC, et al. (N.D. Ala.). The complaint, which was filed on August 30, 2021, alleges that Dominion Management and related owners failed to design and construct multifamily senior living properties with the required accessibility features. Under the consent order, defendants must create a settlement fund of $400,000, pay a civil penalty of $50,000 to the U.S. Treasury, retrofit eight multifamily senior living properties including more than 1,500 units, undergo training, and ensure any new construction meets the requirements of the FHA and ADA.
On August 19, 2021, the court entered a consent order fully resolving the United States’ claims in United States v. Hampton Corporation (D.N.D.). The complaint, which was filed on March 16, 2020, alleged that a developer and affiliated entities and individuals violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to design and construct 116 units of housing and common use areas at four housing complexes in Grand Forks and West Fargo and a rental office so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. Among other provisions, the consent order requires the defendants to remove barriers to accessibility at the properties, contribute to an aggrieved persons fund, and attend fair housing training. On March 23, 2020, the court entered a partial consent order settling the United States’ claims against the architect and engineer who worked on one of the building developments.
On June 4, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Star Management Corp. (D.P.R.). The complaint, which was filed on February 27, 2020, alleged that Star Management Corp. and its affiliated entities were involved in the design and construction of six multifamily housing developments with approximately 381 FHA-covered units located in Puerto Rico. All of the properties were built using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits ("LIHTC") and/or funds from the HOME Partnership Investment Program ("HOME funds") or other HUD programs. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of designing and constructing multifamily housing developments or denying rights to a group of persons in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1). The principal violations at the properties include, among other things, a lack of accessible routes to many covered units and public and common use areas due to steps, the absence of curb cuts, vertical level changes, and steep running and cross slopes; a lack of accessible routes into and through the dwelling units due to high thresholds, narrow passage ways, and narrow doors; and adaptive design violations in the bathrooms and kitchens. The consent order requires an injunction, fair housing training, record keeping obligations, reporting to the United States for a period of four years, a settlement fund of $175,000 to compensate victims, and retrofits to alleged non-compliant barriers on the accessible routes, in the public and common use areas, and in the covered dwelling units at the five properties.

Discriminatory Land Use and Zoning:

On February 1, 2023, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Village of Hinsdale, Ill. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, which was filed on November 24, 2020, alleges that the Village of Hinsdale discriminated on the basis of disability when it prohibited a sober living home from operating and refused to consider its request for a reasonable accommodation to the Village’s zoning code. Under the consent decree, the Village must pay $800,000 in damages and civil penalties, revise its municipal code, adopt a reasonable accommodation procedure, and undergo fair housing training, among other relief.
On July 26, 2022, a federal jury awarded $293,000 in damages against the City of Springfield, Illinois in United States v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill.), for attempting to close down a small home for three persons with developmental disabilities in 2016. The jury trial was to determine what damages should be awarded for any harm caused by the City’s conduct, and the jury determined that the City should pay a total of $293,000: $162,000 in compensatory damages to the residents of the home and their guardians, and $131,000 in compensatory damages to Individual Advocacy Group (IAG), the state-licensed provider of community residential services at the home. The United States filed its complaint against the City of Springfield in 2017, alleging that the City had discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In 2020, the court entered judgment against the City, holding that the City had violated the FHA by enforcing an ordinance requiring that homes for persons with disabilities, known as Community Integrated Living Arrangements, or “CILAs,” be spaced at least 600 feet apart in the city, granting the United States’ and IAG’s motions for summary judgment on liability. In that ruling, the court held that Springfield engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, by imposing the rule on homes of five or fewer persons with disabilities, but not on comparable homes of non-disabled persons. The court also held that by maintaining and enforcing this ordinance, Springfield denied rights under the FHA to a group of persons and that “the availability of community-based housing for persons with disabilities is most assuredly an ‘issue of general public importance.’” The court further held that Springfield violated the FHA by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for the home with three residents with intellectual and physical disabilities to stay in their home and ordered Springfield to submit a remedial plan to cure all these violations of the FHA. The district court had granted IAG a preliminary injunction in 2017 to prevent the City from shutting down the home, a decision that was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States had participated as amicus in that appeal.
On December 27, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Town of Wolcott (D. Conn.). The complaint, filed on December 7, 2020, alleged that the Town of Wolcott, Connecticut discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act when it denied a special use permit to applicants seeking to open a community residence for 13 adults with mental health disabilities and subsequently amended its zoning regulations to eliminate the operation of a community residence for adults with disabilities as a permitted use anywhere in the Town. The United States’ lawsuit was consolidated with a related suit brought by the housing provider and property owner of the proposed group home, SELF Inc. and L&R Realty Inc. The consent order provides that the Town will allow SELF. to operate a community residence with up to 13 residents and will pay $350,000 in monetary damages to SELF and L&R Realty as well as $10,000 to the United States. The order also requires the Town to amend its zoning regulations to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws; implement a reasonable accommodation policy; provide training to Town officials and employees about their obligations under federal law; designate a fair housing compliance officer; and report periodically to the Justice Department.
On November 24, 2020, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Village of Hinsdale, Ill. (N.D. Ill.), alleging that the Village of Hinsdale discriminated on the basis of disability when it prohibited a sober living home from operating and refused to consider its request for a reasonable accommodation to the Village’s zoning code.
On November 6, 2020, the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement resolving United States v. Town of Irmo (D.S.C), a lawsuit based on a zoning or land-use referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In its complaint, filed on November 16, 2018, the United States alleged that the Town’s failure to grant a homeowner a zoning variance to build a carport on her property to accommodate her physical disability violated the reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act. Under the agreement, the Town will pay the homeowner $25,000, is prohibited from engaging in future disability discrimination or interfering with the homeowner’s use of her carport, and must participate in fair-housing training and report to the Division any denial of a request for a reasonable accommodation.
On June 4, 2020, the United States filed a settlement agreement with the court resolving United States v. Government of Guam (D. Guam). The complaint, filed September 29, 2017, alleged that enforcement of the Chamorro Land Trust Act and its implementing regulations discriminates against non-Chamorros on the basis of race or national origin, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. “Chamorro” is a term often used to refer to descendants of the indigenous people of Guam. Based on Census 2010 data, Chamorros make up approximately 37.3% of the population of Guam, and under the Chamorro Land Trust Act, the Chamorro Land Trust Commission holds and administers approximately 20,000 acres, or 15% of Guam’s total land area. As part of its mission to administer this land, the Commission grants 99-year residential leases for one-acre tracts at a cost of one dollar per year. Only “native Chamorros,” however, are eligible for these leases. Under the settlement agreement, Guam will stop taking race and national origin into account in awarding the land leases. The CLTA will be amended to award leases based on whether individuals lost land or use of land, including during World War II and its aftermath, instead of whether an applicant is a “native Chamorro.” And the Chamorro Land Trust Commission has agreed to record-keeping, reporting, training, and additional injunctive relief requirements.

Public Accommodations (Title II):

On October 19, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Retsel Corporation, et al. (D.S.D.). The complaint alleges that the Retsel Corporation and its owners 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 Rapid City, South Dakota, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On February 1, 2018, the United States entered into a settlement agreement resolving United States v. Jarrah (S.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2016, alleges that the owner and operator of the Houston-based sports bar 360 Midtown (formerly d/b/a Gaslamp) implemented discriminatory admission practices to discourage and/or deny African American, Hispanic and Asian-American prospective patrons entrance. The complaint further alleges that defendant Jarrah used racial slurs when explicitly instructing employees to exclude African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American patrons from the bar. Under the settlement agreement, defendants are required to comply with Title II; implement a system for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; and conduct monitoring to ensure that 360 Midtown’s employees act in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.
On June 30, 2015, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Routh Guys, LLC d/b/a Kung Fu Saloon (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was also filed on June 30, 2015, alleged that the owners and operators of a bar and restaurant located in Dallas, Austin, and Houston, Texas, discriminated against African-American and Asian-American patrons by denying them admission into Kung Fu Saloons, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The consent order requires Kung Fu Saloons to post and enforce a non-discriminatory dress code policy; to implement a system for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; and to conduct monitoring to ensure that Kung Fu Saloon's employees are acting in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons (RLUIPA):

