Recent Headlines From The Courtroom

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO PAY IN SETTLEMENT OF A DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT -- On April 4, 2006, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton and Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, announced that U.S. Magistrate Judge John Primomo has ordered the Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Housing Facility Corporation, Pat Matherly, and the Pilgrim Allena Housing Development Corporation (collectively "Defendants") to comply with the terms of a Settlement and Release Agreement in a tenant disability discrimination case and pay the plaintiffs $125,000.....

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES PHILADELPHIA LANDLORD FOR RACIAL STEERING -- On March 15, 2006, the Civil Rights Division filed a complaint in United States v. Daniel Waisbord (E.D. Pa.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging... that the owners and managers of a rental property in northeast Philadelphia unlawfully discriminated against a potential tenant based on race. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants refused to rent or negotiate for rental based on race, discriminated in the terms and conditions of rental based on race, and made statements that made the potential tenant believe that she would not be welcome based on her race.

  Press Release

ILLINOIS COURT REFUSES TO DISMISS SUIT BY GROUP HOME AGAINST VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN -- On March 6, 2006, Judge Amy St. Eve denied defendant's motion to dismiss United States v. Village of South Elgin (N.D. Ill.)... In this pattern or practice case under the Fair Housing Act, the Division alleges that the Village discriminated against Unity House, a "sober home" providing a supportive environment for recovering alcoholics and drug users, by denying it a permit to house up to nine residents. The complaint alleges that the Village Board's actions were taken on account of the disability of the residents, in violation of Section 804(f)(1) of the Fair Housing Act, and also that they amounted to a failure to make a reasonable accommodation in violation of Section 804(f)(3)(B). Defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that in seeking a reasonable accommodation, Unity House had not complied with the procedural requirements of state zoning law. In denying the motion, the Court agreed with the Division's argument that (1) assuming this to be true, it would not affect our entitlement to recover under an intentional discrimination theory, and (2) whether Unity House complied with the state law involves disputed issues of fact. This matter is being litigated jointly by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and the United States Attorney's office.

... Read more
Updated August 6, 2015

Was this page helpful?

Was this page helpful?
Yes No