• Main Page
• Division Overview
• Section Sites
• FOIA
• Press Releases
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Special Topics
• Cases & Briefs
• Recruitment & Employment
• Contact Us

On July 20, 2007, the Court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne (D. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Division's brief argues that the Township's commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.

A federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages.

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. On March 22, 2000, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment for the defendants by holding that "in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm," and directed the district court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to hold a new jury trial on whether the plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 8, 2001.

Our amicus brief will oppose legal arguments made by the City of Dallas in its motion for summary judgment. The United States argue that the City violated the Fair Housing Act by improperly denying a reasonable accommodation when it refused to grant the plaintiff a variance to the City's 1000 foot spacing requirement and six person occupancy limit for group homes serving persons with disabilities.

The United States filed two amicus briefs in this case, brought by private plaintiffs. They had claimed that a condominium complex in Anne Arundel County, Maryland violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to be designed and constructed so that it is accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. In our first brief, we set forth the standard for determining whether the defendants had violated the accessibility provisions of the Act. In our second brief, we presented the court with our views as to what equitable remedies are appropriate in a case in which the defendants have been found liable for violating the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

On April 21, 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for both monetary damages and equitable relief. In its opinion, the court found that "affirmative action relief in the form of retrofitting or a retrofitting fund is an appropriate remedy in this case." Accordingly, the court ordered the establishment of a fund of approximately $333,000 to pay for the cost of retrofitting the common areas of the condominium and, with the consent of individual owners, interiors of inaccessible units. Individuals seeking to retrofit their units will be entitled to receive an incentive payment of $3,000 to do so. Although the condominium association was not found liable for the violations, the court ordered it to permit the retrofitting of the common areas. The court will also appoint a special master to oversee the retrofitting project, and retains jurisdiction until all funds have been expended or distributed. If any funds remain unspent, the court noted that "the equitable principles and the purposes" of the Fair Housing will guide the distribution of those funds.

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (M.D. Tenn.). In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant's practice of permitting Nissan dealers to set finance charges at their discretion resulted in African-Americans paying higher finance charges, and that these higher charges could not be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In our amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, we argue that a lender has a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA, and, thus, is liable under ECOA for discriminatory pricing in loans that it approves and funds. The United States further argue that plaintiffs do not need to prove that defendant was on notice regarding the alleged discrimination, but that, in any case, plaintiffs have offered evidence that defendant was on notice.

The court subsequently denied summary judgement for the defendants, and the case is currently on appeal regarding class certification.

The United States announced an agreement reached with Domino's Pizza, Inc. under which Domino's adopted a Limited Delivery Services Policy. The United States had received a complaint that Domino's policy of providing only limited pizza delivery in certain geographical areas had a discriminatory effect on African Americans in the more than 650 corporate stores and 3,900 franchise stores throughout the country. The policy provides guidelines by which store managers can limit delivery in certain geographical areas. Under the policy, Domino's stores may limit delivery services in specific areas where there is evidence that the safety of delivery drivers is threatened by current criminal activity in the area. The policy recommends that Domino's stores consult with local law enforcement, as well as businesses and community organizations, to determine the gravity of safety concerns and the need to limit delivery services. The scope of any delivery limitations by Domino's stores must be narrowly confined to the area in which safety is a concern. Store managers also must conduct an annual review of any decision to limit delivery to determine if the threat to safety is still present or if the delivery limitation may be lifted. Domino's Director of Safety and Security will review decisions by corporate stores to limit delivery.

On February 28, 2003, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with F & K Management, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Cafes and Santa Fe Cue Clubs, to resolve a complaint brought to the attention of the Division's National Origin Working Group (NOWG) by the Sikh Coalition, a national Sikh advocacy group. The Coalition reported that on September 23, 2001, a young Indian-American Sikh was told by a manager to remove his turban or leave at its Springfield, Virginia club. The Division's investigation revealed that F & K had promulgated and posted a policy in its clubs prohibiting head coverings with the exception of cowboy hats and baseball caps. Pursuant to the agreement, F & K rescinded its head covering policy and replaced it with a dress code approved by the United States, posted nondiscrimination signs at the five (5) establishments it owns and/or operates, agreed to place periodic nondiscrimination ads in the Washington Post and local and national Sikh and Muslim publications over a 3-year period, and arranged for periodic training of its owners and employees by Sikh and Islamic organizations over the three-year term of the agreement. In addition, F & K's owner wrote a formal letter of apology to the complainant and provided free dinner and pool playing privileges for use by him, his family and friends.

The United States signed a settlement agreement with a real estate company settling our allegations that one of its former agents violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in the sale of a dwelling.

The settlement agreement obligates the real estate company, First Boston Real Estate, to implement a non-discriminatory policy, which will be displayed in its offices and distributed to any persons who inquire about the availability of any properties, as well as to all agents. There are reporting requirements and the Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will receive $3,000.00 in compensatory damages.

In June 1999, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that Jefferson Parish violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to permit the operation of a group residence for five adults with Alzheimer's Disease. The Parish zoning ordinance required the group home provider to seek an accommodation to house five persons instead of the permitted four. The court held that the Parish broke the law when it failed to act on the request because of opposition from neighborhood residents and a member of the Parish Board.

The Parish has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Fair Housing Act protections for persons with disabilities are unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Division has intervened and filed a brief arguing that Congress had power to pass the legislation under both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The United States also filed an amicus brief in the district court.

On November 20, 2000, a unanimous three-judge panel joined three other Courts of Appeal holding that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the housing market.

On November 5, 2003, the United States filed an amicus brief in Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association, et al. (E.D. Mich.), a private Fair Housing Act case alleging familial status discrimination. In its brief, the United States argues that defendants' former policy of restricting families with children to first floor units violates the Act as a matter of law. The United States had also filed an amicus brief in January 2001, taking the same position.

In February, 2002, the United States had entered into a settlement agreement with the defendants rescission of association bylaws restricting families with children to first floor units in the three story complex. The agreement also provides for rescission of condominium rules restricting the conduct of children in the common areas, fair housing training of association board members and employees and notification to the public of the association's change in policies.

The plaintiffs in the action were a young couple steered to a first floor unit because they planned to have children and a single woman in the process of obtaining custody of her minor nephew who was denied permission to live with her nephew in her third floor unit.

In this lawsuit against Capital City Mortgage Corp. and its president and Thomas Nash, private plaintiffs contend that the company targeted minorities for loans that were designed to fail, due to unfair payment terms and income levels of the borrowers that would not sustain the loan payments. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Capital City's lending practices violated several federal laws, including the Fair Housing and the Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by engaging in a pattern or practice of targeting African American communities, a practice known as "reverse redlining," for abusive or predatory lending practices. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that reverse redlining does not violate either law because they have provided credit to African Americans, and on the same terms that they would provide to whites. The United States filed an amicus brief, which supported the view that lending practices designed to induce minorities into loans destined to fail could violate the fair lending laws.

Our brief argues that by targeting minorities for predatory loans, a lender discriminates in the terms and conditions of home financing, even if it makes all or most of its loans in minority areas. The fact that a lender does business only in minority neighborhoods does not shield its business from scrutiny under federal fair lending laws. In addition, racially targeted loans that are designed to fail make housing unavailable because of race since the borrowers are likely to lose their homes through foreclosure.

The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate action charging the same defendants with violating a number of federal consumer protection laws. FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., No. 98-237 (JHG/AK) (D.D.C. filed Jan. 29, 1998). Both matters are still pending.

In consolidated cases brought by the United States and Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing and Gene Lewis, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the owner and operator of an apartment complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, intentionally discriminated on the basis of race against Gene Lewis when he refused to rent him a studio apartment. On September 15, 1998, the jury found liability against Danny LeBlanc and awarded Gene Lewis no compensatory damages, but $10,000 in punitive damages. LeBlanc appealed the judgment, arguing that Lewis' punitive damages award should be vacated because the jury awarded him neither compensatory nor nominal damages.

The Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit arguing that the Fair Housing Act permits an award of punitive damages in the absence of compensatory or nominal damages, and that the district court had properly entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict awarding punitive damages to Gene Lewis. On May 15, 2000, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the jury's punitive damages award to Gene Lewis, holding that a plaintiff suing under the Fair Housing Act may not receive punitive damages absent an award of compensatory or nominal damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 5, 2001.

On August 15, 2002, the Department of Justice entered into settlement agreement with Marriott International and the Midwest Federation of American Syrian-Lebanese Clubs to resolve allegations that the Des Moines, Iowa Marriott, which is managed by Marriott International, discriminated against the Midwest Federation on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, when it revoked its previous offer to host the 2002 annual convention of the Midwest Federation. Under the agreement, Marriott agreed to pay $100,000 to establish a scholarship fund to be administered by the Midwest Federation, to pay $15,000 to be a corporate sponsor of the Midwest Federation's 2002 annual convention, and to issue a formal written apology to the Midwest Federation for its conduct in canceling the convention.

On September 5, 2001, Marriott had faxed a signed contract to the Midwest Federation for its signature agreeing to host the Midwest Federation's 2002 convention at the Des Moines Marriott from August 8 through August 10, 2002. In addition to using at least 60 sleeping rooms during the three-day convention, the contract also stated that the Midwest Federation would use the hotel's meeting rooms, restaurants and hold two dinner-dances in the hotel ballroom. On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Marriott revoked its offer to the Midwest Federation and repeatedly refused to reconsider its decision in the week following September 11th.

The Justice Department's investigation was conducted under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion in places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment. This is the first case matter resolved by the Department's Housing and Civil Enforcement Section involving post-September 11th discrimination against Arab, Muslim, Sikh and South Asian Americans.

Memphis Center for Independent Living and the United States v. Milton and Richard Grant Co. et al. (W.D. Tenn.) 3/5/07

On February 15, 2007, a federal court in Memphis approved a consent decree resolving Memphis Center for Independent Living and United States v. Grant, et al. (W.D. Tenn.). The Department's suit, which was filed on November 6, 2001, joined a case filed on January 25, 2001, by the Memphis Center for Independent Living ("MCIL"), a disability rights organization, alleging that the defendants failed to design and construct the Wyndham Apartments in Memphis and Camden Grove Apartments in Cordova, Tennessee, with required features for people with disabilities. The consent decree requires the Richard and Milton Grant Company, its principals and affiliated entities, and their architects and engineers, to retrofit apartments and public and common use areas at the two complexes, and to provide accessible pedestrian routes from front entrances of ground floor units to public streets and on-site amenities. The defendants must establish a Community Retrofit Fund of $320,000, administered by the MCIL, to enable qualified individuals in Shelby County, Tennessee, to modify residential dwellings to increase their accessibility to persons with disabilities. The defendants also are required to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages to the MCIL and $110,000 in civil penalties to the government, and to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

In this case, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testing evidence and to exclude expert testimony. The court ordered a hearing on the admissibility of testing evidence and the plaintiff's experts. In the order, the court noted that the defendant challenged "the methodology by which [the fair housing] tests were compiled and the lack of supporting data to show that the tests may have some scientific validity." The United States filed an amicus brief on the question of whether testing evidence is subject to any special review before they can be admitted into evidence. The United States argue that testing results are factual evidence, not opinion or expert testimony and, therefore, should be admitted.

The United States signed a modification agreement with Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) to supplement and amend a Settlement Agreement we previously entered into with Pulte in July 1998. The 1998 settlement agreement resolved the United States' allegations that Pulte had failed to design and construct certain developments in Florida, Illinois, and Virginia to be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act. The Modification Agreement covers three additional properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, and includes provisions requiring Pulte to annually notify current owners, for a period of three years, of their option to have Pulte retrofit their units at no expense to them in order to bring them in compliance with the Act, as well as to report to the United States the names and addresses of those persons who elect to have their units retrofitted.

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief in an action brought by four tenant associations against the District of Columbia for selective and discriminatory code enforcement in the Columbia Heights area on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The District argued that because the District is neither a "provider of housing" nor a "municipal service provider," it cannot be held liable under Sections 3604(a) and (b) of the Act. The United States' amicus brief in opposition to the District's Motion to Dismiss argued that the District's alleged actions of closing and/or threatening to close buildings in areas of the District with high concentrations of Latinos and Vietnamese makes housing unavailable. Finally, the United States argued that the tenant associations have standing to bring a claim on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of their members.

The United States and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) entered into a settlement agreement with Syringa Property Management, Inc., resolving the IFHC's allegations that Syringa had, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, required disabled tenants to pay deposits in order to keep service or support animals in apartments managed by Syringa. Under the settlement agreement, Syringa will not charge deposits or fees to disabled tenants in connection with the maintenance of service or support animals.

On April 1, 2003, the United States entered into a Settlement Agreement with the developer, architect, site engineer, and homeowners association of Spanish Gardens Condominiums (respondents) in suburban Las Vegas, Nevada. As reflected in the agreement, the respondents failed to design and construct 112 ground-level units and various public and common use areas of the Spanish Gardens Condominiums, a/k/a Desert Lion Condominiums, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Previous to the signing of the Agreement, the respondents had already retrofitted a portion of the common use and public areas at an approximate cost of $35,000. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the respondents will within 60 days of the Agreement, submit a plan for completion of the remaining required retrofits to the common areas, for approval by the Division. Additionally, the respondents will create an $11,000 fund for use by any homeowner to retrofit the interior of his or her unit. After an initial notice, owners shall receive additional notices of the opportunity to retrofit their units, at no cost to them, on an annual basis for three years. The respondents shall also report information regarding future design or construction of multi-family housing and certify to the Department that such design or construction fully complies with the Act.

This matter was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Two landlords whose religious beliefs prevented them from renting housing to unmarried couples filed a federal action asking the court to find that any enforcement against them of Alaska or Anchorage laws prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status would violate their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the statutes substantially burdened the landlords' religious beliefs and that the government had no compelling interest in prohibiting marital status discrimination in housing, and affirmed the district court's order prohibiting the State and the City from enforcing the laws against the landlords.

The United States filed an amicus brief when the court of appeals withdrew the panel opinion and decided to rehear the case en banc. The United States argued that the Alaska and Anchorage statutes are neutral and generally applicable exercises of the police power, and that the landlords in these appeals have failed to show "colorable" claims under the Takings Clause or Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The en banc court held that the landlords' claim was not ripe, and dismissed the action.

In October, 2000, the landlord-plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, arguing that they had met the standing and ripeness requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution. In February 2001, the Supreme Court denied the landlords' petition.

The United States entered into a settlement agreement with Trop-Edmond, L.P.; Trail Properties, Inc.; and Danielian Associates (respondents), thereby resolving the United States' claims that respondents discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at West Trop Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. This case was referred to the Division by HUD as a pattern or practice case. After respondents were contacted by HUD regarding a complaint of design and construction deficiencies, respondents took corrective actions at an approximate cost of $41,000. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents Trop-Edmond, L.P. and Trail Properties, Inc. will donate $5000 to an organization in Nevada that serves the housing needs of persons with disabilities. Respondent Danielian will conduct annual in-house training for a period of three years to its employees involved in the design of multi-family dwellings.

On September 8, 2004, the Court entered a consent order resolving Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint alleged the condominium association engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability when they established a written policy prohibiting persons in wheelchairs from using the front door to the condominium building and when they applied that policy to a ten-year-old boy who uses a wheelchair who lives in the building.

The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $70,000 to the Trujillo family; admit that their actions violated the Fair Housing Act; issue a letter of apology; pay $10,000 to the widow of a Triumvera resident who used a wheelchair during the last years of his life, and pay a $3,500 civil penalty. The consent order also requires the president of the association's board of directors to resign, issue new by-laws, and require training of its members on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

The Trujillos' filed a lawsuit in this matter in March, 2004. The United States filed a Complaint-in-Intervention May 19, 2004.

Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.)2/25/08

On February 22, 2008, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.). This is a Fair Housing Act disability discrimination case filed by the owners of two recovery houses for people with addictions, who allege that the City of New Haven failed to make a reasonable accommodation by allowing more than eight to ten persons to reside in the houses. The United States' brief addresses legal issues raised by the defendants, without taking a position on the merits of the summary judgment motion.