On November 23, 2022, the court in United States v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich.) entered a stipulated order resolving the United States’ motion seeking additional relief in the United States’ Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) lawsuit against the City of Troy, Michigan. The complaint, filed on September 19, 2019, relates to Adam Community Center’s (“Adam’s”) efforts to establish an Islamic place of worship in Troy at a building previously used as a restaurant and banquet hall. On March 18, 2022, the Court issued an order granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment by finding that Troy violated RLUIPA. In granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment the Court specifically held that Troy (1) imposed an unjustified substantial burden on Adam’s exercise of religion when it denied Adam’s variance requests that would have allowed Adam to worship at the building and (2) violated RLUIPA’s equal terms provision by requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous zoning restrictions than places of nonreligious assembly. The Court also enjoined Troy from enforcing its discriminatory zoning restrictions, denied Troy’s motion for summary judgment, and issued final judgment dismissing the case. The United States’ motion for additional relief, filed on April 13, 2022, sought judicial oversight to ensure Troy’s compliance with the court’s order and Adam’s religious use of the building.
On November 15, 2022, the United States filed a statement of interest related to damages in Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, et al. (E.D. Mich.), the private companion case to United States v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich.). The statement of interest explains that damages may be available to private litigants pursuing land use claims against municipal defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The damages briefing followed the Court’s orders in both lawsuits finding that Troy violated RLUIPA by (1) imposing an unjustified substantial burden on Adam Community Center’s exercise of religion in its effort to operate a mosque and (2) requiring places of worship to abide by more onerous zoning restrictions than places of nonreligious assembly.
On July 7, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Township of Jackson and Jackson Planning Board (D. N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on May 20, 2020, alleged that Jackson Township, New Jersey and Jackson Township’s Planning Board violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s (RLUIPA’s) non-discrimination and equal terms provisions, as well as the Fair Housing Act (FHA), by targeting the Orthodox Jewish community through zoning ordinances restricting religious boarding schools. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Township passed Ordinances 03-17 and 04-17, and the Planning Board applied those Ordinances in a manner that discriminated against the Orthodox Jewish community and prevented it from operating Orthodox Jewish yeshivas there. The complaint also alleges that, after the passage of the ordinances, the Planning Board approved plans for two non-religious projects with dormitory-type housing. The consent order requires Jackson Township to repeal the discriminatory ordinances and replace them with an ordinance that will allow religious elementary and secondary schools, religious higher learning institutions, and religious residential schools. It also requires that the new zoning ordinance treat religious schools equally with non-religious institutions that operate in the township, and that the Township train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints, pay a civil penalty of $45,000, and pay $150,000 into a settlement fund from which aggrieved persons can seek payment.
On February 25, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Village of Walthill, Nebraska (D. Neb.) The amended complaint, which was filed on January 12, 2021, alleged that the Village violated the substantial burden and equal terms provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by denying Light of the World Gospel Ministries, a non-denominational Christian church, a permit to construct a new church in the Village. The consent order requires the Village to grant Light of the World Gospel Ministries a special use permit to construct a new multi-use building including a church on property it had purchased in a commercial district of the Village. It also prohibits the Village from violating RLUIPA in the future, and requires it to arrange for RLUIPA training of Village Board members and staff, provide notice to the public regarding rights protected by RLUIPA, and comply with recordkeeping, reporting and inspection requirements.
On October 14, 2021, the United States filed a notice of dismissal in United States v. Stafford County, VA (E.D. Va.), after obtaining the relief it sought in the case. The United States’ complaint, filed on June 19, 2020, alleged that the County violated the substantial burden provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it enacted an ordinance that imposed 900-foot distance requirements between cemeteries and private wells and perennial streams, thereby prohibiting the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery on land it had bought for that purpose. The complaint alleged that the distance requirements were not justified for health or safety reasons, exceeded state standards, and did not exist in any other jurisdiction in Virginia. In response to the United States’ investigation and filing of the lawsuit, the County repealed the ordinances that prevented the AMAA from developing the cemetery, approved the AMAA’s site plan for the cemetery, implemented new internal procedures for addressing complaints, provided RLUIPA training to employees, posted RLUIPA-related notices, and, in settling the private suit filed by the AMAA, agreed to pay the AMAA $500,000 in damages.
Thai Association of Alabama, et al. v. City of Mobile (S.D. Ala.): On May 7, 2021, the Division filed a statement of interest in this RLUIPA case on remand from the Eleventh Circuit. The Division filed a brief and participated in oral argument in the appeal, arguing that the district court had applied the wrong standard for evaluating RLUIPA substantial burden claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and reversed and remanded for the district court to apply an approach modeled on the decisions of other circuits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 12, 2021. The Statement of Interest elaborates on the approaches of the other circuits in evaluating substantial burden, and explains the compelling interest test the court should apply if it finds a substantial burden.
On March 11, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Township of Toms River (D. N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on March 10, 2021, alleges that Toms River violated RLUIPA by enacting zoning regulations which place unreasonable limits on where religious assemblies and institutions may locate, substantially burden religious exercise, and treat religious assemblies and institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institution. The complaint alleges that since 2009, Toms River has enacted a series of revisions to its zoning code—including a ten-acre parcel minimum requirement—which greatly reduced both the number of zoning districts in which houses of worship can locate and the number of sites available for houses of worship. These restrictions have had a particular impact on the Township’s Orthodox Jewish population, who, because of their faith and religious traditions, tend to worship at small houses of worship which they walk to and from on the Sabbath and Holidays. The consent order requires the Township to revise its zoning code to: reduce the minimum acreage required for a house of worship in many zoning districts from ten acres to two acres; allow houses of worship as-of-right in certain zoning districts; allow smaller houses of worship to be located on minor collector roads; and treat houses of worship on comparable terms to nonreligious places of assembly. The consent order also requires the Township to train its officials and employees on RLUIPA’s requirements and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA complaints.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

