Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

(Updated October 2, 2024)

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 October 1, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. OceanFirst Bank (D.N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on September 18, 2024, alleged that OceanFirst violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by redlining majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods in Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean counties in New Jersey. Specifically, the complaint alleged that OceanFirst disproportionately focused its outreach and advertising on majority-white communities, placed its branches in majority-white neighborhoods, and closed its only branches in majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods in those counties. The consent order requires OceanFirst to invest at least $14 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of these majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. Additionally, in these same neighborhoods, OceanFirst will spend at least $700,000 on advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education and counseling; and will spend at least $400,000 to develop community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit. OceanFirst will open a loan production office and maintain its recently opened full-service branch in majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods and will staff those locations with at least two loan officers dedicated to serving these neighborhoods. OceanFirst will also complete a community credit needs assessment, assess and report on its fair lending program, and train staff on the bank’s obligations under ECOA, the FHA, and the consent order.
On February 13, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, et al. (M.D.N.C.). The complaint, which was filed on February 5, 2024, by the United States and North Carolina Department of Justice, alleges that First National Bank of Pennsylvania (including as successor in interest to Yadkin Bank, which it acquired in 2017) violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in unlawful redlining in its service areas in the Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North Carolina markets. Specifically, among other things, the complaint alleges the bank located and maintained nearly all of its branches and mortgage loan officers outside of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, relied on mortgage loan officers concentrated in majority-white areas as the primary source of new loan applications, and maintained inadequate internal fair lending policies and procedures to ensure that the bank was positioned to provide equal access to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. As a result, the bank’s peers generated lending activity in those neighborhoods at two to four times the rate of other banks with similar lending volume. The consent order requires the defendant to invest at least $11.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase credit opportunities for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; spend $1 million on community partnerships to provide services to residents of those neighborhoods; spend $750,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit counseling focused on those neighborhoods; open two new branches in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and one such branch in Winston-Salem; ensure that at least two mortgage bankers and two community homeownership specialists are assigned to solicit loan applications from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem; and employ a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color in North Carolina. First National Bank of Pennsylvania also agreed to complete a community credit needs assessment, to assess and report on its fair lending program; and to train staff on the bank’s obligations under the consent order.
On January 30, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Patriot Bank (W.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed January 17, 2024, alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) specifically that, from 2015 through 2020, Patriot Bank engaged in unlawful redlining in its self-designated service area in Memphis, Tennessee and discriminated on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The consent order requires Patriot to invest at least $1.3 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis. Additionally, in those same neighborhoods, Patriot will spend at least $375,000 for advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education and counseling; spend $225,000 to develop community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit; employ two loan officers dedicated to serving those communities of color in Memphis and a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in those communities; and continually assess the credit needs of the communities.
On December 20, 2023, the United States and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jointly filed a complaint in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Colony Ridge (S.D. Tex). The complaint alleges that Colony Ridge LLC and its affiliated companies violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as well as other consumer protection statutes, by operating an illegal land sales scheme targeting tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false statements and predatory loans.
On November 7, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ameris Bank (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, which was filed on October 19, 2023, alleged that Ameris Bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the bank’s Jacksonville, Florida service area. The Department’s complaint alleges that, from 2016 through 2021, Ameris Bank avoided providing mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Jacksonville and discouraged people seeking credit in those communities from obtaining home loans. Ameris’ home mortgage lending was focused disproportionately on white areas of Jacksonville while other lenders generated applications in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods at three times the rate of Ameris. Additionally, although Ameris operates 18 branches in Jacksonville, Ameris has never operated a branch in a majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhood in the city. The consent order requires Ameris to invest at least $7.5 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Jacksonville. Additionally, in those same neighborhoods, Ameris will spend $900,000 for advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education; spend $600,000 to develop community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit; open a new branch; ensure at least three mortgage loan officers are dedicated to serving those communities; and employ a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color in Jacksonville. Ameris will also retain a consultant to assess the bank’s compliance management system as it pertains to redlining risk across all of its markets.
On October 31, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Washington Trust Company (D.R.I.). The complaint, which was filed on September 27, 2023, alleged that Washington Trust violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act by engaging in unlawful redlining in the State of Rhode Island. Specifically, the complaint alleged that despite expansion across the state of Rhode Island, Washington Trust has never opened a branch in a majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhood, relied on mortgage loan officers working out of only majority-white areas as the primary source for generating loan applications, and failed to train or incentivize its lending staff or conduct outreach, marketing and advertising of its mortgage services to compensate for its lack of branches and presence in majority-Black and Hispanic areas. The consent order requires the defendant(s) to invest at least $7 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, home refinance and home equity loans and lines of credit for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island; spend $1 million on community partnerships to provide services that increase residential mortgage credit access for residents of those neighborhoods; spend $1 million for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit counseling focused on majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; open two new branches in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island; and ensure at least two mortgage loan officers are dedicated to serving these neighborhoods; and employ a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color. Washington Trust also agreed to complete a community credit needs assessment, to assess and report on its fair lending program; and to train staff on the bank’s obligations under the consent order.
On October 4, 2023, the court entered a consent order in U.S. v. American Bank of Oklahoma (N.D. Okla.). The complaint, which was filed on August 28, 2023, alleges that American Bank of Oklahoma violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Tulsa, Oklahoma Metropolitan Statistical Area. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant refrained from providing mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and discouraged prospective applicants from those neighborhoods from applying for credit. The consent order requires American Bank of Oklahoma to invest at least $950,000 in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; spend $100,000 on community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit; and spend $100,000 on advertising, outreach, and consumer financial education in majority-Black and Hispanic communities. The consent order also requires American Bank of Oklahoma to open a loan production office in a Black and Hispanic census tract which will provide access to mortgage services and a community room available to the public; ensure at least two mortgage loan officers are dedicated to serving majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Tulsa; and conduct a research-based market study to help identify the needs for financial services in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Tulsa.
On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in Connolly v. Lanham (D. Md.), a private lawsuit brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and other laws. The complaint in the case alleges that an appraiser and a lender violated the FHA and ECOA by lowering the valuation of a home because the owners were Black and by denying a mortgage refinancing application based on that appraisal. On March 13, 2023, the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a Statement of Interest explaining that it is illegal for a lender to rely on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory and providing guidance on pleading standards under the FHA and ECOA. The Court agreed that a lender violates the law by relying on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory, adopted the pleading standards in the Statement of Interest, and held that plaintiffs stated claims for relief under ECOA and multiple provisions of the FHA.
On June 9, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. ESSA Bank & Trust (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was filed on May 31, 2023, alleges that ESSA violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by engaging in unlawful redlining in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area by avoiding providing mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and discouraging prospective applicants from those neighborhoods from applying for credit. The consent order requires ESSA to: (1) invest at least $2.92 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; (2) spend an additional $125,000 on community partnerships and $250,000 on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in majority-Black and Hispanic communities; (3) hire two new mortgage loan officers to serve its existing branches in West Philadelphia; and (4) conduct a research-based market study to help identify the needs for financial services in communities of color.
On March 2, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Park National Bank (S.D. Ohio). The complaint, which was filed on February 28, 2023, 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.

