RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE

HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION

(updated April 8, 2009)

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, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

The Department of Justice conducted a record high number of fair housing tests in Fiscal Year 2008. The Department conducts these tests in order to uncover housing providers who are discriminating against people trying to rent or buy homes. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Department filed three Fair Housing Act pattern or practice cases based on evidence developed through the testing program.

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.usdoj.gov/fairhousing/caseslist.htm.

Fair Lending

On November 4, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. First Lowndes Bank (M.D. Ala.). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2008, alleged that the bank discriminated against African-American borrowers by charging them higher interest rates on manufactured housing loans than similarly-situated white borrowers, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This case resulted from a referral by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Under the consent order the Bank will pay $185,000 to compensate borrowers who were charged higher rates and is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race in its home mortgage lending. In addition, the bank will implement new procedures to prevent discrimination in setting interest rates, and will provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to its officers and employees who set rates for housing loans.

On September 30, 2008, the Court entered the consent decree in United States v. Nationwide Nevada, LLC (D. Nev.). The complaint, which was filed on September 29, 2008, alleged that Nationwide Nevada and its general partner, NAC Management, Inc., engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing to finance car loans for consumers living on Indian reservations, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under the consent decree, the company will pay $170,000 to compensate loan applicants who were denied loans due to their residence on an Indian reservation. Further, the company is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin against loan applicants because they live on an Indian reservation, will implement a non-discrimination policy stating that consideration of residency on an Indian reservation is not a valid basis for declining to purchase automobile sales finance contracts, and will provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to its officers and employees.

Rental Discrimination:

On December 8, 2008, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Regent Court Apartments (E.D. Mich.), a Fair Housing Act case developed by the Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program. The complaint, filed on January 18, 2008, alleged that the owners and manager of a 102-unit apartment complex in Roseville, Michigan engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, and a denial of rights to a group of persons, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged that white testers were offered apartments immediately, while African-American testers were told that there would be a long wait for any apartment availability. Under the consent order, the defendants will pay $25,000 each to three identified aggrieved persons, a $55,000 civil penalty, and $40,000 to an unidentified victim fund. In addition, the defendants must contract with a local fair housing organization to conduct compliance testing. The owners of the apartments have also terminated the employment of the defendant resident manager.

On November 4, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Rogers (D. S.D.) alleging that the owners of three apartment buildings in Sioux Falls, South Dakota discriminated against families with children and African Americans.

On October 29, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Latvian Tower Condo. Ass’n (D. Neb.), a Fair Housing Act case. The complaint alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of familial status because the condo association maintained and enforced an adults-only provision in its master deed, which prevented the condo’s owners from selling their units to families with children.

On October 8, 2008, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Pecan Terrace (W.D. La.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2008, alleges that the owner and management of Pecan Terrace Apartments in Lafayette, Louisiana violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against families with children. Under the terms of the proposed consent order, the defendants are required to pay up to $115,000 to compensate victims and $30,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. The consent order also calls for training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. This case was based on evidence developed through the Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program.

On September 30, 2008, the Court entered the consent decree in United States v. Housing Authority of City of Winder (N.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on September 26, 2008, alleged that the Winder Housing Authority (WHA), a public housing authority that oversees nine housing complexes in Barrow County, Georgia, violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining racially segregated housing complexes. The consent decree provides for a settlement fund of $450,000 to compensate victims of the WHA's discriminatory conduct, and a civil penalty of $40,000. The consent decree also requires the WHA to develop and implement nondiscriminatory practices and procedures, provide Fair Housing Act training for its employees, and submit to record keeping and reporting requirements.

On September 18, 2008, the Division filed an amended complaint in United States v. Sturdevant (D. Kan.), a case originally filed in June 2007 alleging retaliation at an apartment complex in Kansas City, KS in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The amended complaint alleges that the property manager at the apartment complex created a hostile housing environment on the basis of race and treated African-American tenants less favorably than white tenants.

On August 13, 2008 the Division filed a complaint in United States v. C. F. Enterprises, LLC (S.D. Fla.) against the owner and manager of College Square Apartments, alleging that they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American home-seekers in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that, when the Civil Rights Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program sent testers to College Square Apartments in 2007, the property manager indicated that a selling point of College Square Apartments was the lack of African-American tenants. The complaint also alleges that the property manager falsely told African-Americans that no apartments were available, discouraged African-Americans from applying, and offered to waive the application fee or other costs only for white applicants.