United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.)10/3/07

On September 28, 2007, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent order in United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.). The complaint alleges a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons on the basis of familial status by the owners and management of Phoenix Village Apartments, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Under the terms of the consent order, which was entered by the court on October 1, 2007, the defendants will pay up to $165,000 to compensate victims and $20,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The consent order also calls for injunctive relief, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.

On July 2, 2003, the Court entered the Consent Decree in United States v. ADI Management, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.). The United States Attorney's Office brought this action on behalf of the estate of Hillary Smith, who lived at the subject property until she died from metastatic breast cancer at the age of 34. The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property management company of an apartment complex in Jamaica Estates, Queens, violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation to their no-pets rule to allow Ms. Smith to keep an emotional support dog in her unit, and instead served her with eviction notices. The Division alleged that Ms. Smith was suffering from anxiety and depression, caused by being mobility-impaired due to the cancer. The Consent Decree requires defendants to pay $11,000 in damages to the estate of Ms. Smith. The Decree also enjoins the defendants from: violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability in the future; requires them to adopt specific guidelines for assessing requests for reasonable accommodations; and requires the president of the property management company to attend a fair housing training program. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

In this case, the United States claimed that the bank refused to take mortgage loan applications from areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York with significant minority populations. The bank could provide no reason for carving out areas with large concentrations of minority individuals from its lending areas. The United States resolved this matter on August 13, 1997, with a consent decree, which required the bank to provide $55 million in loans at below market rates to the areas that it refused to service previously and to implement a non-discriminatory lending policy.

The United States' complaint, filed on January 19, 2001, alleges that a developer and an architect failed to design and construct a 226-unit apartment complex in Greenville, North Carolina, with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include steps into the individual units, an insufficient number of curb cuts, doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and an inaccessible rental office.

The terms of the consent decree, filed on January 25, 2001, include the following: Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc., the builder and developer, must: (1) retrofit the common use areas of the apartment complex; (2) ensure that at least one fully retrofitted one-bedroom unit and two-bedroom unit remain vacant and available at all times for viewing and rental by a prospective tenant who requests such a unit; (3) give notice to every prospective tenant of the availability of the fully accessible units; (4) compensate aggrieved persons up to $5,000 over any out of pocket costs suffered by such persons; and (5) include enhanced accessibility features in a portion of the units in the next two multi-family projects which they construct. Rivers & Associates, Inc., the architectural firm that designed the complex, must: (1) pay a $5,000 civil penalty; (2) donate 100-hours of technical assistance to non-profit organizations that serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities in the Greenville community; and (3) contribute to any amount paid to compensate aggrieved persons by Aldridge & Southerland.

United States v. Peter Altmayer (N.D. Ill.) 2/10/06

On January 18, 2005, the court entered a Consent Decree in United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.). The United States' complaint, filed on March 2, 2005, alleged that Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his next door neighbors, Elie and Silvia Bitton and their two minor children, on the basis of their religion (Jewish) and national origins (Israeli and Mexican). The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $15,000 to the complainants, enjoins the defendant from discriminating based on religion or national origin, prohibits him from violating 42 §: 3617 with regard to the Bittons, and requires him to attend fair housing training. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years. This case was handled primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

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.

This case was the Department's first challenge, under the Fair Housing Act, to racial discrimination in the provision of homeowner's insurance. In our complaint,filed on March 30, 1995, we charged the company with engaging in a pattern of illegal discrimination by using race as a factor in determining whether to issue homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area.

On July 17, 1995, the United States resolved this case with a consent decree, which required the company to pay $14.5 million in damages to compensate the victims of the company's discriminatory policies. Over nine million dollars was directed toward community-based relief, such as a home purchase and home improvement loan subsidy; financing cost assistance; home ownership counseling; and a emergency home repairs fund. The agreement also provided that the company issue a non-discrimination statement, recruit qualified prospective customers from the state's insurance plan, conduct random testing, no longer exclude homes solely on the basis of the age or sales price of the home, and provide a new custom value policy so that quality insurance coverage will be more widely available. The decree also established a five million dollar fund to compensate individual victims; over 1,600 households in the community received damages.

On August 30, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Decree in United States v. Andrian-Zemenides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 14, 2005, alleged that the defendants failed to design River's Edge condominiums, a five building complex located in Chicago, Illinois in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Consent Decree requires the defendant to contribute $37,500 to an established fund to compensate persons who have been injured by the lack of accessible features and pay $10,000 in damages to Access Living, a non-profit corporation that serves and advocates on behalf of persons with disabilities throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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.

In this case, the United States claimed that a housing referral agency in New Orleans, Louisiana, had honored the requests of several housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on their race and/or familial status. Based upon a referral from the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, we investigated the matter and filed a complaint. The matter settled before trial and the consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, advertising targeting the minority community, and a ban on the use of an occupancy standard more restrictive than two persons per bedroom. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $180,000 in damages, including a $50,000 victim compensation fund, a $10,000 civil penalty, $30,000 to a victim, and $90,000 to the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc., (N.D. Ill.) 4/5/07

On March 1, 2007, the Court entered a consent decree   (PDF version) resolving all claims in United States, et al. v. Arlington Park Racecourse (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed September 30, 2005, alleged the that the defendant owners and operators of the Arlington Park Racecourse in Arlington Heights, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers who live at the racetrack. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants will construct 48 new units of housing with private bathrooms and air conditioning by the beginning of the 2007 racing season. This new housing will be made available to the seasonal workers with families. Defendants will also install air conditioning in 127 units of housing that will continue to be available for seasonal workers with families. The consent decree also allows Defendants to restrict six existing buildings to licensed workers only, provided that they do so on a nondiscriminatory basis. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendants have also agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States, and damages and other relief to resolve HOPE's claims.

United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority and Shirley Foxworth (M.D. Ala.) 2/22/08

On September 18, 2007, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) a Fair Housing Act election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant from his apartment.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $45,000 in compensation to three aggrieved persons. In addition, the consent decree includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of discrimination; fair housing training and reporting requirements; and provisions requiring the establishment of non-discrimination, complaint, and reasonable accommodation policies. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

The United States filed a lawsuit against Associates National Bank of Delaware [ANB], a leading issuer of Visa and MasterCard bank cards, claiming that the bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ECOA] by discriminating on the basis of national origin, specifically, against persons of Hispanic origin. Our complaint asserted that individuals applying for an ANB/UNOCAL MasterCard through the bank's Spanish-language application were processed through a separate approval system, which utilized a credit scoring system that required higher scores than those required for English-language applicants. As a consequence, some Spanish-language applicants were denied credit on a discriminatory basis. The United States also claimed that approved Spanish-language UNOCAL applicants were given lower credit line assignments than applicants processed through the English-language decision system. Finally, we contended that the bank offered different promotional credit services to those who applied through the Spanish-language system from those commonly offered to other customers. The United States estimate that as a result of ANB's actions, approximately 1,800 Hispanic applicants and customers who utilized ANB's Spanish-language applications were adversely affected. The matter is still in litigation.

Under the settlement agreement ANB will establish a $1.5 million Compensation Fund to provide damages to hundreds of Hispanic applicants who faced stricter underwriting standards and less favorable credit terms and conditions than those who applied in English between late February 1996 and April 1997. Any funds remaining after all claims have been paid will be used for consumer education in Hispanic communities. This is the first fair lending case brought by the Department of Justice alleging discrimination in connection with credit cards.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency referred this matter to us.

On April 1, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. B&S Properties of St. Bernard, L.L.C., et al. (E.D. La.). The complaint, filed on April 15, 2004, alleged a pattern or practice of race discrimination by the owners of apartments in Chalmette, Louisiana. Specifically, the complaint alleged the owners and managers of the Foster Apartments, either turned away black testers or steered them to an apartment building in a black neighborhood while encouraging whites to rent their other properties. Under the terms of the Consent Order, the defendants will pay a $100,000 civil penalty, $60,000 in damages to victims, and $10,000 to fund community-wide training for tenants and landlords regarding the Fair Housing Act. The four-year decree also provides for monitoring of the defendants' operation of their business, requires them to undergo training, and imposes restrictions on any subsequent buyer of the rental properties.

This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's testing program.

On March 8, 2002, the United States filed a consent order along with the complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of Joe's nightclub, one of the largest night clubs in Wichita, Kansas which was formerly known as Acapulco Joe's, discriminated against Latino and African American patrons and potential patrons.

In the consent order, the defendants admit that African American and Latino individuals were wrongly excluded from the club. In addition to prohibiting future discrimination, the consent order requires the defendants to modify its admission and ID checking policies, train employees, advertise its new procedures and nondiscrimination policies in English and Spanish, and document its compliance efforts.

This case was originally referred to the Division by the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The Equal Opportunity Office and Office of Special Investigations at McConnell Air Force Base and KHRC assisted with the Division's investigation.

United States v. Ballis (D. Or.)4/17/07

On April 10, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Ballis (D. Or.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on February 1, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a nine-unit apartment building in Portland, Oregon refused to rent to a couple on the basis of one of the individual's race and sex (African American male). The complaint also alleged that the defendants discriminated against the Fair Housing Council of Oregon by engaging in disparate treatment against an African American male tester. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $36,500 in damages, to attend fair housing training and to comply with injunctive relief and reporting provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Bank United discriminated against a loan applicant and her children on the basis of disability. The complaint contended that the bank requested information from the applicant concerning the nature and severity of their disabilities when she sought a mortgage loan.

The bank agreed to resolve this matter without a trial and entered into a consent decree, which provided $25,000 in monetary compensation to the complaints, established procedures for processing mortgage applications where the applicant relies on disability income to qualify, and required bank employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act.

The United States filed a fair housing election complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant and her son on the basis of their familial status, by refusing to rent an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. Defendants own a single-family home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as well as a number of other small rental properties in that area.

In the consent order, filed on June 20, 2001, the Defendants agreed to pay $5,000 in damages to the complainant and her son. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting discriminatory housing practices by the defendants in the future; mandatory fair housing training for Mr. Barone and his employees; and an agreement that Ms. Barone will withdraw from the management of rental properties.

On October 22, 2002, the court (Lawson, J.) entered the consent decree in United States v. Barrett, (M.D. Ga.). The Division's complaint , filed October 9, 2002, alleged that John Barrett, an Athens, Georgia apartment-complex owner and developer, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to construct accessible housing in seven apartment complexes which he owns and operates. In addition to Mr. Barrett, the complaint named several companies with which he is associated as defendants in the lawsuit. Three of the apartment complexes are located in Athens, Georgia; two are located in Statesboro, Georgia; and one is located in Greenville, North Carolina. By signing the decree, the defendants admitted their failure to design and construct the subject properties in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree requires Mr. Barrett and his companies over the next 15 months over the next 15 months to retrofit the public and common use areas of the seven complexes and of the individual apartments units to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Among the features which will be retrofitted are bedroom and bathroom doors which are too narrow to accommodate persons who use wheelchairs; clear floor space in bathrooms that is inadequate for use by persons in wheelchairs; and excessive sloping of the pavement leading up to dwelling unit entrances as well as the thresholds to those entrances which makes it difficult for persons who use wheelchairs to enter units. The estimated cost of the retrofits is approximately $800,000. In the event that any current residents have to be relocated during the term of their tenancy or that any prospective residents have their move-in dates delayed because of the retrofits, the decree provides for the payment of reasonable relocation or housing expenses and $750 in the event of any such relocation or delay. The decree also requires the defendants to pay $15,000 in civil penalties and contributions to a fund to further housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

United States v. Ronald J. Bathrick (D. Minn.) 8/27/07

On August 23, 2007, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Bathrick (D. Minn.), a pattern or practice sexual harassment case brought under the Fair Housing Act. The United States' complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2005, alleged that Ronald Bathrick engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment in rental units he owned and managed in Hastings and St. Paul, Minnesota. The consent decree will require Bathrick to pay $360,000 to twelve aggrieved persons and $40,000 to the United States as a civil penalty, enjoin Bathrick from discriminating on the basis of sex, and require him to retain an independent management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

The complaint was originally brought to the Division's attention through a private local attorney.

On December 2, 2004, the court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. David Beaudet (D. Minn.) The Defendant, David R. Beaudet, has owned and managed numerous single-family rental homes throughout St. Paul since 1990. The complaint, filed February 19, 2003, alleged that Beaudet subjected female tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. Specifically, the complaint alleged that he subjected female tenants to unwanted sexual touching and advances, conditioned the terms of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors, and entered the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice. Under the consent decree, the defendant is required to pay $400,000 to the alleged victims, plus a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States. He has also agreed to hire a management company to manage his rental properties. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Bedford (D. Kan.)6/12/07

On June 11, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Bedford (D. Mont.). The complaint alleges the defendants, the owners of an eight-unit complex in Big Fork Montana, discriminated on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants told the complainant, who has a teenage daughter, that they did not want teenage children. When the complainant asked to see the unit, she was told to look elsewhere, and the defendants rented to someone without a child. The Montana Fair Housing, Inc. conducted telephone testing in which a single parent of a teenaged boy was also discouraged from renting.

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.

In April 1998, a jury found Big D Enterprises, Inc. and its owner, Edwin Dooley, had discriminated against prospective African American tenants at three Fort Smith, Arkansas apartment complexes. The United States had filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants refused to rent to an African American household. Our complaint, filed on March 13, 1997, added a claim that this refusal to rent to black persons was part of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in rentals. The jury also awarded a total of $101,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the two households affected by the defendants' practices. The defendants appealed the jury verdict and the district court's injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in future acts of discrimination. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and its opinion is reported at 184 F.3d. 924 (8th Cir. 1999).

In this case we claimed that the Bigelow Group, the developer of a 286-unit housing development, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the development so that they are accessible and useable by persons with disabilities. Our complaint, filed on April 13, 2000, which is based on information obtained through our testing program, alleges that there are excessive slopes in the public areas, as well as steps leading to some of the units, some doors are too narrow for the passage of wheelchairs, and the kitchens and bathrooms are not readily usable by persons who use wheelchairs.

The consent decree, filed on February 14, 2001, requires the defendant to offer current residents the opportunity to have their units retrofitted at no expense to them and to make a similar offer annually to each resident for the next three years. In addition, the decree requires the defendant and its employees to make future housing accessible to persons with disabilities, to receive fair housing training, to advertise to the public that their units are accessible to persons with disabilities, and to notify the Civil Rights Division of other covered multi-family dwellings it designs and constructs and provide a certification by the architect that it complies with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

The United States resolved claims, set forth in our complaint, that the bank charged Native Americans higher interest rates than other equally qualified applicants and refused to make loans when the collateral was located on reservations. In the consent decree, the bank agreed to expand its services to reservations, market its products to Native Americans, reduce interest rates and finance charges on existing discriminatory loans, and create a $125,000 fund for past rejected applicants.

On November 20, 2003, the Court entered a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. Black Wolf, Inc. (The Mounty) (N.D. W.Va.). The public accommodations complaint alleges The Mounty, a bar and restaurant located in Chester, West Virginia, discriminated on the basis race and color when it refused to serve African-Americans, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The complaint alleges The Mounty required African-Americans to display a "membership card" before being served while not demanding the same from non-African-American persons. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, The Mounty agrees to: train its employees in the requirements of Title II; post a sign at all entrances stating that it does not discriminate against customers on the basis of race or color; include similar announcements in all advertisements; and file periodic reports with the Division regarding its compliance with the agreement. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

The complaint was initially referred to the Division by a citizen and investigated by the Division's testing program .

On January 6, 2003, the United States submitted a consent decree to the Magistrate Judge in United States v. Bleakley, et al. (D. Kan.), a case alleging that the developer, architect and the civil engineer involved in building two apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas had violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to make the complex accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the consent decree, the defendants will spend more than $350,000 to retrofit the complexes in order to make them accessible, establish a $214,443 fund that will be available to make accessibility modifications to other housing in the community, pay $130,000 to a fund for the compensation of persons with disabilities who experienced difficulty living at or visiting the inaccessible apartment complexes, and pay a $20,000 civil penalty. The total payment of the settlement will therefore exceed $715,000. The architect and the civil engineer defendants are also defendants in United States v. LNL Associates/Architects, et al., which involves similar issues at two other apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas, and is still pending.