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

On September 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree in United States v. Hendricks County, Indiana (S.D. Ill.) settling allegations that Hendricks County (the County) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by twice unlawfully denying zoning approval to Al Hussnain Inc., an Islamic educational organization, seeking to develop a religious seminary, school and residential housing in Hendricks County. The proposed consent decree, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and must still be approved by the court, resolves a lawsuit filed by the United States. The complaint alleges that the County, facing significant community animus and opposition, denied Al Hussnain’s rezoning applications to develop a mixed-use community containing a residential neighborhood, community center, K-12 religious school, Islamic seminary, and dormitories for seminary students at two different locations in the County, citing concerns that lacked a legitimate basis. The complaint further alleges that Hendricks County repeatedly departed from its own zoning ordinances as well as the county’s processes and procedures for reviewing zoning applications and treated Al Hussnain’s application worse than similar applications brought by non-Muslim developers. The complaint alleges that the County engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons because of religion in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic organization’s religious exercise, treated the organization on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions and discriminated against the organization on the basis of religion in violation of RLUIPA. The consent decree requires Hendricks County to pay monetary damages of $295,000 to Al Hussnain, Inc., a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States, adopt Fair Housing and Religious Land Use policies, train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints.
On September 18, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States et al. v. Teruel et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on July 17, 2023, alleges that the manager of a two-story, seven-unit apartment complex in Burlingame, California, discriminated based on familial status by pressuring a couple, who had two babies during their tenancy, to move out of their one-bedroom apartment. The complaint also alleges that the manager falsely claimed that the family caused significant damage to the apartment after the couple told the manager that she could not discriminate against children. The complaint names the manager as a defendant both in her individual capacity and as trustee to a revocable trust, which owned the property during the family’s tenancy. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The couple intervened in the case. The consent order requires a payment of $137,500 to the couple and injunctive relief.
On April 2, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in DHD Jessamine, LLC v. Florence County, South Carolina, et al. (D.S.C.), a case that includes claims brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The Plaintiff alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA when Florence County passed an ordinance to prevent the development of Plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartment complex based on discriminatory objections raised by community members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FHA claims. First, the United States explains that Defendants misstate the legal standard for assessing disparate treatment FHA claims and that Plaintiff has put forth circumstantial evidence that may be indicative of discriminatory animus. Next, the United States explains the correct legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims. Applying the correct legal standard, Florence County’s ordinance is the kind of “policy” that may cause a disparate impact, and Defendants fail to counter Plaintiff’s arguments and evidence that Florence County’s ordinance was passed for illegitimate reasons and disproportionately affects Black residents.
On January 8, 2024, the court entered consent decrees resolving the Department’s claims against each of the three defendants in United States v. Isle of Paradise "B", Inc., Isle of Paradise "C", Inc., and Isle of Paradise "E", Inc. (S.D. Fla.). The complaint in this Fair Housing Act pattern or practice lawsuit, which was filed on November 30, 2023, alleges that the defendants—nonprofit cooperative corporations that each own a residential building on an island known as Isle of Paradise in Hallandale Beach, Florida—discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by maintaining and/or enforcing a no-children-under-12 policy. The consent decrees require defendants to remove their no-children-under-12 policy (except that one defendant, Isle of Paradise “C”, Inc., can instead show that it is exempt as housing for older persons); to undergo other standard injunctive relief; and to pay a total of $52,000 in monetary relief, composed of $20,000 in damages to a mother and son who were turned away and $6,000 to their real estate agent, $13,000 in settlement funds, and $13,000 in civil penalties.
On June 27, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Shen v. Simpson (N.D. Fla.), a lawsuit challenging provisions of a new Florida law, SB 264. Among other things, the law prohibits individuals who are “domiciled” in certain foreign countries, particularly China, from purchasing real property in the state; sellers of real property and individuals who own or acquire real property in violation of the law may be subject to civil and criminal penalties. In its filing, the United States supports the ACLU’s motion to enjoin implementation of these provisions. The brief explains that SB 264’s property ownership restrictions violate the Fair Housing Act because they discriminate based on a person’s national origin and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the restrictions are not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling government interest. The United States Attorneys in all three Florida judicial districts signed on to the brief.
On April 6 and 10, 2023, the court entered two proposed consent orders to resolve claims against all defendants in United States v. Louis Liberty & Associates, PLC, et al. (N.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” case. The complaint, filed on September 30, 2022, alleges that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin in violation of the FHA by targeting Hispanics for predatory loan modification services. Louis A. Liberty and Barney Diamos were also named as a defendant in the case. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 10, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Concord Court at Creative Village Partners, LTD, et al. (M.D. Fla.). The complaint, which was filed on October 6, 2022, alleges that the defendants 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 consent order requires the defendants to pay $260,000 to residents who were harmed by their practices and a civil penalty to the United States. The defendants will also implement nondiscrimination policies and provide fair housing training to employees with management or leasing responsibilities at all the residential rental 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 March 27, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Lost Lake Holdings, LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (S.D.N.Y.), a private lawsuit alleging discrimination based on religion under the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Town of Forestburgh and other municipal defendants engaged in a series of discriminatory acts to prevent an Orthodox Jewish developer from building a subdivision in Forestburgh because the defendants believed that it would attract Orthodox Jews. The statement argues that the plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims, premised in part on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of their building permit applications, are ripe and that the plaintiffs, who alleged lost profits and lost home sales, have standing to assert their FHA claims.
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 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.

Sexual Harassment:

On September 27, 2024, the Court entered a consent order resolving the claims against the Canale Defendants and requiring them to establish a $100,000 settlement fund to compensate aggrieved persons in United States v. Joel Nolen et al. (E.D. Cal.). On April 6, 2023, the United States filed an amended complaint. The original complaint, which was filed on February 23, 2023, alleged that Joel Nolen discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because he sexually harassed multiple female tenants since at least 2011. The original complaint also named as defendants Shirlee Nolen and Nolen Properties, LLC because they co-own or co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times. The amended complaint added defendants Nancy Canale, as trustee of the Bernard Canale and Nancy Canale 1998 Revocable Trust, and Bernard Canale, by and through his successor in interest Nancy Canale, (the “Canale Defendants”) because they co-owned properties where harassment occurred at the relevant times.
On September 17, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Martin (S.D. Ohio). The complaint, which was filed on August 15, 2024, alleges that Kevin Martin, who owns and manages residential rental properties in and around Athens, Ohio, sexually harassed female tenants and housing applicants in violation of the Fair Housing Act from at least 2010 to 2020. The consent order requires Martin to pay $165,000 to former female tenants and applicants harmed by his harassment and pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. It also bars Martin from managing residential rental properties, requires him to retain a property manager for properties he continues to own, and mandates training and the adoption of policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination.
On August 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Yellowstone Apartments, LLC (D. Mont.). The complaint, which was filed on July 15, 2024, alleges that the owner and manager of two apartment buildings in Livingston, Montana violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, by taking steps to evict the complainant after she complained that the property manager had behaved inappropriately with her daughter. The consent order requires the defendants to obtain fair housing training, adopt a nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, submit to reporting requirements, and have no contact with the complainant. The order also refers to a separate settlement and release between the complainant and defendants that includes a payment of $25,000 in damages to the complainant. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On July 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. DeWitte (C.D. Ill.) alleging that Michael DeWitte, a landlord in central Illinois, violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the complaint alleges that DeWitte has sexually harassed actual and prospective female tenants since at least 2002 by, among other things, offering to strip for female tenants, removing his pants while giving a tour to a female housing applicant, exposing his genitals to female tenants, requesting sex in exchange for reduced rent, and evicting female tenants when they did not give in to his sexual advances.
On July 17, 2024, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Southwest Key Programs, Inc. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that Southwest Key discriminated because of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by subjecting unaccompanied children residing in its shelters to severe and pervasive sexual harassment by employees. The complaint also alleges that Southwest Key failed to take sufficient action to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment to protect the children in its care. Southwest Key is a national non-profit that currently operates at least 29 shelters in Texas, Arizona, and California, and is the largest private care provider for unaccompanied children in the United States. Unaccompanied children are minors present in the United States without parents or other legal guardians and without lawful immigration status in the United States.
On July 15, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Yellowstone Apartments, LLC (D. Mont.). The complaint alleges that the owner and manager of two apartment buildings in Livingston, Montana violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, by taking steps to evict the complainant after she complained that the property manager had behaved inappropriately with her daughter. The proposed consent order, which must be approved by the court, requires the defendants to obtain fair housing training, adopt a nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, submit to reporting requirements, and have no contact with the complainant. The order also refers to a separate settlement and release between the complainant and defendants that includes a payment of $25,000 in damages to the complainant. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On June 18, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Joseph Pedaline and YLP LLC (N.D. Ohio). The complaint, which was filed on September 6, 2023, alleged that Joseph Pedaline sexually harassed numerous female tenants since at least 2009 at properties he owned or managed in Youngstown, Ohio. The consent decree requires the defendants to establish a settlement fund of $189,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, pay a $10,000 civil penalty, and comply with injunctive relief provisions, including limits on future property management, completing fair housing training, and taking steps to repair tenants’ credit and eviction records.
On June 6, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Butters (D. Colo.). The complaint, which was filed on June 5, 2024, alleges that defendant property manager Kathryn Butters discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a husband and wife and their two minor children. The consent order permanently enjoins Kathryn Butters from serving as a property manager and requires the defendants to pay $300,000 in monetary damages to the complainant family. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On June 3, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Methuselah Tree, LLC, et al. (D. Me.), alleging that a property manager and maintenance worker violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing a female tenant at two properties where she lived. The complaint also names as defendants the owners and management company of the properties. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On May 2, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Leaf Property Investments, LLC (E.D. Wis.).  The complaint, which was filed on September 9, 2022, alleged that Dennis Parker, the on-site manager of a 19-unit rooming house in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing a male tenant because of the tenant’s sex, including the tenant’s sexual orientation, and because of the tenant’s disability. The complaint alleges that Defendant Parker engaged in verbal and virtual harassment, as well as one instance of punching the tenant in the groin and threatening to evict him in retaliation for reporting the harassment to the police. The complaint also named as defendants Leaf Property Investments, LLC and Sam Leaf (the “Leaf defendants”), who own the property where the harassment occurred. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination, and the tenant elected to have the matter litigated in federal court. The consent order requires defendants to pay the tenant $40,000 in damages, prohibits Dennis Parker from managing residential properties and from contacting the tenant, requires the Leaf defendants to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and requires the Leaf defendants to undergo fair housing training. 
On April 29, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Shambayati, et al. (S.D. Ga.). Defendant Shambayati is a landlord who owns and manages over 45 residential properties in and around Savannah, Georgia. The complaint, which was filed on August 8, 2023, alleged that since at least 2008, Shambayati harassed female tenants and prospective tenants by making repeated and unwelcome sexual comments and advances, inappropriately touching their bodies without their permission, entering their homes without their permission, requesting sexual acts in exchange for rent or other housing-related benefits, and taking retaliatory actions against female tenants who rejected his sexual advances or complained about the harassment. The consent order requires Shambayati and two other defendants, 1511 Rosewood LLC and IDHD Properties LLC, to pay $590,000 in monetary damages to female tenants and prospective tenants harmed by Shambayati’s conduct, and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States. The order requires defendants to vacate any retaliatory eviction judgments obtained against these tenants and to take steps to correct the tenants’ credit histories. The defendants are also prohibited from managing residential rental properties in the future. The consent order further requires defendants to retain an independent property manager for the properties, implement a sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure, and submit detailed reports regarding property management activities and compliance with the terms of the consent order.
On April 8, 2024, the court entered a consent order United States v. Hussein (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on March 14, 2023, alleged that, Mohamad Hussein, the owner and manager of rental properties in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing actual and prospective female tenants. The consent decree requires Hussein to pay $185,000 in monetary compensation to 8 aggrieved persons, and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. It also permanently enjoins Hussein from managing rental properties in the future, and requires that Hussein retain an independent property manager, obtain Fair Housing Act training, and implement non-discrimination policies to prevent sexual harassment at his properties in the future.
On March 25, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Jimmie Bell, et al. (W.D. Mo.). The “election” complaint alleges that Jimmie Bell, the owner and manager of residential rental properties in Springfield, Missouri, discriminated on the basis of sex, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), by sexually harassing a female tenant from 2017 through 2019. The United States’ complaint also included a “group of persons” claim under the Fair Housing Act, based on additional victims that were identified during the Department’s investigation. The case was referred to the Division after HUD received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On March 6, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Solis (D.N.M.). The complaint alleges that between 2010 and 2022, Ariel Solis, a property manager in Albuquerque, New Mexico, engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit further alleges that Solis’s employer, PacifiCap Properties Group, LLC, and the owners of St. Anthony Plaza, St. Anthony Limited Partnership and PacifiCap Holdings XXXVIII, LLC, are vicariously liable for Solis’s discriminatory conduct because Solis acted as their agent when he sexually harassed tenants at St. Anthony Plaza.
On February 16, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Donahue (W.D. Wis.). The complaint, which was filed on May 13, 2022, alleged that, since at least 2000, defendant Richard “Rick” Donahue sexually harassed numerous female tenants of residential rental properties owned by the defendants in Janesville, Wisconsin by offering to reduce monthly rental payments in exchange for sex, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances, and evicting or threatening to evict female tenants who objected to or refused his sexual advances. The complaint alleged that both defendants were liable for discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The consent order requires the defendants to pay $623,965 in monetary compensation, including $500,000 to 13 aggrieved persons, and a $123,965 civil penalty to the United States. It also permanently enjoins the defendants from managing rental properties in the future. The consent decree also bars future discrimination and retaliation; requires that property management responsibilities be turned over to an independent property manager; mandates the implementation of a sexual harassment policy, complaint procedure, and Fair Housing Act training; and requires detailed reporting regarding property management activities and compliance with the terms of the consent decree.
On January 11, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Petties, et al. (W.D. Okla.). The complaint alleges that Shevis D. Petties discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants at residential rental properties he owned and/or operated and managed in the Western District of Oklahoma since at least 2016. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Petties, among other things, subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual comments and contact, physically assaulted female tenants, photographed and/or filmed female tenants in their bedrooms and bathrooms without their knowledge and permission, and demanded that female tenants engage in sexual acts with him in order not to lose housing. The lawsuit further alleges that the other defendants, the owners of these residential rental properties, are vicariously liable for the actions of their agent, Mr. Petties.
On December 29, 2023, the United States filed an amended pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Wheeler (D. Me). The complaint, which was originally filed on November 16, 2023, alleges that Defendant Fred Wheeler discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing numerous female tenants and prospective tenants in properties that Wheeler owned and managed in central Maine. The complaint also names as a defendant Landscape Center of Maine, Inc., through which Wheeler managed his properties.