On March 3, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Billy Joe Goines d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery (E.D.N.C.). The complaint alleges 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 alleges 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.
On March 2, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.), a class action lawsuit brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by four servicemembers on behalf of a class of servicemembers who held credit cards issued by, or had other interest-bearing obligations to, the bank. The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to comply with Section 3937 of the SCRA, which requires lenders to limit the interest rate charged to eligible servicemembers to 6% during periods of military service. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the SCRA gives servicemembers pursuing SCRA claims the right to participate in a class action case in federal court even where a defendant seeks to enforce a contract clause mandating individual arbitration.
On March 2, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Padao v. American Express National Bank (E.D.N.C.), a class action lawsuit brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by a servicemember on behalf of a class of servicemembers who held credit cards issued by, or had other interest-bearing obligations to, the bank. The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to comply with Section 3937 of the SCRA, which requires lenders to limit the interest rate charged to eligible servicemembers to 6% during periods of military service. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the SCRA gives servicemembers pursuing SCRA claims the right to participate in a class action case in federal court even where a defendant seeks to enforce a contract clause mandating individual arbitration.
On February 2, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.), alleging that the City of El Paso and its agents engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders.
On October 4, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2022, alleges that GM Financial violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by illegally repossessing 71 servicemembers’ vehicles and by improperly denying or mishandling over 1,000 vehicle lease termination requests. The consent order requires GM Financial to pay $3,534,171 to the affected servicemembers and a $65,480 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires GM Financial to repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to its employees, and follow policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA.
On September 27, 2022, the parties entered into an addendum to the settlement agreement in United States v. Westlake Services, LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal.), to address allegations that the defendants had violated Section 3937 of the SCRA by failing to provide qualified servicemembers with interest rate benefits for the entire period required under the SCRA and by improperly delaying approval of interest rate benefit requests. The addendum to the settlement agreement requires that Westlake and its subsidiary, Wilshire Commercial Capital, pay $185,460 in compensation to 250 servicemembers who did not receive interest rate benefits back to the date their orders were issued or who had to wait more than 60 days to receive their benefits. Westlake and Wilshire must also pay an additional $40,000 civil penalty and must revise their SCRA policies and procedures and training to ensure that interest rate benefits are timely and appropriately applied to servicemember accounts. On September 27, 2017, the United States filed a complaint and executed a settlement agreement with Westlake and Wilshire. The complaint alleged that from 2011 to 2016, Westlake and Wilshire repossessed 70 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without first obtaining court orders, in violation of Sections 3952 and 3953 of the SCRA. The settlement agreement requires that Westlake and Wilshire pay $700,000 in compensation to the servicemembers whose cars were illegally repossessed. Westlake and Wilshire also must repair the credit of all affected servicemembers, pay a $60,788 civil penalty and adopt new SCRA policies and procedures.
On September 14, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC, et al. (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on August 8, 2022, alleges that the defendants violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military tenants at the Hideaway at Greenbrier Luxury Apartment Homes in Chesapeake, Virginia, and the Chase Arbor Apartments in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC and Chase Arbor Apartments Property Owner, LLC are both named as defendants in the case. The consent order requires the defendants to pay a total of $225,000 in monetary relief: $162,971 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires the defendants to vacate the judgments, repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to their employees, and develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA. The owners must also reimburse affected servicemembers for any amounts collected pursuant to an unlawful judgment.