In its complaint, filed on May 10, 2001, the Division alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct 340 covered units at the Homestead Apartment Homes, and 160 covered units at the Wyncroft Apartments, so that they would be accessible and usable by people with disabilities in accordance with the federal Fair Housing Act. The Division alleged the violations of the accessibility provisions included: doors that are not wide enough for wheelchairs to pass through; kitchens and bathrooms with insufficient space to allow those in wheelchairs to maneuver and use the appliances, sinks, toilets, and bathtubs; failure to provide accessible routes that allow people using wheelchairs to get into and move around apartments and public and common use areas that required persons to go up with steps or travel steeply-sloped sidewalks. The Division also alleged that the rental offices in both offices were inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The consent decree was entered by the Court on January 29, 2003, and will remain in effect for five years and nine months.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Legal Aid of Western Missouri, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On February 18, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., et al. (W.D.N.Y.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination of the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on October 23, 2002, alleged that the defendants, Blueberry Hill Associates, L.P., Costich Engineering, and Passero Associates, P.C., failed to design and construct Blueberry Hill Apartments in Rochester, New York, in accordance with the accessibility guidelines provisions of the Act.

Under the Consent Order, the defendants will retrofit the complex, including the interiors of all 168 ground-floor units as well as sidewalks, entryways, and other public exterior spaces to bring it into compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The defendants will also pay $300,000 to compensate individuals who experienced difficulties living at the complex, or who were unable to live in the complex, due to its non-compliance and a $3,000 civil penalty to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

The case was referred to the Division by HUD after it received a complaint from a tenant with a disability, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On September 27, 2002, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Blue Meadows Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on August 31, 2001, alleged the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of familial status by enforcing a pool rule that prohibited children under seventeen years old from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent. Current state law permits children thirteen years old or older to use public swimming pools without adult supervision. Under the terms of the Decree, the Defendants agreed to; delete the current restriction on persons under seventeen from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent; limit any future age restrictions governing unaccompanied children using the pool to those under age thirteen; and refrain from instituting any other rules that restrict the use of common areas at by persons under 18, except those that apply to all persons, regardless of age.

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 6, 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered a Consent Decree in the case of United States v. Board of County Commissioners of Montezuma County. The complaint, filed on December 21, 2000, alleged that Montezuma County violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the bases of disability, race, color, and national origin when it refused to permit the establishment of a group home for adolescents recovering from alcoholism and drug abuse. The complainant who sought to open and operate the home on a site located in the southwestern corner of the state near three different Reservations, was a teacher and counselor with over 25 years of experience working with Native American students. Most of the residents in the home were expected to be Native American. The County denied the complainant's application for a land use permit after local residents spoke out against the siting of the home on the ground that the residents would be people with a history of drug and alcohol problems, and made disparaging comments about Native Americans.

The Consent Order requires the County to comply with the Fair Housing Act, issue written findings of fact when it declines requests for land use or zoning permits, participate in training on the Fair Housing Act, and advise the United States when it receives applications for permits for specified land uses. It also requires the County to pay $30,000 to the individual who was prevented from establishing the proposed group home and a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States, and to create a $30,000 fund to provide financial assistance in paying costs and fees associated with providing treatment for youths in Montezuma and Dolores counties to overcome alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.) 2/1/06

On December 14, 2005, the court entered the Consent Order resolving United States, Andrew and South Suburban Housing Center v. Boettcher (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on August 10, 2005, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of a four-unit rental building in Bourbonnais, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to the complainants because he and his wife had children. The complainant, South Suburban Housing Center, a non-profit fair housing organization, conducted two tests which allegedly provided additional evidence that the defendants discriminated against families with children. The Consent Order contains various injunctive provisions and requires the defendants to pay a total of $24,000 in monetary relief. The consent order will remain in effect for two years. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office.

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 July 11, 2002, the court (Holderman, J.) entered a consent order resolving United States v. Boleslav (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on October 4, 2001, alleged that the defendants, owners of a six-unit building, had made statements to testers from a local fair housing organization that expressed opposition to renting both to African-Americans and to households with children. The consent order includes a non-discrimination injunction; standard training, record keeping and reporting requirements; and bars one of the three defendants from involvement with management of the property for the 30-month duration of the order. It also requires the defendants to pay $25,000 to the fair housing organization.

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.

United States v. Herbert Bolt, et al. (S.D. Ga.)10/3/07

On September 27, 2007 the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree in United States v. Bolt (Hickory Plantation Apartments) (S.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which was developed through the Division’s testing program, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment at Hickory Plantation to a visually impaired individual who used a guide dog. Under the proposed consent decree the defendants will pay $35,000 to compensate any aggrieved victims at Hickory Plantation and Willow Way Apartments, pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the United States government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government. The Court entered the connsent decree on October 1, 2007.

United States v. Bonanza Springs, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.) 3/27/07

On March 20, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bonanza Springs Apartments, LLC et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act case against the owners and operators of Bonanza Springs Apartments, a multi-family apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada. The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based upon race, disability, and familial status. Specifically, the complaint, alleged that the defendants steered African American apartment seekers to the least desirable apartments or represented that there were no apartments available at Bonanza Springs Apartments while at the same time telling white applicants that apartments were available for rent. In addition, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, refused to rent to families with children, and intimidated and interfered with the rights of those persons who complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding their fair housing rights. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants must pay $285,000 to identified victims of discrimination and $165,000 to the government as a civil penalty. The Department of Housing and Urban Development originally referred the case to the Division as a potential pattern or practice of discrimination.

On March 12, 2004, the Court entered a Complaint and Consent Decree resolving United States v. Borough of Bound Brook, New Jersey (D.N.J.). The Complaint alleges that the Borough engaged in a ten-year pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin, race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act by adopting and enforcing a housing code and redevelopment plan for the purpose of making housing opportunities unavailable to Hispanic residents of the Borough.

The Consent Decree will require the Borough to 1) revise its property maintenance code and adopt nondiscriminatory complaint and inspection procedures for code violations; 2) hire a Bilingual Coordinator to provide information to and assist Spanish-speaking Borough residents with housing related Borough services and to assist the Borough's code enforcement officials with inspections where the residents are Spanish-speaking; 3) contract with an independent consultant to create a revised redevelopment plan that will incorporate procedures for replacement housing, a relocation plan, and compliance with the Fair Housing Act; 4) provide fair housing training to Borough employees and officials; 5) pay a maximum of $425,000 to compensate persons who have been injured by the Borough's discriminatory practices; and 6) pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States.

The term of the Consent Decree is 5 years except for the provisions related to redevelopment activities which have a term of 10 years.

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the Boston Housing Authority [BHA] discriminated by failing to respond adequately to complaints of racial harassment in several of its public housing developments. In particular, we contended, in our complaint, that the BHA failed to take adequate corrective actions to protect a number of black and Hispanic families who were subjected to racial and ethnic harassment, including racial and ethnic epithets, threats, graffiti, vandalism, and assaults.

The consent decree provides $1 million in monetary relief to the class in a pending private lawsuit, the hiring of two new civil rights investigators and one new BHA police officer, a plan for increasing the number, frequency, and responsiveness of police patrols at the developments, revisions to the BHA's procedures for responding to complaints of racial harassment, employee training and performance evaluations, tenant outreach and training, and community outreach.

On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, filed a complaint in United States v. Bouquet Builders, Inc. (D. Minn.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners of town homes in Rochester, Minnesota, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to rent a unit to the HUD complainant because she had an emotional assistance animal.

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 22, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States and Prach, et al. v. Bowen Property Management, et al. (E.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) pattern or practice/election case referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by charging applicants who were of Russian national origin a fee to rent apartments that was not charged to applicants who were not of Russian national origin. The second claim alleged that the defendants fired a Westfall Village Apartments employee when she reported the discriminatory conduct to executives of Bowen Property Management, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. In addition to the claims based on HUD's charge, the complaint also alleged that Bowen Property Management and Kerry Lemons engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-Russians by denying them the opportunity to rent apartments at Westfall Village Apartments. The consent order requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to the Russian HUD complainants who were not represented by private counsel; $10,000 for unidentified aggrieved persons who may have been the victims of the defendants' discriminatory housing practices at the subject property, and $7,000 in a civil penalty, for a total of $22,000. The defendants also have advertisement, fair housing training, record keeping, and reporting obligations. The total monetary settlement obtained by the Division through this settlement and the prior settlement totals $112,000. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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 October 13, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Boyers' Personal Care Homes, et al. (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owner and manager of Boyers' Personal Care Home in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to house an applicant with AIDS based on that disability. The Consent Order requires the defendants to pay $7,000 to the estate of the applicant and $2,000 to an AIDS service organization that assisted him in his search for alternate housing. The Consent Order also contains provisions that prohibit future discrimination, requires the defendants to adopt and notify others of its new nondiscrimination policy and requires reporting. The consent order will remain in effect for 3 years.

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 October 6, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Bray, et al. (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on December 18, 2002, alleged that the defendants, the developer/owner/manager and the architect of the John Randolph Atrium Apartments in Champaign, Illinois, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct nine ground-floor units and the public and common use areas in the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act.

The consent decree requires the defendants to: undertake substantial retrofits; estimated to cost over $175,000; pay $10,000 to the complainant in compensatory damages, and to establish a $10,000 victim fund. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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 20, 2000, the Unites States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants, the owners of several multi-family rental properties in Texas, fired the complainant from her job as a site manager in retaliation for her participation in a fair housing investigation. The United States alleges that the firing constitutes a violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, which prohibits threatening or interfering with any person on account of their having aided another in enforcing their rights under the Act.

The consent order, filed on June 15, 2001, provides for $15,000 in compensatory damages to the complainant, in addition to the dismissal of a related unemployment compensation claim Defendant had filed against her. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting further acts of retaliation against the complainant, and also prohibiting additional discriminatory housing practices; mandatory Fair Housing Training of all Defendants and their employees for the next four (4) years; and the establishment of a Fair Housing complaint policy for Defendants' tenants.

The Brazoria Manor consent order is the first settlement filed by the Department that incorporates the Memorandum of Understanding among the Department of Treasury, HUD and the Department of Justice concerning low-income housing tax credit properties. That Memorandum requires the Department to notify state housing finance agencies of the filing and ultimate resolution of Fair Housing Act complaints filed against owners of low-income housing tax credit properties. The Consent Order provides that, in the event that Defendants fail to comply with its terms, the United States may notify the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs of the noncompliance. This provision serves to encourage the Defendants to adhere to the terms of the Consent Order or to risk losing the tax credits they receive through the state-administered Federal program.

United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.) 4/20/07

On April 16, 2007, the Court approved and entered the Consent Order resolving United States v. William E. Brewer and Lena P. Brewer (E.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which alleged sexual harassment discrimination. The Consent Order requires the Defendants to pay $110,000 in monetary damages to nine women, and a $15,000 civil penalty. The Consent Order also requires the Defendants to transfer all managerial responsibilities to an independent manager. The complaint, which was filed on December 22, 2005, alleged that from at least 2004 through the present, Defendant Mr. Brewer had subjected females tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, entering the dwellings of female tenants without permission or notice, and threatening to evict female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances. The Division commenced its investigation of the defendants in late 2004 based on a referral from the City of Knoxville.

On November 20, 2003, the Court issued a ruling  (PDF version 458KB) in the United States' favor in the case of United States v. Brosh (S.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on April 26, 2002, alleged that the defendant, Kenneth Brosh, refused to rent a single family residence located in Belleview, Illinois to Air Force Captain Dale Van Dyke, his wife, Jennifer Van Dyke and their three minor children a family in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged that when Jennifer Van Dyke called Kenneth Brosh to inquire about the availability of a rental property he had advertised, Mr. Brosh stated that he did not rent to families with children under the age of three and refused to rent to the Van Dykes once he learned that one of the Van Dyke's children was age two.

A bench trial was held on September 22, 2003, in East St. Louis., Illinois. The Court found that the defendant's conduct violated both § 3604(c) and § 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act. The Court ordered the defendant to pay $15,000 in emotional distress damages to the Van Dykes, as well as $445 dollars for costs they incurred as a result of the discrimination.

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 23, 2004, the Court entered a stipulated order voluntarily dismissing the complaint in United States v. Briggs of San Antonio, Inc., d/b/a Fat Tuesday (W.D. Tex.), a Title II pattern or practice case that alleged discrimination on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 19, 2004. Because defendant has closed the San Antonio Fat Tuesday and has no plans to re-open it, the parties agreed to file the stipulation of dismissal of this case. As a condition of the dismissal, the defendant withdrew its motion to dismiss and also stipulated in the dismissal that he has no intention of reopening the restaurant.

The complaint alleged the San Antonio restaurant/bar known as Fat Tuesday, violated Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Filipinos on the basis of color, race and/or national origin. The complaint alleged that the discriminatory conduct included, among other things: requiring prepayment for services not required of white persons

.

On September 18, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois and the Division submitted to the Court a  Consent Decree. The complaint, filed on December 5, 2001, alleged the defendants; the John Buck Company, JBC Evanston Limited Partnership, Church & Chicago Limited Partnership, Harry Weese Associates, and Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning Worldwide P.C., discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the Park Evanston Apartments, a 283 unit hi-rise building in Evanston, Illinois accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court entered the Consent Decree on September 25, 2002. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for five years. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will retrofit the 283 units and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, pay damages of $30,000 to Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, pay $50,000 to compensate tenants who have been harmed by the lack of the accessible features at the complex, and pay a $13,600 civil penalty to the United States. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. The United States Attorney's Office and the Division filed the complaint in this matter on December 5, 2001.

This case originated with a complaint filed by Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD conducted an investigation, issued a charge of discrimination, and referred the case to the Division.

United States v. Harold W. Calvert, et al. (W.D. Mo.) 4/16/08

On April 8, 2008, the United States filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree settling the United States' claims against Calvert Properties, Inc. for $250,000. The complaint, filed on August 8, 2006, alleged that Harold Calvert, the president of Calvert Properties, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Harold Calvert 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. Calvert Properties must also pay a $25,000 civil penalty. $60,000 has been set aside for an unidentified victim fund.

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.

The complaint in this case alleged that two developers and an architect failed to design and construct several apartment complexes in Las Vegas, Nevada with the features of accessible and adaptable design required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, inter alia, steps into the individual units, inaccessible kitchens and bathrooms, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and inaccessible public and common use areas.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants are required to pay nearly $2 million to make retrofits to the apartment complexes, compensate aggrieved persons, and establish a retrofit fund. Specifically the defendants must: (1) pay approximately $1.7 million to make retrofits to the public and common use areas and individual units at the apartment complexes; (2) pay $25,000 to compensate aggrieved individuals; (3) pay $247,500 to establish an accessibility fund which will be used to provide grants to persons with disabilities who live in Las Vegas to assist them in making retrofits to their homes. The architect who designed the apartment complexes is paying $175,000 of the $247,500 accessibility fund. Additionally, over the next five years, the architect is required to provide technical assistance to non-profit groups in the Las Vegas area which provide assistance in housing to persons with disabilities.

On March 9, 2004, the Court entered a Settlement Agreement and Order in United States v. Camp Riverview (W.D. Tex.), a Title II case, filed on October 21, 2002, alleging discrimination against Hispanic campers based on national origin and color at the campground in Concan, Texas. The Division's investigation revealed that the campground and its owners, Jimmy Meyer and Suzanne Meyer, engaged in a pattern of evicting Hispanic campers and charging them double for the use of campground sites. The order contains injunctive relief prohibiting future discrimination and requiring the campground to adopt nondiscriminatory policies and procedures, maintain records on campers who are evicted, and maintain signage in public areas notifying campers of procedures to follow if they believe they are the victims of discrimination. The order will remain in effect for two years.

The case was initially referred to the Division by the Corpus Christi Human Relations Department.