On November 15, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Trujillo v. Amity Plaza LLC (D. Colo.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and certain state laws. The complaint in the case alleges that the plaintiff was sexually harassed and assaulted by a maintenance worker employed by her housing providers, Amity Plaza, LLC and the Housing Authority of the City of Littleton, Colorado. The housing providers moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains the well-established principle that Section 3604(b) of the FHA prohibits post-acquisition sexual harassment and is not limited only to conduct during the process of acquiring or renting property, argues that a state statute cannot immunize a public housing authority from a federal FHA claim, and addresses the proper standard for holding a defendant vicariously liable under the FHA.
On September 6, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Joseph Pedaline, et al. (N.D. Ohio). The complaint alleges that Joseph Pedaline discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants at residential properties that he owned or managed in Youngstown since at least 2009. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Pedaline subjected tenants to repeated and unwelcome sexual comments; touched them without their consent; entered their homes without permission; offered to overlook late rent payments, waive rent, or perform repairs in exchange for sexual contact; and initiated evictions or threatened to evict tenants who refused his sexual advances.
On August 31, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Joseph Lucas (S.D. Ohio). The complaint alleges that Joseph Lucas discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants and applicants since at least 2004. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lucas requested sex acts from female tenants and applicants, subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual touching, made unwelcome sexual comments and advances to female tenants and their female guests, repeatedly drove by and entered female tenants’ homes without their permission, demanded that female tenants engage in sex acts with him in order not to lose housing, and offered to reduce rent or excuse late or unpaid rent in exchange for sex acts. The lawsuit also alleges that Mr. Lucas initiated evictions or threatened to evict female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The lawsuit is the result of a joint investigative effort with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General.
On August 28, 2023, the United States filed an election complaint in United States v. Salazar et al. (E.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating and retaliating against the tenant of a single-family home in Bakersfield, California. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the maintenance worker of the property repeatedly asked the tenant to engage in sexual acts with him, persistently commented on her appearance, touched her body without her consent and took digital photographs of framed print pictures in her home of her and her daughter. The tenant reported the harassing behavior to the property manager, who is also the maintenance worker’s father. After she reported the harassment and threatened to contact a lawyer or the police if it continued, the maintenance worker and manager refused to fix a leaking gas line in her dwelling, causing her to go without heat for one month and consequently forcing her to move out. The complaint also alleges that the property owner is vicariously liable for the maintenance worker’s and manager’s conduct. 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 August 18, 2023, the United States entered into a settlement agreement to resolve its claims in United States v. Vernon Morgan (D. Colo.). The complaint, which was filed on January 23, 2023, alleged 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 that he owned and managed and by retaliating against her by ordering her to move out after she objected to his advances. The settlement requires the defendant’s estate to pay $38,000 to the complainant. The case was referred to the Department after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On May 19, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ukejnovic (E.D. Mo.). The complaint, which was filed on September 22, 2022, alleged 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 case was referred to the Division after HUD received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $85,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the harassment and $20,000 to compensate the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council for resources it expended responding to the reported harassment. The defendant is also required to pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States. In addition, the consent order requires the defendant to retain an independent property manager to manage his rental properties, obtain fair housing training and implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at his properties in the future.
On May 19, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Timothy Britton, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that Timothy Britton discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing female tenants since at least 2016. The complaint alleges that Mr. Britton made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, touched female tenants’ bodies without their permission, requested sexual contact, offered reduced or free rent in exchange for sexual contact, and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint also names as a defendant Britton Enterprises, LLC, which operates the rental properties where the harassment occurred. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendants’ conduct, a civil penalty from the defendants to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
On May 11, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Abraham Kesary, et al. (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because Mr. Kesary, a property manager, sexually harassed female tenants since at least 2012. The complaint alleges that Mr. Kesary made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual acts including sexual touching and attempted penetration and kissing, offered tangible housing benefits to female tenants in exchange for sexual acts, subjected female tenants to unwelcome touching and groping, and entered the homes of female tenants without their permission and with no apparent legitimate reason to do so. The complaint also names as a defendant M&F Development, LLC which owns the property where the harassment occurred. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendants’ conduct, a civil penalty from the defendants to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
On May 8, 2023, the court awarded additional injunctive relief to the United States and ordered the Defendant to pay a civil penalty of $25,000 in United States v. Chad David Ables, d/b/a Pops Cove (W.D. Tenn.). Among other things, the court issued a permanent injunction barring the Defendant from managing residential rental properties, from entering onto the premises of any residential rental properties he continues to own, and from having any contact or communication with current or prospective tenants. The order requires the Defendant to hire an independent property management company to manage any rental properties he continues to own. On December 12, 2022, the court entered judgment on a December 9, 2022 jury verdict. The United States’ amended complaint, filed on April 15, 2019, alleged that the Defendant, Chad David Ables, sexually harassed female tenants of residential rental properties that he owned and managed, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States, finding that from at least 2013 to 2020 the Defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment of female tenants and had denied rights protected by the FHA to a group of such persons. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $70,500 to six former female tenants of the Defendant. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint from two former female tenants of the Defendant, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On May 3, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Dos Santos (D. Mass.). The complaint, which was filed December 7, 2020, alleged that a property manager in Chicopee, Massachusetts, had sexually harassed female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act since at least 2008 and that the two family trusts that own the properties are liable for his conduct. Under the consent decree, defendants are required to pay $425,000 in damages to six aggrieved persons and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree also bars future discrimination and retaliation, requires that property management responsibilities be turned over to an independent manager, mandates the implementation of a sexual harassment policy, complaint procedure, and Fair Housing Act training and requires detailed reporting regarding property management activities and compliance with the terms of the consent decree. The consent decree permanently bars Dos Santos from participating in any property management responsibilities at any residential rental property.
On April 21, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Bruno (D. Conn.). The complaint, which was filed on February 25, 2019, alleged that that Richard Bruno discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants and applicants at several properties in and around New London, Connecticut. The complaint also names Domco, LLC and Domco II, LLC. as defendants. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $350,000 to persons harmed by the harassment, pay a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to obtain fair housing training and implement non-discrimination policies and a complaint procedure to prevent sexual harassment at their properties. The consent order also prohibits Richard Bruno from managing any residential rental properties in the future. Richard Bruno previously was convicted and sentenced to serve time in federal prison on charges arising out of his exploitation of minor female children of tenants.
On April 17, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Danny Bell (E.D. Ky). The complaint alleges that the defendant discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by sexually harassing numerous female tenants since at least 2010 and retaliated against female tenants who objected to his harassment. The complaint asserts that Bell made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, entered the homes of female tenants without their consent, touched female tenants’ bodies without their consent, offered reduced or free rent in exchange for sexual contact, and took adverse housing-related actions against female tenants who refused his sexual advances. The complaint seeks monetary damages for individuals who have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct, a civil penalty from the defendant to vindicate the public interest, and an order prohibiting future discrimination.
On March 7, 2023, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Jones, et al. (W.D. Mich.). The complaint, which was filed on June 4, 2020, alleges that Darrell Jones, the owner and manager of rental properties in Muskegon, Michigan, violated the Fair Housing Act by subjecting female tenants to sexual harassment and retaliation. The consent decree requires the defendants to retain an independent property manager, obtain Fair Housing Act training, and implement non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures to prevent sexual harassment at their properties in the future. The consent decree also requires the defendants to pay $155,000 in damages to the aggrieved persons and a $10,000 civil penalty.