On June 4, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Fountain View Apartments, Inc. (M.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act case referred by HUD, alleging that the owners and on-site manager of an apartment complex in Orange City, Florida discriminated against African Americans and families with children in the rental of apartments.

On May 13, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Henry (E.D. Va.), a Fair Housing Act case referred by HUD, alleging that Dr. James Crockett Henry and his company, who own and manage a 30-unit rental property in Virginia Beach, Virginia, evicted and threatened to evict black tenants, imposed different terms and conditions on black tenants, entered the units of black tenants without notice or reason, and used racial slurs and epithets. The complaint also alleged that the defendants prohibit more than two children per unit. The consent decree, requires the defendants to pay $84,000 to compensate three former tenants, $235,000 into a fund to compensate any additional victims subsequently identified by the United States, and a $42,000 civil penalty to the United States. Five other individual victims intervened in the lawsuit, and have reached a separate monetary settlement of their claims.

Sales Discrimination

On February 17, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. S & S Group, Ltd. d/b/a ReMax East-West (DeJohn) (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act case brought on behalf of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA). The complaint, filed in July 2008, alleged race and national origin discrimination by S & S Group, Ltd, through its successor, S & W Elmhurst, LLC, a real estate agency that does business under the name RE/MAX East-West, and its former real estate agent, John DeJohn. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $120,000 to NFHA, enjoins them from further unlawful practices on the basis of race and national origin that violate the Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations, and requires the agency to obtain fair housing training for its employees, advertise that it does not discriminate, keep certain records, and report on its compliance periodically to the Department. This case was referred by HUD.

On November 6, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Coldwell Banker Joe T. Lane Realty, Inc. (N.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging that a real estate agent made discriminatory statements about African Americans to a white tester posing as a potential home buyer and steered the white tester away from viewing and purchasing homes in African-American neighborhoods.

On July 14, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging that the Autumn Ridge Condominium Association and the members of its Board of Directors in Munster, Indiana prohibited families with minor children from living in the condominium complex and enforced the policy in a discriminatory fashion to exclude African-Americans from living in the complex. This case was referred by HUD.

On May 20, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Collier (W.D. La.), alleging that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they interfered with the sale of a home because of the perceived race of the buyers. This case was referred by HUD.

Insurance Discrimination:

On January 19, 2009, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Erie Insurance Co. (W.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act case. The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of race in the sale of homeowner’s and renter’s insurance in New York State. The case originated with complaints that the Fair Housing Council of Central New York (FHCCNY) and HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed with HUD. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $225,000 to the FHCCNY; spend $140,000 on advertising targeted to African-Americans residing in redlined areas; submit regular reports to the DOJ; establish and follow non-discriminatory sales procedures; and undergo fair housing training.

Sexual Harassment:

On March 13, 2009, the Division filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Hurt (E.D. Ark.) against Bobby L. Hurt, the former property manager for numerous mobile homes in and around West Memphis, Arkansas, alleging a pattern or practice of sexual harassment. The lawsuit also names as a defendant Bobby L. Hurt’s wife, Sue Hurt, who owned some of the properties at issue. The complaint alleges that Bobby Hurt, while providing property management services, entered the dwellings of female tenants without permission or notice, touched female tenants in an unwelcome sexual manner, made verbal sexual advances, and threatened to and took steps to evict female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.

On January 29, 2009, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Johnson (E.D. Mich.) against Ronald D. Peterson and Glen E. Johnson, the owner and rental manager of eleven single family homes in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The complaint alleges that Johnson made unwanted verbal sexual advances, entered the apartment of female tenants without permission or notice, granted and denied tangible housing benefits based on sex, and took adverse action against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Peterson is liable for Mr. Johnson’s alleged misconduct, and that he knew or should have known of Johnson’s alleged misconduct but failed to take reasonable preventive or corrective measures. This case is being handled jointly by the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. This matter was referred to the Department by the Fair Housing Center of Southeast Michigan.

On September 18, 2008, the Court entered the consent judgment in United States v. Mitchell (S.D. Ohio), requiring the defendants to pay $890,000 in damages to twelve women whom Defendant Mitchell sexually harassed and $110,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. In the consent judgment, the defendants admit to violating the Fair Housing Act and agree to injunctive relief for a term of five years.