On September 12, 2002, the United States Attorney for the District of Idaho filed a consent decree resolving United States v. Canal Street Apartments, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on March 16, 2001, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of handicap in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct the 24 ground floor units and the public and common use areas in the Canal Street Apartments in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires the defendants to: retrofit the ground floor units and public and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities, submit to periodic inspections and record-keeping, pay $3,300.00 in monetary damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, $5,000.00 to the Accessibility Improvement Program ("AIP") of the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to promote handicap accessible housing construction and Fair Housing in the Boise, Idaho and Ada County area and a $6,500.00 civil penalty. The five-year consent order also requires the defendants to notify the Division if they again design or construct multifamily dwellings and to provide a written statement from any architect involved with the project that the plans include design specifications that comply with the requirements of the Act and the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines.

The complaint was originally filed by the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigated a complaint filed by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council and issued a charge of discrimination.

On October 17, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Candlelight Manor Condominium Association, No. 1:03-CV-248 (W.D. Mich.). The complaint alleged that the condominium association discriminated on the basis of familial status against a family with a child by forcing them to move out of a three-bedroom manufactured home pursuant to a condominium rule that permitted no more than three persons to occupy a unit. After the family moved into a new mobile home in the development, the Association board members told them that if they had a second child, they would be required to move out of that unit within one year. The Consent Decree enjoins the Association from discriminating on the basis of familial status and requires it to follow revised occupancy standards which shall not be more restrictive than those imposed by the City of Holland, the County of Allegan or the State of Michigan. The Decree also provides for notification to the public of the Association's nondiscrimination policy, record-keeping and reporting. Damages for the family have been resolved as part of a settlement of a state court lawsuit they filed. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

The case was litigated primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

United States v. Candy II, d/b/a Eve (E.D. Wis.) 1/5/07

On December 29, 2006, the Court entered a Consent Decree  in United States v. Candy II, dba Eve (E.D. Wis.) a Title II case. The complaint, which was filed on December 29, 2005, alleged that the defendant told African-Americans, but not similarly-situated whites, that the nightclub was full or was being used for a private party, when that was not the case. Pursuant to the consent decree, Eve, a nightclub in Milwaukee, will adopt new entry procedures designed to prevent racial discrimination, and will pay for periodic testing to assure that discrimination does not continue and requires Eve to post a prominent sign at the entries advising that Eve does not discriminate on the basis of race or color. In addition, Eve is required to train its managers, to send periodic reports to the Division and to adopt an objective dress code approved by the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On April 5, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Carter (M.D. Ga.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status. The defendants own and operate several apartment properties in and around Sylvester, Georgia. The consent decree requires the defendants to: adopt uniform, non-discriminatory standards, policies and procedures; provide training for employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; maintain records and submit bi-annual reports to the Division, and pay a $9,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and three months.

This case was developed through the Division's testing program.

On August 17, 2004, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Carteret Terrace LLC (D.N.J.). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct 60 covered units and the public and common use areas at the Meridian Square apartment complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged that this failure constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination.

The Consent Decree requires the Defendant, Carteret Terrace, to retrofit the apartment complex so that the interiors of each ground floor unit and the common and public areas will be accessible to people using wheelchairs and establish a fund in the amount of $45,000 to be used to compensate other possible victims who may later be identified. The Defendant architect, Feinberg & Associates, will pay $5,000 in damages to Alliance for the Disabled, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3½ years.

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 14, 2005, the United States filed a Complaint and the parties' Consent Decree in United States v. Cedar Builders, Inc., et al. (E.D. Wash.), Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging that the defendant developers and architect failed to build multifamily housing in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendant developers failed to build the public accommodations portions of the properties in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the agreement, the defendants will pay up to $500,000 to individuals who were harmed by the lack of accessible features at the properties. The balance of the fund, if any, will be used to provide accessible housing in the community. The agreement also provides for the retrofitting of more than 700 ground floor units at 10 properties, a $25,000 civil penalty, and a $15,000 fund for accessibility training for local designers and developers of multifamily housing. In addition, the agreement enjoins the defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act, enjoins the developer defendants from violating the ADA, and provides for fair housing training for supervisory employees with design and construction responsibilities.

United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.)10/13/06

On October 13, 2006, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Centier Bank (N.D. Ind.), an Equal Credit Opportunity Act/Fair Housing Act case which alleges discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The Bank is one of the largest residential and small business lenders in the Gary, Indiana, metropolitan area, one of the most racially segregated areas of the country. The complaint alleges Centier Bank has engaged avoided serving the lending and credit needs of majority minority neighborhoods, most of which are located in the cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond.

The proposed consent order requires the Bank to: invest a minimum of $3.5 million in special financing program for residential and CRA small business loans; commit at least $375,000 in targeted advertising; invest $500,00 to provide credit counseling, financial literacy, business planning, and other related educational programs targeted at the residents and small businesses of African-American and Hispanic areas and sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work; open or acquire at least two full service offices within designated African - American neighborhoods; expand an existing supermarket branch in a majority Hispanic neighborhood to provide full lending services; provide the same services offered at its majority white suburban locations to all branches regardless of their location; train employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opporunity Act; and require record-keeping and reports to United States as well as other remedial relief. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

On March 16, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants made statements to a tenant indicating a preference or discrimination because of race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This election case was referred to us by HUD after the complainant, elected to proceed in federal court.

The evidence shows that the defendant landlords harassed and ultimately evicted the complainant, who is white, from her apartment because African American friends assisted her in her move into the unit.

The victim received $8,000 as part of the consent order, which also included injunctive relief and a note of apology from the defendants.

On May 11, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts filed a consent order in United States v. Chandler Gardens Realty, Inc., et al. (D. Mass.) The complaint, which was filed January 21, 2003, alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of four four-unit rental properties in Worcester, Massachusetts, refused to rent an apartment to a woman and her four-year old son because children "did not get on well at the complex." The Housing Discrimination Project, a fair housing group in Holyoke, Massachusetts conducted several tests at the property. The property manager allegedly stated that she could not rent to families with children because the property had not been deleaded.

The consent order requires the defendants to: pay $18,000 in damages to the complainant, be enjoined from discriminating against families with children; display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in future advertising, and pay for their property manager to attend fair housing training. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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 April 19, 2005, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Chateau Village Apartments, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that the owners of an apartment building in Carol Stream, Illinois refused to make a reasonable accommodation to allow the HUD complainant to move from a one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit (which had fewer steps and had more room for her therapeutic equipment), even though she had obtained a Section 8 voucher for a two-bedroom unit. Because of this refusal, the complainant allegedly was forced to move out. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay $33,000 to the Wendy Walsh Special Needs Trust and $4,500 to HOPE Fair Housing Center; adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and to obtain fair housing training. The decree will remain in effect for three years.

On May 24, 2002, the United States filed a consent agreement with the Court resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. Cherrywood Associates, LP, et al., CIV-00-0724-S-BLW (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on December 15, 2000, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they refused to permit a family of four to apply for an available, two bedroom unit because the family was expecting a third child. The family had a two year old boy and a one year old girl and the management prohibited children of different genders from sharing bedrooms, regardless of their ages. The defendants will pay the family $6,250 in damages, will modify their occupancy policy to be non-discriminatory, and comply with the Fair Housing Act. The Court entered the consent order on June 24, 2002.

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.

In our complaint we alleged that the bank refused to market loans in predominantly African American neighborhoods because of the racial identity of those neighborhoods. Under the agreement we reached with the bank, it agreed to pay $11 million to the neglected areas through a special loan program and through efforts to service those neighborhoods.

On September 13, 2004, the Court entered the consent order in United States & Wardiani v. Chlypniacz, et al. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on May 7, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owners of a six-unit rental property in Chicago, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of familial status by stating that they would not rent an apartment to complainants Phyllis and Belal Wardiani because they had three children. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $30,000 to the Wardianis, attend fair housing training and submit to standard advertising, record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

On November 18, 1997, the United States filed this complaint after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Choice Property Consultants, a private rental agency and its president, limited prospective applicants of rental properties based on the race, national origin, and familial status preferences of a landlord. The United States also added a claim that the defendants conduct, such as vacancy reports provided to the defendants' employees were coded to reflect those landlords who would not rent to African Americans, Hispanics, or to families with children was a pattern or practice of housing discrimination.

On May 7, 1999, the defendants agreed to a consent decree, which required them to provide fair housing training to their employees and agents; undertake affirmative marketing measures; and comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements. In addition, the complainant, a private fair housing organization, received $30,000 in compensatory damages.

This is a fair housing case referred to us from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of race. The United States alleged, in our complaint that the defendant refused to rent a house to the complainant and her five children because two of the children were bi-racial (black/white). The terms of the consent order include the payment of $9,000.00 to the complainant and her children as well as training and reporting requirements for the defendant.

On January 11, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States, et al. v. City of Agawam, et al. (D. Mass.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The complaint, filed on August 13, 2002, alleged that the City of Agawam, Massachusetts discriminated against a group of Black and Hispanic migrant farm workers when it rejected a plan to build a residence for twenty-seven farm workers in the City. The consent order requires the City to pay $250,000 in damages to the farm workers and their employer, in addition to a $10,000 civil penalty. The City will also issue a building permit for the housing, conduct fair housing training for city employees, and modify its zoning code to allow farm worker housing on agricultural property.

United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.) 3/13/08

On March 13, 2008, the Court issued a ruling and injunction in United States v. City of Boca Raton (S.D. Fla.), a Fair Housing Act case in which the Division alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed in 2006, alleged that a zoning ordinance passed by the City in 2002 and amended in 2003 excluded housing for persons recovering from alcohol or drug dependency from residential zones and unreasonably restricted their operation in commercial zones, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Court enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance against licensed "substance abuse treatment facilities" operating separate group homes in residential areas. The Court ruled that the ordinance did not violate the FHA by restricting "intensive inpatient facilities" and declined to award damages.

On March 21, 2005, the the Court approved and entered a consent order in United States v. City of Blakely Housing Authority, et al. (M.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on June 10, 2002, alleged that the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by maintaining racially segregated public housing and harassing African-American tenants. The complaint alleged that the Housing Authority advanced white applicants for public housing over black applicants on the waiting list, and placed and maintained single white tenants without children in two-bedroom apartments in Cedar Hill Homes II, a public housing complex, even though single tenants with no children were entitled under Housing Authority regulations to no more than a one bedroom or studio apartment. As a result several two-bedroom apartments were made unavailable to African-American families with children. The complaint also alleged that in its four other complexes, the Housing Authority rented to African-American tenants on less favorable terms than white tenants; failed to protect African-American tenants from racial harassment; and retaliated against those African-American tenants who exercised their rights under the Fair Housing Act.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $252,500 in compensatory damages, train employees on fair housing law, and establish new admissions policies and procedures to ensure that applicants are treated in a non-discriminatory manner. Additionally, the executive director of the Blakely Housing Authority shall resign under the terms of the decree.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) referred this matter to the Division after the Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity determined after an investigation that the Authority had engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination and notified HUD of its findings.

The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

In this case, the United States allege that the city's decision not to issue a permit to a mental health services provider to operate a residence for persons with mental illness was based on the disability of the prospective residents. The complaint also claims the city's action constitutes a failure to make a reasonable accommodation as required by the Fair Housing Act.

On March 21, 2001, the court granted partial summary judgment for the United States holding that the city failed to reasonably accommodate the providers request for a waiver of the spacing requirement, which the city had invoked to deny the provider a building permit, and the court, and the court enjoined the city from stopping construction of the group home. The court also held that portions of a newly enacted zoning code regulating group homes contained facially discriminatory provisions and enjoined the city from enforcing those provisions.

On January 16, 1990, we reached a settlement agreement in which the City of Chicago Heights paid Thresholds Inc. $122,878.00 in resolution of the government's remaining claim of damages on behalf of Thresholds. And, the city amended its 1998 zoning ordinance to remove the provisions regarding group homes and reverted back to the group home provisions of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance, thereby making moot the government's other remaining claim that it had intentionally made it more difficult for group homes to locate in Chicago Heights.

United States v. City and County of Honolulu, et al. (D. Haw.) 2/7/07

On January 23, 2007, the United States filed a proposed settlement agreement in United States v. City & County of Honolulu, et al. (D. Haw.), resolving the individual claims of Chester Kobylanski, who filed a complaint with HUD after he fell and broke his hip while walking over a curb without a ramp in West Loch Village. The original complaint, filed on February 22, 2005, alleged the City and County of Honolulu and three private design and construction firms discriminated on the basis of disability when they failed to build 75 ground floor units at West Loch Village, an apartment complex in Honolulu, Hawaii in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Act. The defendants will pay Mr. Kobylanski $150,000 in damages.

On January 24, 2007, the Division filed a proposed partial consent order resolving the pattern or practice design and construction portion of this case. Under the terms of the partial consent order, which must still be approved by the Court, the defendants – the City and County of Honolulu; Mecon Hawaii Limited; Yamasato, Fujiwara, Higa & Associates, Inc.; Hawaii Affordable Properties, Inc; and R.M. Towill Corp. – will pay for the retrofitting of the apartment complex. The defendants must also establish a $75,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The settlement also requires the defendants to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On April 28, 2000, the United States filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act against the City of Fairview Heights. Fairview Heights, a small city in southern Illinois near St. Louis, Missouri had denied a permit to build an apartment complex. The developer, who is African American, filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) who referred the matter to the Division. The United States alleges that the city acted out of fear that the complex would bring African American tenants into the city and/or to appease local residents who opposed the project based on such fears at a series of public hearings.

On October 14, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. City of Hanford (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on September 30, 2004, alleges the denial of a reasonable accommodation to the residents of a group home for persons with disabilities. The Consent Decree requires the city to allow the continued operation of the home in a single-family residential district; enjoins the city from further discrimination; incorporates a city ordinance setting forth procedures by which persons with disabilities may apply for reasonable accommodations and provides for a total of $55,000 in compensatory damages for current and former residents of the home. The consent decree will remain in effect for 5 years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

On July 7, 2006, the Court entered Consent Orders resolving both the Synagogue's and the Division's lawsuits against the City in United States v. City of Hollywood (S.D. Fla.), a RLUIPA case in which the Division alleges that the City of Hollywood, Florida violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, when, among other things, the City denied the Hollywood Community Synagogue's application for a special exception. The consent orders resolving the United States complaint against the City of Hollywood that the Division filed on April 26, 2005.

As part of the Consent order between the city and the United States, the city agreed to allow the Hollywood Community Synagogue to operate permanently as a house of worship at its properties, and to expand if it should acquire additional properties within a block of its current location. The city also agreed that its leaders and managers, and certain city employees, will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA. In addition, the city will adopt new complaint procedures, and report periodically regarding matter related to compliance with the Order to the Justice Department. In a separate consent order between the city and the Synagogue, filed with the court at the same time, the city also agreed to pay the Synagogue $2 million in damages and attorneys fees and costs.

On November 5, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree resolving United States v. The City of Janesville (N.D. Iowa), a Fair Housing Act land use case alleging discrimination based on race, color and national origin. The complaint alleges that the City of Janesville, Iowa, discriminated in January 2000, when it denied the re-zoning request of private developers who sought to build a 116-lot manufactured home residential development in the City.

The consent decree, which was entered on November 15, 2004, requires the City to: provide fair housing training to City officials; modify its local zoning ordinance; undertake a Fair Housing outreach plan to support the development of affordable housing in Janesville; submit biannual compliance reports; pay $45,000 in compensatory damages to the developers and a $10,000 civil penalty. The consent decree also enjoins the City from further acts of discrimination. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

On June 16, 2004, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Johnstown (W.D. Pa.). The complaint, filed on October 21, 2002, alleged the City denied the American Legion's application for a conditional use permit to operate a transitional housing facility for homeless veterans at an old school building because the prospective occupants were disabled. There was strong neighborhood opposition to the proposed facility.

The consent order enjoins the city from discriminating on the basis of disability in housing. In addition, the city will pay $82,500 in damages to the American Legion and a $15,000 civil penalty to the United States. Certain city employees will also receive training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

The case was originally referred to the Division by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In December 1998, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the City of Lake Station, Indiana violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to permit the development of a subdivision of affordable, owner-occupied, single-family tract homes on an approximately 100-acre city lot. The United States contends that the refusal to authorize the construction was based on fears that the subdivision's residents would come from neighboring Gary, whose population is overwhelmingly African American. Despite Lake Station's proximity to Gary, only 0.2 percent of Lake Station's population is African American.