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 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 August 19, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Kailua Village Condominium Association, et al. (D. Haw.). The complaint alleges that a homeowners association, board members, property managers, sellers, and selling agents of a unit at a condominium complex in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii violated discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by refusing to sell a unit to a man with paraplegia, subjecting him to discriminatory terms and conditions, making discriminatory statements, refusing to make reasonable accommodations, refusing to permit reasonable modifications, and harassing him. 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 August 15, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, which was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office on December 6, 2021, alleges that a 175-unit cooperative apartment building in New York, New York and the president of its board of directors discriminated on the basis of disability by denying a tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation for her assistance animals and by retaliating against her for having exercised rights protected by the Act. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $165,000 and to offer to buy her shares in the co-op for $585,000 (about $85,000 over market value). It also requires defendants to dismiss their pending eviction against the tenant with prejudice, adopt a new reasonable accommodations policy, and obtain fair housing training. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On August 14, 2024, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act “election” complaint in United States v. Grapevine Housing Authority (N.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that defendant discriminated against a tenant based on disability by denying requests for a reasonable accommodation, terminating his lease, and pursuing an eviction. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On May 9, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. East Hampton Housing Authority, et al. (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleges that the owners and managers of a 50-unit project-based Section 8 apartment building in East Hampton, New York violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), (f)(3)(B), and (c), on the basis of disability by refusing to allow the complainant and her minor son to live with the son’s emotional assistance dog for a 20-month period. Seymour Schutz LLC and Catherine Casey are also named as defendants in the case. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 11, 2024, the United States filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Woodlands at Montgomery LP, et al. (S.D. Ga.) alleging that the owner and manager of an apartment complex in Savannah, Georgia violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B) by failing to grant the request of a tenant with a disability to transfer to a ground-floor unit and threatening her with an early lease termination fee. The complaint also names the local housing authority and a housing relocation service as defendants. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Carlos Vazquez, et al. (D.P.R). The complaint in this Fair Housing Act “election” case, which was filed on April 3, 2024, alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by making discriminatory statements to a former tenant that expressed a preference against renting to him because of his disability, rescinding an offer to extend the former tenant’s lease because of his disability, and interfering with the former tenant’s right to pursue a reasonable accommodation. The consent order requires defendants to pay $5,000 in damages to the former tenant and waive any claims against him for outstanding unpaid rent or other amounts, adopt a non-discrimination policy, obtain fair housing training, and submit periodic reports to the United States. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 1, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed an “election” complaint in United States v. Belle Shore Condominium LLC, et al. (E.D.N.Y.), alleging that the owner and property managers of a condominium complex in Rockaway Park, New York violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide a black buyer with an accessible parking space even though it had agreed earlier to provide an accessible parking space to a white resident. Delkap Management, Inc. and Joei Losito are also named as defendants in the case. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On January 22, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Aqua 388 Community Association, et al. (C.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) “election” case. The complaint, which was filed on April 3, 2023, alleges that the managers of two neighboring high-rise condominium towers in Long Beach, California violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (f)(3)(B) by refusing to provide the complainant, who has paraplegia, a reserved accessible parking space for over three years. FirstService Residential California, LLC, Rebecca Hawkins, Christopher Harrington, and Aqua Maintenance Corp. are also named as defendants in the case. On October 10, 2023, the court granted the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The consent decree requires the defendants to adopt new reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications policies, provide fair housing training to employees working at the approximately 950 properties managed by one of the defendants, and provide a properly marked, accessible parking space to the complainant for as long as she lives at the subject property.
On August 25, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Eilman, et al. (E.D. Wis.). The amended complaint , which was filed on December 22, 2021, alleged that the owners and managers of a Wisconsin apartment complex discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow a prospective tenant with a disability to live with her assistance animal at the complex. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complainant $33,250, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, and notify the United States of any denied requests for reasonable accommodations.
On August 10, 2023, and June 27, 2023, the court entered consent orders in United States v. MA Partners 2, et al. (N.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on February 22, 2023, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act 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 consent order entered on June 27, 2023 requires Defendants MA Partners 2, Brockbk JV LLC, Dallas Redevelopment Equities LLC, and Alden Short, Inc. to pay $10,000 in damages to the complainants, undergo fair housing training, adopt non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies, and submit periodic reports to the United States. The consent order entered on August 10, 2023 requires Defendant Sam Matalone to pay $1,000 in damages to the complainants and to undergo fair housing training. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On August 8, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Hannah, et al. (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, which was filed on November 21, 2022, alleges 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. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the complaint $5,000, vacate her eviction judgment, provide her with a favorable reference letter, adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, attend fair housing training, and read multiple guidance documents issued by HUD and DOJ. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On July 10, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Ruredy808, LLC, et al (N.D. Miss). The complaint, which was filed on August 30, 2021, alleges 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 his service dog and by taking steps to evict him and his roommates. The consent order contains injunctive relief and refers to a separate agreement between the HUD complainant and the defendants in a consolidated 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 July 7, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. AION Management, LLC, et al. (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated based on disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by denying requests for reasonable accommodations in the form of assigned parking spaces. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On June 7, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Havre de Grace Associates (D. Md.). The complaint, which was filed on August 29, 2022, alleges that the owner and property managers of a 66-unit affordable housing community for seniors and individuals with disabilities in Havre De Grace, Maryland refused 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 consent order requires the defendants to pay $15,000 in damages to the complainant’s estate and to be subject to a springing injunction in the event they return to the residential rental business. The individual defendant must also attend fair housing training. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
On April 11, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Albright Care Services, et al. (M.D. Pa.). The Fair Housing Act complaint, which was filed on April 6, 2023, alleges that a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania refused to grant a reasonable accommodation to allow the son of a resident with disabilities to live with her as an aide, which was necessitated by the fact that the community barred external visitors to the community due to COVID-19 restrictions. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $215,000 in damages to the HUD complainants and to adopt reasonable accommodation policies in all of their CCRCs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Tennessee. 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 a 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 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 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 27, 2021, the court entered a consent order in United States v. John J. Flatley d/b/a John J. Flatley Company, et al. (E.D. Tenn.). The complaint, filed on April 9, 2021, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability when they refused to make a reasonable accommodation to allow the complainant to live with her emotional assistance Saint Bernard dog. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $35,000 in damages to the HUD complainants, adopt and implement a new reasonable accommodation policy for assistance animals, and obtain fair housing 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.
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 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 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 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 June 18, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a complaint in United States v. Toll Brothers, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that several Toll Brothers-related entities and others violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct residential properties in New York and elsewhere with the required accessibility features. The case was referred to the Department after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. On June 25, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant Lendlease Construction LMB Inc. The decree requires Lendlease not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty. On July 28, 2024, the court approved a consent decree between the United States and Defendant GreenbergFarrow Architecture, Inc. The decree requires GreenbergFarrow not to discriminate in future design and construction, implement an educational program, and pay a $30,000 civil penalty.
On November 2, 2023, the court entered the final two consent orders 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) by failing to design and construct at least 15 multifamily senior living complexes in four states with the required accessibility features. The consent order between the United States and Parry 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. Five of the consent orders require current or former property owners to perform retrofits at one or more of the properties at issue and, in certain instances, to contribute to a settlement fund and/or pay a civil penalty to the United States. The retrofits will, among other things, make the kitchens and bathrooms at the properties more accessible and usable. The remaining consent orders require current property owners to ensure access to the properties at issue to enable the completion of required retrofits.
On October 30, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc., et al. (D. Haw.). The original complaint alleged that the designers and builder of five multifamily complexes in Hawaii failed to design and construct those properties in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The United States subsequently filed an amended complaint (on April 4, 2022) and a second amended complaint (on October 7, 2022) naming several additional defendants. The consent order requires the defendants to make extensive retrofits at the properties, pay $120,000 to individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay $200,000 for additional accessibility-related improvements at one of the properties.
On October 19, 2023, the court approved a second partial consent order in United States v. Humphrey-Stavrou Associates, Inc., et al. (D. Md.), in which Humphrey-Stavrou Associates Inc. and related entities agreed to make extensive retrofits to remove accessibility barriers at the three properties Humphrey-Stavrou Associates Inc. still owns, pay all costs related to the retrofits, deposit a sum of $410,000 in an account to be used to retrofit the three properties now owned by other entities, pay $60,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals who were harmed by the inaccessible conditions, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to United States. On November 22, 2022 the court 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 was filed on September 27, 2022.
On September 1, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. LJLD, LLC (Bridgewater), et al. (E.D. Mo). The complaint, which was filed on September 26, 2022, alleges 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 consent order requires the defendants to make accessibility retrofits to the property, pay $18,500 to compensate aggrieved persons, undergo fair housing training, and report on compliance. 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 April 7, 2023, the United States Attorney’s Office entered into a settlement agreement resolving the allegations in United States v. Artimus Construction, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 3, 2023, alleges that Artimus Construction, Inc. (“Artimus”), a Manhattan-based developer, violated the Fair Housing Act’s accessible design and construction requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), in designing and constructing two rental complexes in Manhattan — Chelsea Park and Susan’s Court. The settlement requires the defendant to make retrofits to remove accessibility barriers in housing units and common areas at the two subject properties and at additional properties, pay at least $75,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The settlement also requires the defendant to receive training about the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act and to take steps to ensure that any future covered multifamily housing construction complies with those laws.
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 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.