On September 8, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Morgan (S.D. Ga.), alleging that Darwin Kenneth Morgan and D.K. Morgan Consolidated, LLC subjected female tenants and prospective tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating based on race or color.

On July 17, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Gumbaytay (M.D. Ala.), alleging that Jamarlo K. Gumbaytay (aka Laurence E. Lamar) d/b/a Elite Enterprises Consultant Group subjected female tenants and applicants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. The complaint also names as defendants the owners of the subject properties that Defendant Gumbaytay managed. This case was referred by the Central Alabama Fair Housing Center.

On April 30, 2008, the Court entered the consent decree in United States v. Calvert (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, filed on August 8, 2006, alleged that Harold Calvert, the president of Calvert Properties in Richmond, Missouri, subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted physical sexual advances, forcible physical contact with the sexual parts of his body, inappropriate statements, and threats of eviction when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The consent decree requires Calvert Properties to pay $165,000 to six women whom the United States alleges were sexually harassed by Harold Calvert, and to two children of one of the women who witnessed their mother being harassed., and $60,000 into a victim fund. Calvert Properties must also pay a $25,000 civil penalty.

Disability Discimination:

On February 6, 2009, the Division entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with Reading Housing Authority ("RHA"), under which RHA will set aside 5% of its annual capital funding to create, through new construction or renovation, at least 5 two-bedroom accessible housing units, and will renovate kitchens in one of its developments upon request by a tenant. RHA also will maintain a list of landlords who participate in the Section 8 program that includes information about whether each has accessible units, and will provide that information to all tenant participants who have received a housing voucher. Finally, RHA has adopted and agreed to implement a new Assistance Animal Policy that will protect the rights of persons with disabilities to keep assistance animals. This case was referred to DOJ by HUD.

On November 7, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Rathbone Retirement Community, Inc. (S.D. Ind.), alleging that a privately owned multi-family independent and assisted living facility for persons age fifty-five or older engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by prohibiting the use of motorized wheelchairs and scooters in the dining room and in residents' apartments.

On October 15, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. National Properties Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint, which was based on evidence developed by the Division’s Fair Housing Testing Program, alleged that the defendants refused to waive their “no-dog” policy to allow a visually-impaired individual who uses a guide dog to rent an apartment. Under the consent decree, the defendants will pay up to $25,000 to compensate victims and a $35,500 civil penalties to the United States.

On June 23, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States & Wilder v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by HUD. The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners of townhomes in Rochester, Minnesota, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a unit to a woman and her family because she had an emotional assistance animal. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $82,500 in damages and attorney's fees, as well as to adopt an assistance animal policy, attend fair housing training and comply with reporting and record keeping requirements.

On June 2, 2008, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Hussein (D. Conn.). The lawsuit, which was referred by HUD, alleged that the defendant refused to grant a reasonable accommodation from his no-pets policy so that his tenant's minor daughter could work with an assistance dog to help with her cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and depression. The lawsuit further alleged that the defendant retaliated against the mother and daughter after they attempted to exercise their rights under the Fair Housing Act by refusing to renew their annual lease and beginning eviction proceedings. The tenant and her daughter filed a separate lawsuit that also is resolved by the consent decree. Under the consent decree, the defendant will pay $115,000 in monetary relief, including $102,000 to compensate the tenant and her daughter and $13,000 in attorneys fees.

"Design and Construction" Cases:

On March 4, 2009, the Division filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. JPI Apartment Construction, L.P. (N.D. Tex.), alleging that JPI failed to comply with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the design and construction of two multi-family housing complexes in Texas and some of JPI’s other 205 nationwide multi-family properties.

On February 20, 2009, the Division filed an amicus brief opposing defendants' summary judgment motion in Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties (D.D.C.), a Fair Housing Act design and construction case. The brief argues that: 1) violations of the HUD Fair Housing Amendments Act Guidelines establish a prima facie case that the Act's design and construction provisions have been violated, which may be overcome only by showing compliance with a comparable, objective accessibility standard; 2) contrary to Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Thompson v. Turk, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 724 (2008), the statute of limitations in design and construction cases begins to run when the plaintiff encounters and is injured by the accessibility violations; 3) the continuing violations doctrine allows plaintiff to recover for properties completed before the limitations period; and 4) defendants’ brief misstates the law on organizational standing.