The consent order, entered on March 26, 2001, requires the City to permit construction of the subdivision, called Timbercreek, the first phase of which should be completed next year, after the City makes improvements to its sewer system. Under the agreement, the City will also: (1) amend its ordinances to ensure that all Timbercreek homes qualify for a significant, six-year, phased-out property tax abatement; (2) waive standard building permit fees, occupancy permit fees and inspection fees for Timbercreek homes; (3) waive water meter installation fees on the first four homes; (4) pay LCEDC $10,000 to market Timbercreek throughout Northwest Indiana; (5) enter into a $5,000 per year services contract with NIOHC for the next five years; and (6) send City officials to fair housing training. The Consent Order imposes standard injunctive, record-keeping and reporting obligations on the defendants as well.

On February 4, 1997, the United States filed a Title VIII complaint alleging that the City discriminated on the basis of national origin against Native Americans by denying a zoning variance to a proposed low-income senior citizen housing development sponsored in part by the Indian Council of the Elderly. In the consent order, filed on May 31, 2001, the City agreed to provide more than $650,000 toward the construction of the senior center, including $340,000 in damages to the private plaintiffs and other aggrieved persons.

On October 24, 2002, the United States filed a Consent Order resolving United States and Roslyn Baker v. City of Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.). The complaint, filed in June, 2001, alleged that the City and the South Central Tennessee Development District discriminated against an African-American woman, and her three children, during their participation in the HOME Program, a HUD-funded federal housing subsidy program. Since 1990, the HOME Program has made 400,000 newly constructed or rehabilitated housing units available to low income individuals throughout the United States. The complaint alleged that in administering the HOME Program, the defendants discriminated against the woman and her family based on race, by: refusing to approve repairs to her home that were approved for white participants in the HOME program; providing home repairs that did not bring her home up to code, while bringing the homes of white participants up to code; and offering a replacement home to several white participants but not to her.

The Consent Order requires defendants to pay the woman and her family $55,000 in compensatory damages, and to construct a replacement home, at a cost not to exceed $87,588, consistent with the HOME Program guidelines. In addition, the Consent Order requires the defendants to complete fair housing training, adopt non-discriminatory policies governing the treatment of participants in their housing assistance programs and inform the public that they are equal housing opportunity providers. The Court entered the Consent Order on December 16, 2002.

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.

In 1995, we resolved our long-standing litigation against the City of Parma, Ohio. In 1980, the court determined that the city violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a series of actions undertaken for the purpose and effect of excluding African Americans from living in the virtually all-white suburban community outside of Cleveland, Ohio. Our agreement with the city is designed to promote voluntary housing integration and increase housing opportunities for African Americans who want to live in Parma. The new agreement provides for the establishment of a housing counseling office, which oversees implementation of an affirmative marketing plan designed to attract African Americans to Parma and provides housing counseling services and financial assistance to first-time home buyers. In addition to paying all overhead and administrative expenses for the housing counseling center, the city agreed to provide at least $500,000 for a down payment assistance program for home buyers and at least $500,000 for a rental rehabilitation program, which provides low-interest loans to local landlords to rehabilitate apartments.

On September 15, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. City of Payette (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on October 21, 2002, alleged the City violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow Harbor House, a group home for recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts to open in a residential neighborhood of the city. The city claimed that the group home was a "commercial" entity that didn't belong in a residential neighborhood, although the city had previously allowed other commercial businesses to open in residential neighborhoods.

The Consent Decree requires the City to: allow the group home to open at its originally requested location; comply with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act; notify the United States of any applications for permits and zoning requests relating to group homes; and train city employees and officials on the requirements of the Act . The Defendant will also pay $15,000 to the owner/operators of the facility, and a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for three years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

On June 16, 2003, in United States v. City of Pooler, GA, (S.D. Ga.), the Court entered a Settlement Agreement and Dismissal Order resolving all claims in this Fair Housing Act case. The Division filed this action against the City of Pooler on November 13, 2001, alleging that the City, a majority white suburban community outside Savannah, Georgia discriminated on the basis of race and color in violation of the Fair Housing Act when it took certain steps during 2000 to block the development of low-income senior housing in Pooler. Under the terms of the Order, the housing developer will receive $25,000 in compensation and the City will contribute up to $425,000 towards the construction of new affordable housing for senior citizens. In addition, the City will provide training for its employees, maintain certain records and engage in outreach activities to recruit developers to build low-income housing in Pooler. The Order will remain in effect for four years.

In this case, we claimed that the City of Toledo, Ohio violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against persons with disabilities. Our complaint, filed on September 2, 1998, contended that the city had enacted an ordinance, which sought to limit the number of group homes that could be located within a specified distance of each other.

Under the settlement agreement, filed on March 25, 1999, which resolved the litigation, the city agreed to repeal the challenged ordinance and to revise its zoning regulations. In addition, the city agreed pay $95,500 in damages to the private plaintiffs in the companion actions as well as their attorneys' fees.

United States v. City of Saraland, Alabama and Saraland Board of Adjustment (S.D. Ala.) 10/25/06

On October 24, 2006, the Unites States filed a proposed Consent Order resolving United States v. City of Saraland, Alabama and Saraland Board of Adjustment (S.D. Ala.). The complaint, filed on May 18, 2005, alleged that the defendants, an Alabama municipality and its zoning adjustment authority, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they refused to grant a special exception for the establishment of a foster home for mentally disabled adults in a residential zone of the City. The consent order resolves the government's case as well as a consolidated lawsuit filed by the Fair Housing Center of Alabama on behalf of Lewis Community Care and its owners, Shannon and Orin Lewis. Under the consent order the city has agreed to allow the Lewises to operate their home as planned, and to pay $65,000 in damages and attorneys fees to the Lewises and a civil penalty of $7,000 to the government. The consent order also mandates that certain city employees undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, and that the city maintain records relating to future proposals for housing for disabled persons and submit periodic reports to the Division. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

In this case we claimed that an ordinance enacted by the City of Waukegan discriminated against Hispanic individuals because it limited the number of persons related by blood or marriage who could live together in the same dwelling. At the time that the city passed the ordinance, its Hispanic population percentage was increasing. The United States contended that the city enacted the ordinance based on the belief that Hispanics moving into the community often lived in extended families and that the ordinance would slow the growth of the Hispanic population. The consent order, which resolved this case, required the city to cease enforcement of the ordinance, institute non-discriminatory policies, and pay $175,00 in damages to the victims of the discriminatory policy and $25,000 in civil penalties to the United States.

United States v. City of Waukegan, Ill., (N.D. Ill.) 2/22/08

On February 19, 2008, the United States filed a lawsuit and proposed consent order in United States v. City of Waukegan, Ill., (N.D. Ill.), resolving allegations that the city violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by treating religious assemblies less favorably than similar non-religious assemblies in several city zoning districts.

The complaint alleged that the city had imposed and implemented zoning code provisions that are more restrictive for houses of worship than for nonreligious assemblies and institutions such as clubs, lodges and meeting halls, in violation of RLUIPA. Under the terms of the consent order, the city must amend its zoning code within 60 days so that the code does not treat religious assemblies and institutions differently from comparable non-religious assemblies or institutions. The consent order also requires the city to provide training for personnel on RLUIPA's requirements and post notices about the consent order at various locations. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

The City of Wildwood, a beach resort town located in southern New Jersey, enacted an occupancy ordinance, which unnecessarily limited the number of persons who could occupy a residential dwelling based on the size of the dwelling; portions of the local ordinance were so restrictive that it allowed only one person per bedroom in a unit. The United States claimed that the enforcement scheme was targeted against publicly-subsidized families with children, many of whom were Hispanic. At the same time, the town designed the ordinance to exclude groups that were predominantly white. Owner-occupied apartments as well as seasonal rentals, which constitute over half of the city's housing stock, were virtually exempt from the city's enforcement efforts.

The United States filed our complaint and immediately obtained an order temporarily enjoining enforcement of the ordinance. Prior to a trial, the city agreed to a consent decree, which replaced the restrictive ordinance with an occupancy standard established by a nationally-recognized building organization. The consent decree also required the city to distribute a fund of $65,000 among those persons damaged by its actions and to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

On April 21, 2004, the court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Claiborne (E.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on May 21, 2002, alleged that the defendant, the owner of two apartment complexes in Sacramento and one complex in Auburn, California, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleged the defendant subjected his female tenants to a repeated and pervasive pattern of sexual harassment including: sexual comments; unwanted sexual touching; entering their apartments without permission, and refusing to let them have male guests.

Under the Consent Decree, the defendant will: pay a total of $92,000 to twelve female tenants who were harmed by the discrimination; pay an $8,000 civil penalty to the United States; remove judgment liens for several of the tenants; establish an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure for the apartments he continues to own and refrain from engaging in any management duties at the Auburn property and a single family home. The defendant is also enjoined from further discrimination based on gender and must keep records for future review by the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years and three months.

On October 7, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Colt's Pride Homeowner Association, et al. (D.N.J.). The Complaint, filed on January 28, 2002, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation requested by the homeowner allowing him to place a window air conditioning unit in his home. The homeowner suffers from pulmonary asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and chronic "irritative" bronchitis. Under the Decree the defendants are required to: implement a reasonable accommodation policy; install and maintain a ductless air conditioning system as long as the HUD complainant owns his home; and pay the complainant $15,000.00 in damages. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years and sixty days.

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.

United States v. Compass Bank (N.D. Ala.) 2/21/07

On February 21, 2007, the court entered the consent order in United States v. Compass Bank (N.D. Ala.), resolving claims that Compass Bank violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by engaging in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of marital status in thousands of automobile loans that it made through hundreds of different car dealerships in the South and Southwest between May 2001 and May 2003. Specifically, the complaint, filed on January 12, 2007, alleged that the bank charged non-spousal co-applicants higher interest rates than similarly-situated married co-applicants. This case resulted from a referral by the Federal Reserve Board. To remedy the alleged discrimination, Compass Bank will pay up to $1.75 million to compensate several thousand non-spousal co-applicants whom the United States alleges were charged higher rates as a result of their marital status.

On August 6, 2003, the Court entered the Consent Order in United States v. Compton Place Assoc., et al. (M.D. Fla.) resolving all of the United States' pattern and practice claims filed on March 4, 2003. This case, based on violations uncovered through the Section's fair housing testing program, alleged that the designers, owners and builders of three large apartment complexes in the Tampa area discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct those apartments so they are accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under the terms of the Order, the defendants must retrofit the 416 covered units and the common use areas at Compton Place at Tampa Palms, The Landings at Cypress Meadows and Sheldon Palms Apartments so that they are accessible to persons with disabilities, obtain training, and design and construct all future multi-family housing in compliance with federal law. In addition, the defendants agreed to build four hundred and twenty (420) single-family homes that are accessible to persons with disabilities, the first two hundred ten (210) of which will include roll-in showers and custom height cabinetry upon request without additional charge to the buyer. The defendant-architect agrees to provide 100 hours of free services per year for the next three years to non-profit groups in the Tampa area which work to provide accessible housing to persons with disabilities. Defendants will pay $45,000 to aggrieved persons who were harmed by the inaccessible features at the complexes and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for a minimum of seven years and six months.

United States v. Covenant Retirement Community (E.D. Cal.)8/14/07

On August 23, 2007, the United States filed a proposed consent order and an amended complaint in United States v. Covenant Retirement Communities West, Inc. (E.D. Cal.). The original complaint was filed on December 20, 2004. The complaint, as amended, alleges that Chicago-based Covenant Retirement Communities, Inc., and its subsidiaries violated the Fair Housing Act by employing policies that: required residents of retirement communities who used motorized mobility aids to obtain personal liability insurance, demonstrate their competence at operating the motorized aid, and provide physician's certifications of need; barred residents and visitors from using mobility aids in certain common areas, including dining rooms; and steered persons with mobility impairments from independent living to assisted living. The 15 covered retirement communities are located in California, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Florida, and Michigan.

The court entered the consent order, on August 27, 2007, dismantled those policies. Residents and visitors who have disabilities will be free to use their mobility aids throughout the complexes and may not be subjected to conditions of use, including testing, proof of need, or the purchase of insurance. The Defendants will also establish a $530,000 settlement fund for persons who may have been injured by their policies, pay residents who were tested $250 (and such additional damages as they may have suffered), and pay a $30,000 civil penalty. The consent order also calls for employee training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping, and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On May 3, 2004, the Justice Department filed a Complaint and Consent Order in this lawsuit alleging that Cracker Barrel violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American customers and prospective customers on the basis of their race or color.

The complaint alleged that Cracker Barrel: allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; segregated customer seating by race; seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier; provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints. The Complaint alleged that such conduct occurred in more than 30% of the approximately 155 Cracker Barrel restaurants in seven states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, as well as other states.

The Consent Order, which covers all Cracker Barrel restaurants nationwide, requires Cracker Barrel to hire an outside auditor to ensure compliance with its terms. Under the five-year agreement: adopt and implement effective nondiscrimination policies and procedures; implement new and enhanced training programs to ensure compliance with Title II and the consent order; develop and implement an improved system for investigating, tracking and resolving discrimination complaints; retain an outside contractor to test the compliance of Cracker Barrel restaurants with Title II and the Order; and publicize the company’s nondiscrimination policies.

In March 1998, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the owner of numerous rental properties in the Akron, Ohio area had sexually harassed his female tenants. The complaint detailed his alleged discriminatory actions, including several acts of sexual battery against the women. The United States also alleged that the defendant's discriminatory practices resulted in the constructive eviction of several victims, the refusal of women to rent from him because they feared harassment, and retaliation against some individuals who refused his sexual advances.

On October 26, 1999, a federal jury returned a verdict in this and two related cases finding that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act and awarded $490,000 to the victims of the harassment. The district court imposed a civil penalty of $40,000 against each of the two defendants.

United States v. Crim (N.D. Ala.)1/30/08

On January 30, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Crim, (N.D. Ala.), alleging discrimination on the basis of race and/or color. The complaint, which is being filed on behalf of Jimmy R. Crump, alleges that Defendants Crim owned and rented a single-family home located in Decatur Alabama. The complaint alleges that Defendants made unavailable or denied a dwelling because of race and/or color; made statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race and/or color; and made representations because of race and/or color that a dwelling was not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling was in fact so available.

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.

Our complaint, filed on December 4, 2000, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct the 84 ground-floor apartments in the Prairie Trails Apartments in Woodstock, Illinois, in accordance with the Act's requirements for accessible multi-family dwellings. The violations at this complex are extensive, including bedroom, bathroom, and sliding glass doors that not sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs, environmental controls that are out of reach of persons using wheelchairs, and bathrooms and kitchens with insufficient turning space to be readily accessible to persons using wheelchairs.

The consent decree, filed on March 13, 2001, requires the defendants to retrofit the common and public use areas of the Prairie Trails Apartments to bring them into compliance with the Fair Housing Act and, during the five year term of the decree, to offer all tenants in ground floor unites the opportunity to have modifications made to their unit, at not expense to the tenant, to enhance the accessibility of the unit. The Decree also requires the defendants to pay $100,000 into an escrow fund, with up to $25,000 to be used to cover the cost of retrofitting units and $75,000 to be used to compensate aggrieved persons. Any funds remaining will be paid to an organization for the purpose of furthering fair housing for persons with disabilities. The Decree also enjoins the defendants from further violations of the Fair Housing Act and requires the defendants to train their employees in the requirements of the Act and to report to the United States periodically on matters relating to compliance with the Decree.

This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

In this case filed on April 28, 1998, the United States alleges in its complaint, that the owner and manager of Bruner Trailer Park, in Montgomery, Alabama, had discriminated in the operation of the park. He attempted to keep African Americans from residing at the trailer park or even visiting white tenants at the trailer park. Such discriminatory conduct included: requiring white residents to promise that they would not have African American visitors; harassing and evicting white tenants who had African American visitors; steering African Americans, who inquired about vacancies at Bruner Trailer Park, to a predominantly African American trailer park; and instructing at least one of his rental agents not to rent to African Americans.