Discriminatory Land Use and Zoning:

On September 16, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Stanton Square, LLC v The City of New Orleans (E.D. La.), a case brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the U.S. Constitution, and state law. The amended complaint in this case alleges, in part, that Defendants violated the FHA and Title VI by blocking Plaintiff from developing a multifamily apartment complex that complied with the City’s zoning requirements and Master Plan based on discriminatory objections raised by constituents. In its Statement of Interest, the United States argues that the amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support Plaintiff’s FHA and Title VI claims. First, the United States argues that comments like those alleged to have been made by opponents of the development can be indicative of discriminatory intent, and that Plaintiff has put forth adequate circumstantial evidence that the City capitulated to the discriminatory objections of its constituents. Second, the United States explains that Defendants misconstrue the legal framework for assessing disparate impact FHA claims and that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the City’s actions have a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic residents and perpetuate segregation in violation of the FHA. On December 29, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest responding to arguments made by Defendants in their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint. After Plaintiff amended its complaint, the court denied Defendants’ prior motion as moot.
On June 28, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Town of Franklinton (E.D. La.). The complaint, which was filed on June 27, 2024, alleged that the Town of Franklinton discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when it obstructed, delayed, and denied zoning for a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing development that would have disproportionately served Black residents and would have been built in a predominantly white neighborhood. The consent decree requires the Town of Franklinton to pay $205,000 in damages to developers and a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States, facilitate the development of new affordable housing to replace the units that the town previously blocked, amend its zoning ordinance and policies, and support the development of affordable housing by rezoning land to multi-family use and establishing a land donation program.
On June 4, 2024, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. City of Anoka, Minnesota (D. Minn). The complaint, which was filed on May 21, 2024, alleged that defendant violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act by enforcing its “crime free” housing ordinance in a manner that denies tenants with mental health disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from emergency response services. The complaint alleged that calls related to medical emergencies could be flagged as a “nuisance,” and tenants with mental health disabilities and those associated with them were deterred from calling for emergency help and faced the threat of eviction, fines, or loss of the landlord’s rental license. The complaint further alleged defendant improperly disclosed confidential medical information to all landlords relating to calls for emergency services. The consent decree requires defendant to revise its program rules and enforcement practices; adopt non-discrimination policies and complaint procedures; notify landlords and tenants of changes to the program; designate an ADA compliance coordinator; train staff; and pay $175,000 to compensate harmed individuals. The complaint and consent decree follow a letter of findings that the United States issued on November 7, 2023.
On December 21, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Aventurine One, LLC v. The City of Marshall, Texas (E.D. Tex.), a case that includes claims brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the United States Constitution, and state law. The complaint in this case alleges, in part, that the City of Marshall violated the FHA by denying a special use permit for the plaintiff’s proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit development based on discriminatory objections raised in public hearings. The City of Marshall moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains that comments that do not directly reference a protected class may nevertheless be indicative of discriminatory animus and clarifies that municipalities can be held liable under the FHA for capitulating to constituents’ discriminatory motives.
On December 8, 2023, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. City of Chattanooga (E.D. Tenn.). The complaint, which was filed on November 6, 2023, alleges that the defendant discriminated on the basis of disability and violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to allow four people with disabilities to reside in a four-bedroom home together under the same terms and conditions as residents without disabilities. This case arose out of a HUD complaint filed by Quality Lifestyle Service, Inc., a non-profit corporation that supports independent housing for persons with mental disabilities in the City. The Consent Decree includes an injunction prohibiting future acts of discrimination; requires the City to pay $32,600 in monetary relief to Quality Lifestyle Service and a civil penalty of $5,000; and requires the City to implement revisions to its zoning code, conduct training, and provide compliance reports to the Division. The case was referred to the Division after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development received Quality Lifestyle’s complaint and conducted an investigation.
On December 5, 2023, the court entered a permanent injunction in United States v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill.), prohibiting the city from enforcing a local spacing ordinance that bans people with disabilities from living in homes within 600 feet of one another if the home has five or fewer residents. The court also awarded the United States $61,982.50 in civil penalties against the city for violating the Fair Housing Act. In awarding civil penalties against the city, the court recognized that the city’s attempts to close the home and its restrictive zoning ordinance impeded the integration of people with disabilities from institutions into the community, a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C. As the court explained, the civil penalty award against the City of Springfield will “make clear to municipalities that these facially discriminatory spacing rules may not be used to hinder the trend of shifting persons with disabilities from institutions to community-based residences.” The court further permanently enjoined the city from taking any action against the owners or residents of the home, ordered the city to undergo fair housing training and awarded $53,654,50 in prejudgment interest on the jury’s damages award to Individual Advocacy Group (IAG). On July 26, 2022, a federal jury awarded $293,000 in damages against the City 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 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 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.