On January 26, 2009, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Summerland Heights III, L.P. (E.D. Va.). The complaint, which was filed on January 16, 2009, alleged that the defendants had failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Woodbridge, Virginia in accordance with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the consent decree, the defendants will pay all costs related to making the apartment complex accessible, establish a $30,000 fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing and pay a $20,000 civil penalty.

On January 12, 2009, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Enclave Development, L.L.C. (E.D. Mich.), alleging that the owners, developers, builders, engineers and architects violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to design and construct 200 ground-floor units at the Enclave Apartments in Washington Township, Michigan in compliance with the FHA’s accessibility provisions.

On September 29, 2008, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Murphy Dev. (M.D. Tenn.), alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct seven multi-family apartment complexes in or around Nashville, Tennessee, containing a total of over 375 covered units, to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

On September 22, 2008, the Court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief, and issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Spanos (N.D. Cal.). In its order, the court agreed with the United States' argument that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Garcia v. Brockway did not limit plaintiffs from seeking relief for allegedly inaccessible apartment complexes that were designed and constructed more than two years before they filed their complaint, but were designed and constructed pursuant to a pattern or practice by defendantsthat continued into the statute of limitations period. The court concluded that in Garcia the Ninth Circuit had not "done away with the continuing violations doctrine in all design and construction cases under the Act" and reaffirmed the application of Havens v. Coleman Realty when such a pattern or practice is pleaded.

On March 13, 2008, the court in United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.) issued an order enjoining the city from enforcing part of an ordinance that targeted substance abuse treatment facilities ("SATFs") for more restrictive treatment than comparable housing for non-disabled persons. The United States contended that the ordinance placed restrictions on a particular type of housing for persons in recovery from alcohol or drug dependency without a legally sufficient justification. Under the court's ruling, the city cannot prevent licensed SATFs with separate housing and treatment components from operating their residential components in residential multifamily and other zoning districts. As a result, one such facility currently operating in Boca Raton will be able to continue to operate its residential component in a multifamily district and will not have to obtain a different license from the state that the city deemed more acceptable.

In addition to these and the many other cases that we bring to ensure fair housing opportunities, the Division also is involved in ongoing efforts to educate the public and various entities involved in the housing industry about their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act. On March 5, 2008, we issued a Joint Statement on Reasonable Modifications under the Fair Housing Act with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The joint statement provides technical assistance, in a series of questions and answers, regarding the rights and obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers relating to reasonable modifications, and is available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/fairhousing/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf.

In 2004, we issued a Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations with HUD, providing technical assistance relating to reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act. It is available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/jointstatement_ra.htm.

Since 2005, we have held Multi-Family Housing Access Forums, intended to assist developers, architects and others understand the FHA’s accessibility requirements, and to promote a dialogue between the developers of multi-family housing and persons with disabilities and their advocates. We have held events in Houston, TX; Chantilly, VA; Dallas, TX; Atlanta, GA; Phoenix, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Miami, FL; and Seattle, WA. Our next event is scheduled for May 21, 2009 at the Doubletree Hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For more information, see http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/fairhousing/access_forum.htm.

Public Accommodations (Title II)

On March 10, 2008, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Davis (E.D. Va.). The complaint, filed on September 20, 2007, alleged that the owners and managers of Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill discriminated against African-American patrons by implementing a discriminatory dress code targeting African Americans and by applying the dress code in a discriminatory manner. The consent decree requires the defendants to post and enforce a non-discriminatory dress code policy; to implement a system for receiving and investigating discrimination complaints; and to conduct monitoring to ensure that Kokoamos' employees are acting in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

On January 30, 2009, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint filed in September 2008, alleged that the municipality discriminated against a a Teen Challenge a drug rehabilitation program with a religious mission on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act and imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise, without sufficient justification, in violation of RLUIPA. The consent decree requires the Metropolitan Government to train nearly 100 employees and officials who make zoning and land use decisions on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and RLUIPA, appoint a compliance officer to receive complaints and ensure compliance with the settlement, and provide periodic reports to the Justice Department. As part of the settlement, the Metropolitan Government rescinded the amendment to its zoning code that affected Teen Challenge and adopted a reasonable accommodation policy for individuals with disabilities. The Metropolitan Government will also pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States and $50,000 to participants in Teen Challenge’s program. Monetary relief to the Teen Challenge organization is being determined by the final court order in the related private case.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)