On February 16, 1999, the United States resolved this case with a consent order, in which Mr. Damron admitted that his actions violated the Fair Housing Act. The consent order requires Damron to create a $10,000 fund to compensate any persons identified as victims who no longer reside in the trailer park. He is also required to make $20,000 in rental credits available to identified victims currently residing in the trailer park. Finally, the consent order provided for injunctive relief, fair housing training, record keeping, and monitoring of his rental practices.

United States v. Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, dba Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (E.D. Va.) 2/22/08

On February 11, 2008, the United States submitted to the court a consent decree in United States v. Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, d/b/a Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (E.D. Va.), a Title II race discrimination case. The complaint, filed on September 20, 2007, alleged that the owners and managers of Kokoamos Island Bar & Grill (Kokoamos) discriminated against African-American patrons in a place of public accommodation by implementing a discriminatory dress code targeting African-Americans and by applying the dress code in a discriminatory manner.

Under the terms of the proposed decree, the Defendant Barry Davis and Anchor Inn, LLC, d/b/a Kokoamos is required to comply with federal law by not discriminating against patrons on the basis of race; 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 Kokoamos' employees are acting in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with federal law.

The United States alleges in its complaint that the developers and architect of a 232-unit condominium development in Greenville, North Carolina failed to include the features of accessible and adaptable design as required by the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, among other things, steps into the individual units, no curb cuts, 22 inch wide doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, and inaccessible common areas.

United States v. Dawson Development Co. and Milburn Long (N.D. Ala.) 8/18/06

On February 17, 2006, the United States entered a partial Consent Order resolving, in part its lawsuit in United States v. Dawson Development Co., L.L.C. and Milburn Long, (N.D. Ala.). The United States filed the complaint in this case on January 18, 2005, alleging that the defendants, the owner and manager of Park Place Apartments in Boaz, Alabama, discriminated against African-Americans in the rental of apartments at Park Place. Some of the evidence in this case was generated through the Department's Fair Housing Testing Program. In testing conducted by the Department, the manager, Milburn Long, told the African-American testers that there were no apartments available, but told the white testers who visited the apartments the same day that apartments were available. Long also failed to call the African-American testers when apartments became available but left messages with the white testers encouraging them to rent apartments at Park Place. The Consent Order resolves the case against the owner of the complex, Defendant Dawson Development. Among other things, the Order enjoins the Defendant from further race discrimination, requires the Defendant to adopt uniform non-discriminatory rental and application procedures, and requires the Defendant to pay up to $49,700 - $32,700 for victims of the Defendants' discrimination and a $17,000 civil penalty. Trial against the remaining defendant, Milburn Long, who no longer works at the property, took place on April 15, 2006. Trial against the remaining defendant, Milburn Long, who no longer works at the property, takes place on April 15, 2006.

On August 16, the court entered an opinion and found that the former rental manager, Milburn Long, violated sections 3604(b), (c) and (d) and entered judgment in favor of the United States. The Court imposed a $10,000 civil penalty against Long.

This was United States first mortgage lending action. In the complaint, filed on September 17, 1992, the Division alleged that the bank applied stricter underwriting standards to African American applicants than to white applicants. The United States also contended that the bank devised ways to avoid dealing with African Americans. Under the agreement we reached with the bank, it agreed to pay $1 million to compensate 48 victims of discrimination and to take a series of corrective measures to ensure compliance with federal fair lending laws.

On September 29, 2004, the United States filed its complaint and the parties' consent decree in United States v. Deer Run Management Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Ark.), resolving the Division's case to enforce the accessible design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act and new construction requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A revised consent decree was entered on November 24, 2004. Over 4,000 ground floor apartments in 34 housing complexes in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kansas will be affected. The United States surveyed 3 of the 34 complexes and identified FHA and ADA violations in the exterior sites, apartment units, and the complexes' amenities, such as clubhouses and golf courses; defendants have agreed to conduct the same sort of survey in the remaining properties and have the violations corrected and inspected by third-party design professionals approved by the United States. The new and current tenants will also be offered some "super accessible" features, such as roll-in showers for persons who use wheelchairs.

The agreement also establishes a $1.2 million fund to compensate individuals who were injured or inconvenienced by the inaccessible housing. After individuals have been compensated, a portion of the monies remaining in the fund will be used to make accessibility modifications to the homes of individuals with disabilities in Arkansas. The defendants will also pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States. They include several the owner companies, Fugitt & Associates Architects, Inc. and Lindsey Construction Company, Inc., of Fayetteville, Arkansas, who designed, developed, and constructed the complexes, as well as site engineers Crafton, Tull & Associates and Bond Consulting Engineers, Inc.

The Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Trade Commission claimed that Delta Funding Corporation violated both fair lending and consumer protection laws. This lawsuit marks the first such combined action by the federal agencies. Delta is engaged in subprime mortgage lending and obtains most of its loans through mortgage brokers. Although the company operates in more than a third of the states, its business is concentrated in Brooklyn and Queens, New York, primarily in minority residential areas. In the complaint, filed on March 31, 2000, we claimed that the company violated the Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by granting loans with higher broker fees to African American females than those for white males, the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act by allowing unreasonable broker fees, and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act by engaging in asset-based lending.

The United States were able to resolve the suit with a settlement agreement, which applies to the company's operations nationwide. The agreement requires Delta, among other things, to refuse to fund loans with discriminatory or unearned broker fees and to insure that loans are not made to persons who cannot afford the payments. Monetary relief of up to $12 million will be paid to victims under a previous agreement between Delta, the New York State Banking Department, and the New York State Attorney General.

United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) 7/12/07

On April 15, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) which alleged the District of Columbia violated the federal Fair Housing Act by refusing to approve four group homes for children in single family neighborhoods. Each group home would have served the needs of six abandoned or neglected children. The complaint alleges that the District unlawfully prevented Father Flanagan's Girls & Boys Town, a charitable organization, from operating the four group homes by imposing unreasonable and unlawful conditions on their building permit applications. On October 11, 2006, the Division filed a brief in support of plaintiff's summary judgment.

This case, which was consolidated with Father Flanagan's Boys Home v. The District of Columbia, et al., ended in a mistrial on December 8, 2006 due to a hung jury. The jury trial did not include the United States' claims (1) that the District violated the Fair Housing Act by denying and delaying decisions on Boys Town's reasonable accommodation and related requests for building permits based on the disabilities of the prospective residents; and (2) that the District's municipal regulations include zoning classifications on the basis of disability that violate the Fair Housing Act.

On June 29, 2007, the United States filed a motion for judgment on its non-jury claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties in United States v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) addressing the non-jury issues.

On September 25, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. DKCD, Inc. d/b/a Renaissance Development, et al.(W.D. Ky.). The complaint alleges that twenty-five defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act in the design and construction of eleven multi-family housing developments with over 900 covered dwelling units in Louisville, Kentucky. This is the first Fair Housing Act design and construction complaint filed by the Division in Kentucky. The complaint also names the current owners and associations as necessary parties for complete relief.

The Division's complaint alleges that the public and common use areas of these developments have steps leading to covered dwelling units, lack walkway connections to covered dwelling units, lack accessible parking, and have routes leading to covered dwelling units that are too steeply sloped to be accessible to persons who use mobility assistance devices. Inside the dwelling units, doors and hallways are insufficiently wide, thermostats are mounted too high, and bathrooms and kitchens lack sufficient clear floor space for people who use wheelchairs. The developments at issue are:

The suit seeks a court order requiring the defendants to modify the complexes to bring them into compliance with federal laws and prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants. It also seeks monetary damages to compensate victims and a civil penalty to be paid to the government to vindicate the public interest. The complaint was received initially as a referral from a local Fair Housing group.

United States v. Douglass Management Inc., et al. (D.D.C.)

On January 30, 2006, the United States filed its complaint and consent order resolving United States v. Douglass Management Inc., et al. (D.D.C.). The Court entered the consent order on February 1, 2006. The complaint alleged that the owner and manager of the Sulgrave Manor Apartments in Washington, D.C. violated the Fair Housing Act by adopting a policy and practice of not renting an apartments to persons with vision impairment who rely upon a guide dog for assistance. The facts underlying the complaint came to light as a result of an investigation conducted by the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program. The defendant's representative told the tester who used a guide dog that he could not rent an apartment at Sulgrave Manor because they did not allow dogs and would not make an exception for his service animal. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants will pay $25,000 to compensate victims of discrimination at Sulgrave Manor, pay a $20,000 civil penalty, and establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On September 25, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Lanzce Douglass, et al. (E.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice design and construction case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The complaint alleges that the defendants, owners, developers, builders, engineers and architects, each violated the Act when they failed to design and construct one or more of five condominium complexes in Spokane, Washington in compliance with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

The complaint, filed on June 15, 2001, alleges that Yvonne Dutcher, the owner of a rental property in Las Vegas consisting of a single-family home and a one-bedroom apartment, violated the Fair Housing Act by making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on familial status. This is a HUD election case brought on behalf of Denise and Mitch Johnston and their minor son, Jimmy Forrester, alleging that Ms. Dutcher made discriminatory statements to the family in her effort to have them move from the home they had rented from her. Ms. Dutcher does not own more than three single-family homes. Therefore, our case is limited to discriminatory statements made by Ms. Dutcher.

On March 19, 2004, the Court entered the consent order in United States & Edward W. Dresner v. Envoy Apts Assoc., Inc. (S.D. Fla.). The complaintfiled on, November 19, 2002, alleged that the defendant, the governing body of Envoy Apartments in Hallandale, Florida, violated the Fair Housing Act when it subjected a prospective buyer with physical and mental disabilities to a more rigorous application process that it did not use with non-disabled applicants. The association ultimately rejected Mr. Dresner's application.

The Consent Order requires defendant to pay $90,000 in damages and attorney's fees to Mr. Dresner, enjoins the defendant from discriminating on the basis of disability and requires the defendant, if it checks credit, and employment, and/or landlord references for potential buyers, it shall do so in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years.

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. The case was handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.

On July 13, 2005, the United States filed a consent order resolving United States v. ERGS, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on May 13, 2004, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability when they failed to design and construct approximately 236 ground-floor units and the public and commons areas at Silver Lake and Sierra Sage apartment complexes located in Reno, Nevada, in compliance with the accessibility guidelines of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleged the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The defendants included the developer and architect of the projects and the current owner of one complex as a party necessary for relief.

The consent order requires accessibility improvements to the apartment units and the complexes’ common areas at an estimated cost of $1.67 million. The agreement also provides: $27,500 in damages for the Reno-based Silver State Fair Housing Council (SSFHC); $250,000 to reimburse its attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; establishes a $150,000 fund to compensate individuals injured by the inaccessible housing and a $30,000 civil penalty.

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 15, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Demler (E.D. Wis.). The complaint alleges that the defendant, the owner of two eight-unit rental properties in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an upper-level unit to a pregnant woman because the woman living below that unit did not want children living in the unit above hers.

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.

In this case, the United States claimed that the bank had discriminated on the basis of race against African-American loan applicants in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana through the use of subjective underwriting practices. The complaint noted that those African American applicants for home improvement loans whose applications were "credit scored" were at least three times as likely to be rejected than similarly-situated white applicants.

Under the terms of the settlement, an estimated 250 African-American applicants, whose applications for home improvement loans were evaluated under the flawed underwriting system, will share in a $3 million fund. In addition, loan applications will be underwritten under a uniform and centralized underwriting policies and procedures, all applications initially recommended for rejection will receive a second level of review by senior underwriting officials, decisions to override the result indicated by a credit score can only be made by a small number of bank officials, and there will be frequent reviews and analyses of all underwriting decisions in order to ensure their consistency with fair lending requirements.

The Office of the Comptroller referred this matter to us in January 1999.

On September 30, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Order (pdf) resolving United States v. Edward Rose and Sons, et al. (E.D. Mich.) which, will settle all claims the United States has against Edward Rose and Associates, and related companies, the architectural firms of Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc., Eckert/Wordell Architects P.C., Alexander V. Bogaerts & Associates P.C., SSOE, Inc., and architects Gerald Peterson and James R. Saule. Also on September 30, in the Northern District of Indiana, the United States will file a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order transferring all claims in that court, except those against architect Gary Weaver, to the Eastern District of Michigan, and will file a Consent Order settling all claims in this litigation against Gary Weaver. Under the Consent Order the former Defendants will retrofit 49 apartment complexes in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Nebraska to enhance their accessibility to individuals with physical disabilities. The agreement will affect over 5,400 ground floor apartments. The consent decree also requires the above defendants to pay $1,060,000 to a fund for those who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility features at the complexes. The consent order will remain in effect for five years.

The initial complaints were filed on January 18, 2001 (N.D. Ind.), and September 3, 2002 (E.D. Mich.), and later amended, August 31, 2002 (N.D. Ind.) and June 29, 2004 (E.D. Mich.), respectively. The complaints alleged Edward Rose & Sons, several affiliate companies, as well as individual architects and architectural firms, have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities by failing to include accessible features required the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act in a number of apartment complexes it developed in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois and Virginia. The United States alleged that approximately 4050 ground floor units in 42 apartment complexes developed and managed by Edward Rose & Sons did have accessible entrances, had kitchens and bathrooms that are not accessible to persons with disabilities, have doors that are too narrow to allow passage by persons using wheelchairs, lack reinforcement in bathrooms for the later installation of grab bars, and have thermostats and environmental controls that are not in accessible locations. The complaints also alleged that the public and common use areas, such as parking, the rental office and club house, and the recreational facilities, were not accessible to persons with disabilities as required by the Fair Housing Act and, in the case of public use facilities such as the rental office, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On February 21, 2003, the Court issued a order granting the United States' for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from occupying or further constructing 19 apartment buildings at Westlake Apartments in Belleville, Michigan and Lake Pointe Apartments in Batavia, Ohio, until they could be redesigned or retrofitted to be brought into compliance with the Fair Housing Act (United States v. Edward Rose & Sons (E.D. Mich.)) The Court found that the complexes violated the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act because the primary entrances directly across from the parking lot could be accessed only be going down at least a half flight of steps and were, therefore, not accessible to people with disabilities. Instead, persons who used wheelchairs would, at best, be required to take a circuitous and much longer route around the back of the building to enter their unit through their back door patio. The Court held that this design violated the Fair Housing Act. The Court also granted the United States' Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and denied the Defendants' Motion to Transfer the action to the Northern District of Indiana, where an action against some of the same defendants was pending. On February 24, 2003, the Court in the Northern District of Indiana, sua sponte, issued an order transferring its case to the Court in the Eastern District of Michigan.

On August 25, 2004, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court granting the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Circuit affirmed that the Fair Housing Act requires the common landing area between two covered dwellings to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The defendants' split-level design only provides access by way of a half-flight of stairs.

On February 5, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Fair Plaza Associates, et al. (D.N.M.). The complaintfiled on September 19, 2002, alleged the defendants, the owners and managers of El Pueblo Apartments, the Fair Plaza Apartments, and the Playa del Sol Apartments in Albuquerque, New Mexico engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and familial status (having children under 18) at these apartments in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit alleged, among other things that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a man with a small child, that they wrongfully evicted a tenant after his African-American fiancee moved in, and that they gave different information about available units to paired testers from the local Legal Aid Society and from the Division based on the race of the testers and whether the testers had children.

Under the Consent Order the owners and managers will pay $25,000 to the intervening plaintiffs, contribute $85,000 to compensate any individuals who may have been injured as a result of defendants' discriminatory housing practices, and pay a $10,000 civil penalty. The defendants are also: enjoined from discriminating based on race and familial status; required to establish non-discriminatory application and tenancy procedures; attend fair housing training; maintain records, and submit reports to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for 3 years and covers all multifamily residential rental properties owned/managed by the defendants in Albuquerque, including: Fair Plaza Apartments; Casa Del Rey Norte, Sur & Este; La Hacienda Norte, Sur & Este; Playa Del Sol Apartments; Whitehorse Apartments; Grace land Apartments; and El Pueblo and El Pueblo II Apartments.

The case was referred to the Division by The Fair Housing Project of the Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque. Additional evidence was gathered through the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program.