Public Accommodations (Title II):

On November 29, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Retsel, et al., (D.S.D.). The complaint, which was filed on October 19, 2022, alleged that that the Retsel Corporation and the owners, Connie Uhre and her son Nicholas Uhre, discriminated against Native American customers through policies and practices that denied Native Americans the full and equal enjoyment of access to the services, accommodations and privileges at the Grand Gateway Hotel and the Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Grand Gateway and Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino are in Rapid City, South Dakota. The consent order enjoins Connie Uhre from being a director or officer of the Retsel Corporation and from engaging in any of the hotel’s operations for four years. The consent order also enjoins Defendants from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race and requires that they issue an apology to be distributed to the tribal communities and posted on the company’s website. Defendants must also undergo training, develop an anti-discrimination policy, complaint procedure and marketing plan. Defendants must also hire a compliance officer to monitor Defendants’ compliance with the consent order.
.
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 September 18, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent decree in United States v. Hendricks County, Indiana (S.D. Ill.) settling allegations that Hendricks County (the County) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by twice unlawfully denying zoning approval to Al Hussnain Inc., an Islamic educational organization, seeking to develop a religious seminary, school and residential housing in Hendricks County. The proposed consent decree, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and must still be approved by the court, resolves a lawsuit filed by the United States. The complaint alleges that the County, facing significant community animus and opposition, denied Al Hussnain’s rezoning applications to develop a mixed-use community containing a residential neighborhood, community center, K-12 religious school, Islamic seminary, and dormitories for seminary students at two different locations in the County, citing concerns that lacked a legitimate basis. The complaint further alleges that Hendricks County repeatedly departed from its own zoning ordinances as well as the county’s processes and procedures for reviewing zoning applications and treated Al Hussnain’s application worse than similar applications brought by non-Muslim developers. The complaint alleges that the County engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and denied rights to a group of persons because of religion in violation of the FHA and imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic organization’s religious exercise, treated the organization on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions and discriminated against the organization on the basis of religion in violation of RLUIPA. The consent decree requires Hendricks County to pay monetary damages of $295,000 to Al Hussnain, Inc., a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States, adopt Fair Housing and Religious Land Use policies, train its officials and employees on the requirements of RLUIPA and the FHA, and establish a procedure for receiving and resolving RLUIPA and FHA complaints.
On July 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Gethsemani Baptist Church v. City of San Luis (D. Az.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Gethsemani Baptist Church filed a complaint against the City of San Luis after the City effectively prohibited the continued operation of its Food Ministry on Church property without a conditional use permit and prohibited the Church from using semi-trucks to drop off food donations at the church, even though analogous nonreligious entities are not prohibited from using semi-trucks on their property. The complaint in the case alleges that the City substantially burdened the Church’s religious exercise by significantly reducing the number of persons that it can feed through its Food Ministry and that the City treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assemblies, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the church’s RLUIPA claims are not ripe for review because the Church did not apply for a conditional use permit and the City did not conduct an individualized assessment as required by RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains that the RLUIPA claims are ready to be adjudicated because the City reached a final decision that inflicted considerable harm on the Church and that the City’s actions towards the Church and its application of its code to the Church satisfy RLUIPA’s individualized assessment requiremen
On December 4, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Millburn (D.N.J.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). After the township denied an Orthodox Jewish congregation’s application to build a synagogue on res judicata grounds, the congregation filed the complaint in this case, alleging that the denial imposed a substantial burden on the congregation’s religious exercise, discriminated against the congregation based on its religion, unreasonably limited its religious assembly, and treated it worse than comparable secular uses. The township filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the RLUIPA claims should be dismissed based on a state-law standard of review for zoning appeals and that the RLUIPA claims are not ripe because the zoning denial was based on procedural grounds. In its Statement of Interest, the United States explains that state-law standards of review do not apply to RLUIPA claims and that the RLUIPA claims are ready to be adjudicated because the township reached a final decision on the zoning application, which has harmed plaintiffs. On May 23, 2024, the Court denied the township’s motion, finding that res judicata did not bar the congregation’s claims and that they were ripe.
On March 29, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Chabad Jewish Center of the Big Island, et al. v. County of Hawaii, et al. (D. Haw.), a case brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs, a Chabad Jewish Center and its Rabbi, Levi Gerlitzky, filed their complaint against the County of Hawaii and its planning director after the County assessed thousands of dollars in fines against Plaintiffs and prohibited them from operating a house of worship in a residential zone without a use permit, even though analogous nonreligious meeting facilities do not require a use permit. The complaint, filed in conjunction with a motion for preliminary injunction, alleges that the County’s zoning code and conduct has substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and treats Plaintiffs’ worse than comparable secular uses in violation of RLUIPA. In its Statement of Interest, the United States supports Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hawaii County zoning code, on its face, treats religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assembly uses, in violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.
On March 27, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the City’s motions for summary judgment and to dismiss in St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, et al. v. City of Brookings (D. Or.). Consistent with the United States’ arguments in its Statement of Interest, the court held that the City violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by imposing a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise when it enacted an ordinance that limited the number of days on which a church was permitted to serve free meals to persons experiencing homelessness or in need. The court further found that the City lacked a compelling governmental interest to justify these restrictions. The court concluded, “The homeless are not ‘vagrants,’ but are citizens in need. This is a time for collaboration, not ill-conceived ordinances that restrict care and resources for vulnerable people in our communities.”
On October 19, 2023, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Village of Airmont (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on December 2, 2020, alleged that the Village of Airmont violated the substantial burden, nondiscrimination, and unreasonable limitation provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The lawsuit alleged that Airmont had revised its zoning code in 2018 to discriminate against Orthodox Jewish residents and make it more difficult for them to worship in their own homes. The consent decree increases the amount of space in private homes that can be used for worship, removes restrictions that limited who residents are allowed to invite into their own homes to pray and eliminates the use of an arbitrary, drawn-out application process designed to delay and effectively deny permits for even minor alterations to private houses. Since 1991, this is the third lawsuit brought by the United States against Airmont for discriminating against the Orthodox Jewish community.
On May 9, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Micah’s Way v. City of Santa Ana (C.D. Cal.), a private lawsuit brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The complaint in the case alleges that the City of Santa Ana substantially burdened Micah’s Way’s religious exercise when it refused to grant a certificate of occupancy to allow Micah’s Way, a faith-based organization that provides services to persons that are homeless, to provide food and drinks to its clients in accordance with its religious beliefs. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that feeding persons who are homeless is not religious exercise and that it did not substantially burden Micah’s Way’s religious exercise. The United States’ Statement of Interest responds to the City’s contentions and explains that feeding persons who are homeless may be religious exercise under RLUIPA and that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the City’s denial of its certificate of occupancy and threats of fines and criminal prosecution had substantially burdened its religious exercise, in violation of RLUIPA.
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.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