On September 2, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States vs. Integrity Asset Management, LLC (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on August 19, 2022, alleged that the defendant, a company that manages approximately 55 multi-family apartment properties in and around El Paso, Texas, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by charging unlawful fees to servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early and by denying other servicemembers’ requests to terminate their leases. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a total of $107,000 in monetary relief: $45,325 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires the defendant to repair the servicemembers’ credit, provide SCRA training to its employees, and develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA.
On April 15, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Steve’s Towing, Inc. (E.D. Va.), alleging that a Virginia Beach based towing company violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off vehicles belonging to at least seven servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. One of the vehicles has been valued at more than $50,000, and was towed from a military base while its owner was deployed overseas.
On March 18, 2022 the court entered a consent order in United States v. BayPort Credit Union (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on March 10, 2022, alleges that a credit union failed to cap servicemembers’ interest rates for pre-service loans at 6% and repossessed servicemembers’ motor vehicles without the required court orders. The consent order requires BayPort to pay $69,443.10 to 24 servicemembers and pay a $40,000 civil penalty. The agreement also includes changes in BayPort’s SCRA interest rate benefit and repossession policies and employee training.
On November 2, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. PRTaylor LLC d/b/a Father & Son Moving & Storage (D. Mass.). The complaint, filed on August 18, 2020, alleged that the defendant violated Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. § 3958, by auctioning of the belongings of a United States Air Force Technical Sergeant without a court order while the servicemember was deployed. The auctioned belongings included the Technical Sergeant’s military gear, items that had belonged to a cousin who was killed in action while serving in the military, a relative’s military service medals, a dresser that was handmade by his great-grandfather, and his personal photographs. The consent order requires the defendant to pay the servicemember $60,000, pay $5,000 to the United States as a civil penalty, provide annual training on the SCRA to employees involved in the rental, management, or disposal of storage units, modify its storage contracts to include SCRA safeguards, and implement new procedures for SCRA compliance prior to enforcing any storage lien.
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.
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.
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.
On August 9, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Black and White Garage, Inc. dba Black and White Towing (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on July 20, 2021, alleges that a towing company violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by illegally auctioning off a vehicle belonging to an active duty U.S. Marine. Under the consent decree, Black and White must adopt new policies and implement new training requirements, pay $22,000 in compensation to the Marine, and pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury.
On July 26, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. United Tows, LLC (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 28, 2020, allege that United Tows, a Dallas-based towing company, violated Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when it auctioned, sold or otherwise disposed of vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders. Under the consent decree, United Tows must adopt new policies and implement new training requirements, pay a total of $40,000 to compensate the five aggrieved servicemembers, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury.
On January 29, 2021, the court entered a proposed consent order in United States v. Conn Credit I, LP, et al. (S.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on September 15, 2020, alleges that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by failing to lower the interest rate on consumer retail installment contracts to 6% for at least 184 SCRA-protected servicemembers. The consent order requires Conn Credit to refund all overcharged interest and pay an additional $500 to each servicemember and to pay $50,000 as a civil penalty. The consent order has a term of three years and requires Conn Credit to hire an independent consultant to identify all affected servicemembers.

Updated March 9, 2023

Search form

Main menu

You are here

Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

Was this page helpful?