United States v. Fairway Trails Limited, et al. (E.D. Mich.) 2/6/07

On January 18, 2007, the Court approved the consent decree in United States & Harry Tyus v. Fairway Trails Limited, et al. (E.D. Mich.). The complaint , filed on May 8, 2006, alleged that the defendants retaliated against complainant Harry Tyus for having asserted his rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants retaliated against Mr. Tyus when, two days after a state court ruling in an eviction proceeding that defendants had to accommodate Mr. Tyus's disability by allowing him to pay his rent the third week of every month, they sent him a letter stating that his lease would not be renewed. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay Mr. Tyus $50,000, to attend fair housing training and to comply with record-keeping and reporting provisions for three years. 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 July 30, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in a case alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at Serenade Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will pay approximately a total of $390,000 to retrofit the complex to make it accessible to persons who have been harmed by the lack of the accessible features at the complex. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The court entered the Consent Decree on August 2, 2002.

On August 26, 2004, the United States filed a Complaint and Consent Decree in United States v. Falcon Development Company No. 9501, LLC, et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to design and construct Rancho del Rey Apartments, Rancho Serene Apartments, and Rancho Viejo Apartments, all located in Las Vegas, Nevada, in compliance with the design and construction provisions of the Act. Under the terms of the settlement the defendants will pay $150,000 to make the complexes accessible to persons with disabilities. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3 years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. Falvey (W.D. Tex.)8/24/06

On April 11, 2006, the United States filed a Settlement Agreement resolving United States v. Falvey (W.D. Tex.) The complaint, filed on April 7, 2006, alleged that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status by placing an advertisement that expressed a preference for persons without children and by refusing to rent an apartment to a Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center ("BFHC") tester who posed as a single mother with a seven year old daughter. The settlement agreement prohibits the Defendant from discriminating based on familial status, requires training, notification to the public of its non-discriminatory policies and requires the Defendants and to pay $10,750 to the Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center. The settlement agreement will remain in effect for 2 ½ years.

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 May 4, 2005, the United States filed a Consent Order in United States v. Farro (D.N.J.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 29, 2004, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex when the defendant, an apartment owner and manager, refused to rent to an African-American male who inquired about an apartment. The Consent Order requires the defendant to pay $9,000 to the complainant and to attend fair housing training. The order will remain in effect for three years.

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 July 8, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and a settlement agreement against Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB (" Fidelity ") of Glendale, California alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination in its subprime credit programs in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (" ECOA "). The complaint alleges that Fidelity discriminated based on national origin by engaging in abusive collection practices in its credit card program which harassed customers on the basis on their Hispanic national origin. It further alleges that Fidelity, through its relationship with these third parties, failed to issue credit cards in compliance with the ECOA.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, Fidelity agreed to pay $1.6 million dollars to compensate the victims of these violations and to fund a Consumer Education Program. Fidelity will implement a comprehensive Compliance and Risk Management Program and will provide fair lending training for all employees engaged in credit card program activities. Fidelity will provide the Division with records of their credit card applications and originations for a three year period.

On July 13, 2004, the United States filed a consent order in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, resolving a lawsuit alleging that First American Bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Opportunity Act by unlawfully failing to market and provide its lending products and services to predominantly minority neighborhoods in the Chicago and Kankakee metropolitan areas, a practice commonly known as redlining. Under the terms of the consent order, First American Bank will: open four new full-service branch offices, three located in majority African-American census tracts in the Chicago area and one in a majority Hispanic census tract; invest $5 million in a special financing program for residents and small businesses in the minority communities of the Chicago/Kankakee areas; invest at least $300,000 for consumer education programs; and spend at least $400,000 to advertise its products in media targeted to minority communities.

The Division's complaint, also filed on July 13, 2004, alleged that none of First American's 34 branches are located in a minority area, and that First American defined its Community Reinvestment Act service area over time to exclude most majority-minority areas. The complaint also alleges that in 1999-2000, First American Bank made only 3.8% of its home equity loans; 2.4% of its auto loans; and 4.7% of its small business loans in minority census tracts. The complaint further alleged that of the nearly $288 million in single family residential real-estate related loans funded by the Bank between 1999 and 2001, only 4.5% went to properties located in minority census tracts. Additionally, the complaint alleged that First American officials made statements to explain the Bank's business practices which were based on racial and ethnic stereotypes.

The matter was referred to the Division by the Federal Reserve Board, and the investigation was jointly conducted by the Division and the United States Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

On July 13, 2004, the United States filed a consent order in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, resolving a lawsuit alleging that First American Bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Opportunity Act by unlawfully failing to market and provide its lending products and services to predominantly minority neighborhoods in the Chicago and Kankakee metropolitan areas, a practice commonly known as redlining. Under the terms of the consent order, First American Bank will: open four new full-service branch offices, three located in majority African-American census tracts in the Chicago area and one in a majority Hispanic census tract; invest $5 million in a special financing program for residents and small businesses in the minority communities of the Chicago/Kankakee areas; invest at least $300,000 for consumer education programs; and spend at least $400,000 to advertise its products in media targeted to minority communities.

The Division's complaint, also filed on July 13, 2004, alleged that none of First American's 34 branches are located in a minority area, and that First American defined its Community Reinvestment Act service area over time to exclude most majority-minority areas. The complaint also alleges that in 1999-2000, First American Bank made only 3.8% of its home equity loans; 2.4% of its auto loans; and 4.7% of its small business loans in minority census tracts. The complaint further alleged that of the nearly $288 million in single family residential real-estate related loans funded by the Bank between 1999 and 2001, only 4.5% went to properties located in minority census tracts. Additionally, the complaint alleged that First American officials made statements to explain the Bank's business practices which were based on racial and ethnic stereotypes.

The matter was referred to the Division by the Federal Reserve Board, and the investigation was jointly conducted by the Division and the United States Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

In the complaint the United States contended that the bank unfairly denied loans to Hispanics trying to purchase mobile homes by applying stricter underwriting standards to Hispanic applicants than those applied to similarly situated Anglo applicants. This was the Department's first case involving mobile home loans. Under the settlement, the bank agreed to pay $485,000 in damages, provide another $100,000 for a subsidized mobile home loan fund, and conduct a program of community outreach to inform the public of the lender's mortgage programs.

This complaint, filed on April 15, 1996, concerned allegations that the bank unfairly charged higher interest rates to American Indians for consumer loans. Pursuant to the consent order, filed on May 7, 1997, the bank paid $275,000 to compensate victims of the illegal discrimination. In addition, the bank agreed to establish a program to help educate residents of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation on how to establish and manage credit with the bank.

United States v. First National Bank of Pontotoc, et al. (N.D. Miss.) 12/6/07

On November 7, 2007, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pontotoc (N.D. Miss.), the first sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The lawsuit, filed on April 27, 2006, and amended in July 2007 to include claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleged that William W. Anderson Jr., a former vice president of the First National Bank of Pontotoc, used his position with the Bank to sexually harass female borrowers and applicants for credit. Anderson’s conduct included making offensive comments, engaging in unwanted sexual touching, and requesting or demanding sexual favors from female customers in connection with the extension of credit, over a period of years before his employment with the bank ended in May 2004. The lawsuit also alleged that the bank was liable for those actions. The consent decree will require the defendants to pay $250,000 to 15 already identified victims, up to $50,000 for any additional victims, and $50,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. Under the settlement, employees of the First National Bank of Pontotoc are required to receive training on the prohibition against sexual harassment under federal fair lending laws. The agreement also requires the bank to implement both a sexual harassment policy and a procedure by which an individual may file a sexual harassment complaint against any employee or agent of the First National Bank of Pontotoc. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

In this complaint, filed on January 21, 1994, the United States claimed that the bank charged African Americans higher interest rates on unsecured home improvement loans than equally qualified non-minorities. Under the consent decree, the bank agreed to pay approximately $750,000 to compensate victims, pay $50,000 in civil penalties, and take a variety of corrective measures.

On May 14, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in this case.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act's accessible design requirements when they designed and constructed a student housing complex in Decatur, Illinois, named The Woods Apartments. The defendants are First Site Commercial Properties, Inc., The Woods, LLC, Jeffery Tinervin, BLDD Architects, Inc., and Millikin University. None of the 44 ground floor covered units complied with the Fair Housing Act; among other problems, they were sunken into the ground such that they are accessed only by climbing down a half flight of stairs, failed to have usable bathrooms, and lacked accessible doors.

The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $120,000 in damages and penalties, retrofit the elevator located in the common use building at an estimated cost of $65,000, and build two new elevator-equipped buildings with a total of 24 units that all comply with the technical specifications of ANSI 1998. In addition, all the ground floor units in the new buildings must provide roll-in showers that comply with the technical specifications in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The consent decree also requires BLDD Architects to provide 400 hours of community service, requires the University to appoint an ombudsman to counsel students on accessible housing issues, and establishes a compliance certification process for any new construction the defendants engage in.

11/8/07

On October 18, 2007, the United States filed a consent decree resolving United States v. Thomas J. Fischer and Dawn Fischer (D. Minn.) The complaint, filed August 12, 2005, alleged that the defendants, the owners of several residential rental properties in Red Wing, Minnesota, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex, including severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment. The complaint alleged the conduct included unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, and entering the apartments of female tenants without permission or notice. The lawsuit also named Fischer's wife, Dawn Fischer, who co-owned the properties and alleged that as an owner she was liable for Fischer's discriminatory conduct.

The consent decree, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendants to pay $210,000 to six former tenants whom Fischer sexually harassed and $30,000 in a civil penalty to the United States as well as injunctive relief. The agreement also prohibits the Fischers from engaging in future discrimination and requires them to retain an independent manager to manage their rental properties. The consent order remains in effect for five years.

On March 26, 1993, the United States filed a complaint claiming that Flagstar Corporation, at the time the fourth largest food company in the country and the operator of Denny's Restaurants and three other large restaurant chains, violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by treating black persons less favorably than white persons and seeking to discourage black persons from patronizing the restaurants. The United States alleged that these policies and procedures, that were not applied to white persons, included requiring black customers to prepay for their meals and pay a cover charge, requiring identification of black customers, denying free "birthday meals" to black customers, and forcibly removing black customers from the restaurants.

The United States were able to resolve our Title II action, filed in California, along with two private lawsuits against Denny's (filed in California and Maryland), with two almost identical consent decrees under which Denny's paid $45 million in damages and implemented a nationwide program to prevent future discrimination. The decrees required Denny's to undertake activities such as retaining an independent civil rights monitor with broad responsibilities to monitor and enforce compliance with the decrees; educating and training current and new employees in racial sensitivity and their obligations under the public accommodations act; implementing a testing program to monitor the practices of its company and franchised-owned restaurants; and featuring African-American and members of other racial minority groups as customers and employees in advertising to convey to the public that all potential customers, regardless of their race or color, are welcome at Denny's. The decrees are scheduled to expire in November 2000.

Our complaint against Fleet Mortgage Company claimed that the company charged African American and Hispanic borrowers higher prices for home mortgage loans than whites. Under the agreement, the company agreed to pay damages of $3,800,000 to 599 victims of discrimination and to contribute $200,000 to a fair lending outreach campaign.

United States v. Fleetwood Capital Development, L.L.C., et al. (C.D. Ill.) 4/20/07

On April 12, 2007, the court approved and entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Fleetwood Capital Development, L.L.C., et al. (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on November 16, 2005, alleged that the Defendants refused to sell property located in the Village of Sherman, County of Sagamon, Illinois to the HUD complainants because the planned use for the property was as a group home for adults with developmental disabilities. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $50,000 to the group home operator, and $10,000 to the government as a civil penalty and submit to injunctive relief. (the individuals with disabilities who would have lived in the home intervened in the case through private counsel and settled separately). The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years.

On April 27, 2006, the United filed a complaint in United States v. Fountainbleau Apartments (E.D. Tenn.), against the owner and resident manager of the Fountainbleau Apartments, located in East Ridge, Tennessee. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing to rent apartments to persons with children and by steering them to another apartment complex. The evidence was developed by the Section's testing program.

On October 20, 2000, the United States filed a fair housing complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her race and color by refusing to rent her an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. The Defendant owns a four unit apartment building located in Belleville, Illinois. The complainant filed a complaint with HUD who found reasonable cause and issued a charge of discrimination.

The consent order, filed on August 23, 2001, requires the defendants to pay $30,000 to the complainant, requires defendants and their employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act, and provides for other injunctive relief to ensure that the defendants and their employees comply with the Fair Housing Act in the future.

The complaint alleges that the developers and builders of an apartment complex in Naperville, IL violated the design and construct provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The violations include, in part, steps into individual covered units, inaccessible routes in the public and common use areas, doors which are impassable by persons using wheelchairs, no reinforcements in the bathroom walls for the installation of grab bars, lack of adequate clear floor space in the unit kitchens and bathrooms, and electrical outlets and thermostats placed at inaccessible levels. The case arose from the Division's testing program.

On October 21, 1994, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint against the developers/owners and architect alleging that they failed to design and construct Springbrook Cercle Apartments in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's requirements for accessible multi-family housing. Our complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Act by failing to include features which would make the complex's common areas and 176 apartments accessible to persons with disabilities.

The United States filed a consent decree which requires the defendants to retrofit the complex including: making the clubhouse accessible to wheelchair users; removing steps; replacing sidewalks that are too steep with more level walkways and/or adding handrails; replacing round doorknobs with lever handles; adding accessible parking spaces; widening bedroom, bathroom and closet doorways; moving thermostats and air conditioning controls to accessible heights; and reconfiguring bathrooms so that sufficient space exists for wheelchair users. The agreement also requires the defendants to pay a total of $8,000 to further fair housing for people with disabilities in the Milwaukee area, to train their employees in the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, to design and build future housing in compliance with the Fair Housing Act, and to report to the Department on both the retrofitting and future construction.

On May 13, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama resolving the United States' claim that the Freeway Club, a night club in Decatur, Alabama violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by discriminating against African-American patrons.

In the complaint, the United States alleges that the Freeway Club and its' manager Robert Watkins engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination by refusing to admit African Americans to the club on the same terms and conditions on which whites were admitted, including, but not limited to, requiring two forms of picture identification from blacks but not whites, and otherwise discouraging African-Americans from attending the club.

The consent decree requires the owner and manager of the Freeway Club to take steps to prevent any future discrimination. Among other requirements, the defendants must obtain training for themselves and their staff about the non-discrimination requirements of Title II and other federal, state, and local civil rights laws; post notification and issue affirmative advertising making clear that the Freeway Club is open to all patrons regardless of race, color, national origin, or religion; and report any future written or oral complaints of discrimination. Several private complainants who were subjected to the racially discriminatory two picture ID admissions policy at the Freeway Club have filed their own separate suit in federal court seeking monetary damages.

United States v. Gainesville Housing Authority, et al. (N.D. Fla.) 1/11/07

On January 10, 2007, the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Gainesville Housing Authority, et al. (N.D. Fla.). The complaint, filed on November 28, 2005, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to grant the reasonable accommodation requests of a husband and wife, both of whom are disabled. The complaint alleged that, for nearly two years, the defendants refused the complainants' requests to move from a second to a first-floor unit to accommodate their disabilities. The complaint further alleged that defendants retaliated against the complainants by threatening to evict them and to terminate their section 8 eligibility.

The Consent Decree will remain in effect for three years, requires the defendants to pay the complainants $50,000 in compensatory damages, and provides for other injunctive relief.

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.

United States v. Gambone Brothers Development Company, et al. (E.D. Pa.) 7/24/07

On July 23, 2007, the District Court entered a Consent Order in United States v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., et al. (E.D. Pa). The complaint, filed March 31, 2006, was later amended on September 11, 2006, and alleged that the owners, developers, builders, architects, and engineers of five apartment complexes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct 300 covered ground floor units as well as public and common use areas in accordance with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The violations included doors that were too narrow for wheelchairs, steps and steep sidewalks that were barriers to access, kitchens that did not have enough space to allow persons in wheelchairs to use them, and inaccessible rental offices/model units.

The consent order provides for extensive retrofitting of the complexes, including widening doorways, removing steps and adding new accessible sidewalks and curb ramps, replacing round door knobs with lever hardware, moving light switches and thermostats to accessible heights, and reconfiguring kitchens and bathrooms. Accessible features also must be added to the rental offices and requires training and monitoring of all defendants.