On September 19, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States vs. Morningstar Properties, LLC dba Morningstar Storage (M.D. Fla.). The complaint alleges that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by selling or otherwise disposing of personal property owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders. The proposed order, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendant to pay $90,000 to three affected servicemembers and a $40,000 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires the defendant to provide SCRA training to their employees and develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA.
On August 23, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Tony’s Auto Center (S.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that Tony’s Auto Center, a towing company in Chula Vista, California, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act case by auctioning, without a court order, a vehicle belonging to a Navy Lieutenant while he was deployed at sea aboard an aircraft carrier.
On August 1, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc. in United States v. City of El Paso, et al. (W.D. Tex.), requiring it to establish a $140,000 settlement fund to compensate the affected servicemembers and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. On August 1, 2024, the Division also filed a proposed consent order with the City of El Paso, requiring it to develop new policies and procedures to ensure that its contractors that are responsible for auctioning or otherwise disposing of impounded vehicles comply with the SCRA in the future and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. On February 2, 2023, the Division filed a complaint alleging that the City of El Paso and its contractors, United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders. On May 7, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with United Road Towing, Inc., one of the three Defendants. The consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires United Row Towing, Inc. to develop policies and procedures that comply with Section 3958; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980.
On February 2, 2023, the Division filed a complaint alleging that the City of El Paso and its contractors, United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of violating Section 3958 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders. On May 7, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with United Road Towing, Inc., one of the three Defendants in United States v. City of El Paso, et al. (W.D. Tex.). The consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires United Row Towing, Inc. to develop policies and procedures that comply with Section 3958; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980. On August 1, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc., requiring it to establish a $140,000 settlement fund to compensate the affected servicemembers and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. On August 1, 2024, the Division also filed a proposed consent order with the City of El Paso, requiring it to develop new policies and procedures to ensure that its contractors that are responsible for auctioning or otherwise disposing of impounded vehicles comply with the SCRA in the future and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.
On May 8, 2024, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Hyundai Capital America (C.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 26 motor vehicles leased or owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. The proposed consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendant to develop policies and procedures for motor vehicle possessions that comply with the SCRA; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; pay $10,000 plus any lost equity and provide credit repair to affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $74,941.
On May 7, 2024, the Division filed a proposed consent order with United Road Towing, Inc., one of the three defendants in United States v. City of El Paso, Texas, et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, which was filed on February 2, 2023, alleges 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 auctioning off at least 170 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders. United Road Towing, Inc. d/b/a UR Vehicle Management Solutions and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc. are also named as defendants in the case. The consent order, which still must be approved by the court, requires United Row Towing, Inc. to develop policies and procedures that comply with Section 3958; provide SCRA compliance training to key employees; deposit $57,935 into a Settlement Fund to compensate affected servicemembers; and pay a civil penalty of $24,980. Litigation is continuing against the City of El Paso and Rod Robertson Enterprises, Inc.
On February 1, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Billy Joe Goines d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery (E.D.N.C.). The complaint, which was filed on March 3, 2023, alleged that the defendant violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by auctioning off, selling, or otherwise disposing of servicemembers’ motor vehicles pursuant to court judgments obtained without filing proper military affidavits. The SCRA requires a plaintiff seeking a default judgment in court to file an accurate military affidavit stating whether or not the defendant is in military service, or that the plaintiff is unable to determine the defendant’s military service status. The complaint alleged that since at least 2017, Goines disposed of motor vehicles belonging to SCRA-protected servicemembers after failing to file, or filing inaccurate, military affidavits in court proceedings against those servicemembers. The consent order requires Goines to pay $66,805.06 in relief for the impacted servicemembers, return one vehicle in storage to its servicemember owner, forgive storage fees assessed to certain servicemembers, attend SCRA training, and institute new policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA.
On January 9, 2024, the court entered a consent order in United States v. McGowan Realty, LLLC, d/b/a RedSail Property Management (E.D. Va.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case. The complaint, which was filed on January 8, 2024, alleges that a property management company operating throughout Hampton Roads area in Northern Virginia refused to honor the residential lease termination of a U.S. Navy Petty Officer First Class and were assessing early lease termination charges and additional rent against him. RedSail allegedly erroneously insisted that the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) placed a 35-mile limitation on a servicemember’s SCRA residential lease termination rights. The complaint alleges that the Petty Officer paid $3,408.55 in early termination charges and additional rent to RedSail, which placed a considerable financial burden on him. Under the consent order, RedSail will pay $10,225.65 to the Petty Officer and a $3,000 civil penalty. The consent order also requires RedSail to provide SCRA training to its employees, develop new policies and procedures consistent with the SCRA, and refrain from imposing the VRLTA’s 35-mile limitation on servicemembers who lawfully terminate a lease under the SCRA.
On November 20, 2023, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff in Portee v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.). This is the first case brought nationwide under a new Servicemembers Civil Relief Act’s (SCRA) provision that guarantees the portability of certain professional licenses held by U.S. servicemembers and their spouses when they relocate pursuant to military orders. In its order, the court held that Texas state licensing authorities violated the SCRA by refusing to recognize plaintiff’s out-of-state licenses because she had not used them continuously for the two years preceding her relocation to Texas. The judgment followed the court’s July 21, 2023 order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States had filed a Statement of Interest on July 13, 2023, arguing that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her school counseling licenses are covered under the new provision, vigorous enforcement of the provision serves the public’s exceptionally strong interest in national defense and military readiness, and plaintiff had standing to bring her case.
On December 8, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Todisco Services, Inc. d/b/a Todisco Towing (D. Mass.). The complaint, which was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office on November 13, 2023, alleges that the defendant, a towing company based in Salem, Massachusetts, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by illegally auctioning off a vehicle belonging to a U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant who was deployed to Qatar. The consent order requires the defendant to adopt new policies, implement new training requirements, pay $5,000 in compensation to the servicemember, and pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury.
On October 4, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. JAG Management Company LLC (D.N.J.). The complaint, which was filed on September 29, 2023, alleges that the property management company for more than twenty large apartment properties in several states, including Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Florida, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3955, by demanding that at least nine servicemembers who were terminating their leases early following receipt of qualifying military orders repay rent concessions they had received when they signed their leases. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $41,581.95 in compensation to the servicemembers and a $20,000 civil penalty, to adopt new SCRA policies, and to obtain training on the SCRA.
September 29, 2023, the court denied Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration in Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.). This is a class action lawsuit brought under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by four servicemembers who held credit cards issued by, or had other interest-bearing obligations to, the bank. The complaint alleges that Citibank 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, which was filed on March 2, 2023, the United States argued 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. The United States also argued that the relevant portion of the SCRA, which became law in 2019, applies even where the arbitration agreements were executed before the change in law. The court’s opinion adopted the position advocated for by the United States.
On June 14, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States v. FPI Management, Inc. (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, which was filed on June 13, 2023, alleged that FPI, a property management company, violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by requiring nine servicemembers who were exercising their SCRA right to terminate their residential lease to repay lease incentives they had received. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a total of $51,587 to the nine servicemembers and a $22,500 civil penalty to the United States. The order also requires FPI to repair the servicemembers’ tenant database entries, implement new policies and procedures that comply with the SCRA, and train its employees on the SCRA.
On April 17, 2023, the court entered a consent order in United States & John Doe v. Steve’s Towing, Inc. (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on April 15, 2022, alleges that a Virginia Beach 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. Some of the vehicles were towed from a military base while their owners were deployed overseas. In addition to requiring the adoption of new policies to prevent future SCRA violations, the consent order orders the defendant to pay a total of $90,000 in monetary relief: $67,500 in damages to identified servicemembers; up to $12,500 for as-yet unidentified servicemembers; and a $10,000 civil penalty.
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 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 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.

Updated October 7, 2024

MENU Housing and Civil Enforcement

Recent Accomplishments Of The Housing And Civil Enforcement Section

Housing and Civil Enforcement