The Consent Order also requires the owners and developers to establish a $307,000 fund to compensate persons aggrieved by inaccessibility at the complexes and pay a $25,000 civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for four years.

In this case, based on testing evidence uncovered by our testing program, we claim that the owners and managers of three apartment complexes discriminated on the basis of race.

The company manages a number of rental properties, including three apartment complexes in Parsippany, New Jersey totaling 458 units. The United States contend, in our amended complaint, filed on that the defendants discouraged African American testers from renting units and told them that there was a long waiting list for apartments, while white testers were encouraged to rent units. In addition, African American testers were falsely told that apartments were unavailable, while white testers were told of, and shown, available apartments.

The United States filed this case on November 16, 1998, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owner of a four-unit building violated the Fair Housing Act by including the words "no children " in an advertisement for a vacancy in his building and made statements that occupancy by children was prohibited or restricted.

The United States were able to resolve this matter by the time we were ready to file the complaint. The consent order requires future compliance with the Fair Housing Act, including advertising in compliance with the Act.

United States v. General Properties Company, et al. (E.D. Mich.)5/4/06

On August 29, 2007, the court entered a consent order for $725, 000 resolving United States v. General Properties Development, LLC (E.D. Mich.) The complaint, filed in 2006, alleged that the owners and operators of Apple Ridge Apartments (formerly known as Whispering Woods) in Livonia, Mich. have discriminated against African Americans seeking to rent apartments at the complex. The complaint, which was handled jointly by attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office, was consolidated with a suit filed by the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit.

The complaint alleged that General Properties Company, d/b/a/ Whispering Woods and now Appleridge Apartments, and one of its owners, Elliott C. Schubiner, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American applicants for tenancy. The consent order requires the defendants: $330,000 in damages to twenty-one persons who were discriminated against because of their race at Whispering Woods/Appleridge Apartments; pay $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees to the Fair Housing Center; pay $45,000 in a civil penalty to the United States, and use and independent property management company to handle the rental and application process. The consent order will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Genesis Designer Homes et al. (S.D. Ga.)10/3/07

On September 26, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Genesis Designer Homes et al. (S.D. Ga.), alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination based on disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The complaint alleges that the defendants, who are owners, developers, builders and engineers, violated the Act when they failed to design and construct two condominium complexes in Savannah, Georgia in compliance with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

On February 8, 2006, the Court entered the Consent Order in United States v. Grand Canyon Enterprises, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed on February 7, 2005, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of race and disability they refused to rent an apartment to the complainants in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complainants intervened in the complaint and had private legal counsel. The consent order requires the defendants to pay the three complainants $40,000, inclusive of attorney's fees, and also contains injunctive relief.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On June 27, 2007, the United States filed a Fair Housing Act complaint  in United States v. Guntharp (D. N.M.), against Woodrow and Ethel Guntharp, the owners of an Albuquerque apartment complex. The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated against the complainant, a person with a disability, by making statements indicating that they preferred not to rent to persons with certain mental disabilities, which amounted to a refusal to show the complainant an apartment. The complaint also names the complainant's mother as an aggrieved person. The case was referred to the Department by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which investigated the complaint and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendants had engaged in discrimination.

On August 12, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota filed a complaint alleging the defendants, the developers of a subdivision in Harris, MN discriminated on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the developers refused to permit construction of a residence which was to be used as a four person group home for a former sheriff who was paralyzed following a shooting and a stroke, and three other persons with disabilities. The home was to be operated by his parents and his sister and brother-in-law who also planned to build homes in the subdivision. The complaint alleges that the developers withdrew permission to the proposed builder to be the exclusive builder of the 10 home subdivision, when they found out the group home was to be located across from the new home the developers were constructing for themselves. When the developers learned about his disability and the group home, they attempted to change the restrictive covenants to prohibit group homes in the subdivision and refused to let the builder construct any other homes in the development.

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 May 18, 2004, the court entered a Consent Decree in the United States v. Habersham Properties Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga.). The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the company that manages the Crescent Court apartment complex, which is located in Decatur, GA, as well as 28 other complexes in Georgia, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race against prospective renters. The owners of the apartment complex, Peachtree Battle Investors II, LLC, as well as the rental manager at Crescent Court, Suzanne Monner, were also named as defendants. The complaint alleges that the rental agent allowed white applicants to inspect apartments and gave them the opportunity to rent them, while falsely telling black applicants that there were no apartments available for inspection or for rent.

The consent decree requires the defendants to: adopt uniform, non-discriminatory standards, policies and procedures; provide training for employees on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; submit to compliance testing, and maintain records and submit reports to the Division. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $180,000 in damages, including: $170,000 in damages for aggrieved persons and a $10,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

This case was developed through the Division's testing program.

On December 24, 1997, the United States filed a complaint after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status in the operation of Lake Villa Apartments, a 256-unit apartment building in Coeur d'Alene. The United States also included a claim that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Act. The complex imposed an occupancy standard, which limited occupancy of two-bedroom apartments to two persons as well as rules and regulations unreasonably restricting use of facilities by children.

On July 7, 1999, the United States resolved this matter through a consent decree, which required a total payment of $105,000, of which $70,000 is divided among the three families, $5,000 will go to the Idaho Fair Housing Council, and $30,000 will be placed in a fund to be divided among claimants who respond to advertising for victims, which will be published by the defendants. The consent order also required that the defendants and their employees attend fair housing training as well as imposing record-keeping and reporting requirements.

On December 30, 2003, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Petition to Enforce a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Subpoena in United States v. Haislet (N.D. Ill.). The administrative complaint filed with HUD in 2001, alleges the respondent discriminated on the basis of familial status when she refused to rent a three-bedroom apartment, located in Blue Island, Illinois, to a married couple with four children in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The couple allege the respondent told them that there were too many children to live in the unit. The subpoena sought access to the subject unit, to allow the HUD investigator to measure the relevant rooms to assess the legitimacy of the respondent's proffered justification that she was acting in accordance with the local occupancy code.

On August 10, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho entered the Consent Decree resolving United States v. Bruce W. Hall, et al. (D. Idaho). The United States complaint, filed on July 7, 2004, alleged that the property manager discriminated on the basis of gender when he refused to rent a single family property to a single mother, her children, and a female friend, because there would be no adult male to provide lawn care and other maintenance. The Consent Decree requires the defendants to pay $5,000 to the aggrieved persons, asked the defendants to admit that their conduct violated the Fair Housing Act. Under the Decree, the property manager issued a written apology to the aggrieved persons. The agreement also requires the defendants to amend their application materials so that they no longer seek "husband's employment" and "wife's employment". The revised applications may seek "applicant's employment" and "if appropriate, spouse's employment." The Decree will remain in effect for three years.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Legal Aid of Western Missouri, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Hallmark Homes, et al. (D. Idaho) 3/17/06

On February 27, 2006, the Court entered the Consent Decree resolving all claims in United States v. Hallmark Homes, Architects West, and Kevin W. Jester (D. Idaho). The complaint, which was filed August 22, 2001, alleged that the defendants, who were the contractor and architects, failed to design and construct the Creekside Meadows Apartment Complex, located in Couer D'Alene, Idaho, so that it meet the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

Under the terms of the decree, the defendants are to pay $115,000 into a retrofit fund and the owner of the property is to oversee a variety of retrofits to the public and common use areas and to the covered units during the upcoming year. In addition, the defendants will make a payment of $2,000 to a local fair housing organization. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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, 2008, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Regent Court Apartments, LLC and Donna Harrison (E.D. Mich.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners and manager of a 102-unit apartment complex in Roseville, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, 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 is based on evidence developed by our testing program showing that white testers were offered apartments immediately while African-American testers were told that there would be a long wait for any apartment availability.

In this case, the United States claimed that the HBE Corporation, which operates 21 Adam's Mark Hotels and Resorts throughout the country, violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating on the basis of race or color. The United States' complaint alleges a pattern or practice of resistance to, and denial of, the full and equal enjoyment by non-white persons of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered by the Adam's Mark hotels throughout the country.

The United States initiated the investigation based on events surrounding the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, Florida held in April 1999. Our action followed a private class action lawsuit filed against the company claiming violations of Title II and other civil rights statutes. In addition, the State of Florida intervened in the private lawsuit against the company for violations of state unfair trade practices and civil right statutes.

On November 6, 2000, the court entered a revised settlement decree between the United States and HBE. The injunctive provisions outlined in the four year consent decree include, among other things, quarterly reporting requirements, establishing and implementing a complaint investigation procedure, testing, advertising targeting minority markets, and adopting nondiscrimination customer service statements and policies.

On December 3, 2001, the private plaintiffs, the State of Florida and HBE Corporation d/b/a Adam's Mark Hotels settled their case, Gilliam et al. and State of Florida v. HBE Corporation d/b/a Adam's Mark Hotels. Under the agreement, Adam's Mark will pay $400,000 as compensation to 1999 Black College Reunion attendees; make a contribution of $600,000 to Florida's four historically black colleges (Florida A&M University, Bethune-Cookman College, Edward Waters College, and Florida Memorial College) to develop tuition scholarships, internships and cooperative education programs in hotel and hospitality management or business administration.

United States v. Halvorsen, et al. (E.D. Wis.)2/29/08

On February 29, 2008, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. Halvorsen (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed in October 2006, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused to negotiate for the sale of a single family house to Tammy Doss, an African American woman, who is a principal in the Milwaukee public schools. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Defendant Halvorsen asked Margaret Silkey, a real estate agent who was attempting to help Ms. Doss find a house, whether her client was black and told Ms. Silkey that she did not want to sell her house to black persons. The complaint alleged that Ms. Halvorsen also told Defendant Hasenstab, the real estate agent with Defendant RE/MAX 100 whom she retained to list her home, that she did not want to sell her home to black persons. When the Defendants learned that Ms. Silkey was attempting to schedule an appointment to show the home to her client, they amended the listing agreement to exclude Ms. Silkey from showing the home. Ms. Silkey was not able to show the home to Ms. Doss, and the Defendants sold the home to a white person.

Under the consent order, the Defendants will pay $30,000 to Ms. Doss and $5,000 to Margaret Silkey. The order also enjoins the Defendants from further discrimination, requires Defendant Hasenstab to receive fair housing training, and requires Defendant RE/MAX 100 to train its agents and report discrimination complaints to the United States. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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 17, 2997, the United States filed a complaint in this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owners and operators of the Golden Gate Mobile Home Park had discriminated on the basis of national origin. After the matter was referred to us, we added a claim that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination. Our complaint alleged that the defendants refused to allow a white resident at the park to sell his unit to Hispanic persons; told a manufactured home sales agent that she could not sell the unit to Hispanic persons; and made derogatory statements about Hispanics to several persons, including the HUD investigator.

The defendants agreed to resolve this matter prior to trial. The consent decree, filed on August 16, 1999, provided $92,500 in monetary relief ($75,000 for the complainants, a $10,000 civil penalty and $7,500 in attorney's fees), fair housing training for the defendants, and reporting and monitoring requirements for the period of the decree.

On March 31, 2005, the Court entered a consent decree resolving United States and the North Carolina Fair Housing Center v. Vickie Harris, Thetford Properties IV L.P., et al. (E.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on October 3, 2003, alleged the owners and managers of Glendale Court Apartments, Pitt County, North Carolina, violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against African-American tenants, their guests, and their children over the course of four years. The Consent Decree requires mandatory training for the property management company, corporate defendants and rental manager; notice to the public of non-discriminatory policies; record keeping and reporting; implementation of a complaint intake procedures and implementation of tenant grievance procedures. In addition, the consent decree requires the Defendants to pay the intervening complainant, North Carolina Fair Housing Center, $21,200 for its frustration of mission/diversion of resources claims. The consent decree will remain in effect for 5 years for the corporate defendants and 3 years for the manager who no longer works at the property.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from the North Carolina Fair Housing Center, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Hasse (D.S.D.)4/20/07

On April 16, 2007, the Court approved and entered a consent decree in United States v. Hasse (D. S.D.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on September 29, 2006, alleged that the Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of refusing to negotiate with the HUD complainants because they had children. The complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated on the basis of familial status by advertising a two bedroom apartment for rent in a local paper in Bismark, North Dakota "no smokers, pets, minors..." and by otherwise stating and implementing a policy of not renting apartments to families with children. Under the consent decree, the Defendant must pay $1,150 to Fair Housing of the Dakotas, $4,000 to a victim's fund, and $4,000 to the government as a civil penalty.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint from Fair Housing of the Dakotas, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On May 6, 2004, the court entered a Consent Order in United States, et al. v. Hawthorne Gardens Associates, et al. (D.N.J.). The complaint, filed on February 20, 2003, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children at four rental properties with approximately 490 units located in Northern New Jersey. Specifically, the complaint alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining and enforcing a policy that prohibited children under ten years of age from living in second-floor apartments at their complexes. The action was brought on behalf of six individual complainants who were rejected for housing on the basis of familial status at the defendants' apartments and on behalf of the Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey, which had conducted fair housing testing at the defendants' properties.

The consent order provides for injunctive relief including: fair housing training; notification of non-discrimination policies; record keeping and reporting; revised rental application provisions and compliance testing. In addition, the consent order requires the defendants to pay $168,000 in compensatory damages to the individually-named complainants, $20,000 for a victims' fund and a $4,000 civil penalty. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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.

United States v. Hillebold (N.D. Ill.) 8/14/07

On July 26, 2007, the court entered a consent decree in United States & South Suburban Housing Center v. Hillebold (N.D. Ill.). The complaint, which was filed on November 8, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a 12-unit apartment building in New Lenox, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race against HUD complainants Joan Stover and the South Suburban Housing Center. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay a total of $42,000, consisting of $25,000 for Joan Stover and $17,000 for the South Suburban Housing Center (including attorney's fees). The three-year decree also contains training, notice and record keeping requirements.

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.

United States v. Henry (E.D. Va.)8/21/07

On July 25, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Henry (E.D. Va.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination on the basis of race and familial status. The complaint alleges that the defendants, Dr. Henry and Henry LLC, who own and manage a 30 unit federally-subsidized, income-qualified section 8 property in Virginia Beach, Virginia, evicted and threatened eviction of black tenants, exacted different terms and conditions, entered the units of black tenants without notice or reason, and used racial slurs and epithets. In addition, the defendants prohibit more than two children per unit, even in two-bedroom units. The United States added a pattern or practice claim.

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 October 27, 2004, the court entered the consent decree resolving United States v. Hillman Housing Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on January 25, 2002, alleged that the defendants discriminated against Cynthia Liu and Robert J. Liao on the basis of race, color, national origin, and/or religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by not approving their application to purchase an apartment in a cooperative housing development owned and operated by the defendants in New York, New York. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $130,000 to the complainants and submit to standard advertising, record keeping and reporting requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for 2 ½ years. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office.

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.

The United States has reached a settlement in this case.

On January 19, 2001, the United States filed a fair housing complaint in this case, alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainants on the basis of their race and familial status. The United States allege that the defendants enforced swimming pool rules that discriminated against families with children, including the complainants' families, at the Hilltowne Apartments complex in Hayward, California. In addition, the United States allege that the defendants enforced the swimming pool rules selectively in a manner that especially limited access to the pool for black children, including the child complainants; the defendants also treated the complainants differently on account of race in other aspects of their tenancy. The United States complaint also alleges that the defendants sought to evict one of the families in retaliation for their having filed a HUD complaint.

The consent order, filed on September 26, 2001, provides that the defendants will pay a total of $17,500 to the Crump and Toms families. The injunctive provisions of the Consent Order include: training for the defendants' employees; the dissemination of information about tenants' Fair Housing Act rights to all tenants and prospective tenants; and other monitoring and advertising provisions.

On February 1, 2001, the United States filed a complaint against the owner of an apartment complex in Pocatello, Idaho, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act's requirement that new multi-family housing be accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint charges the defendants with violating the Act by failing to include certain features in 12 ground-floor units that would make them accessible to persons with disabilities. The complaint alleges that the ground-floor units are inaccessible in many respects, including that they have steps at apartment entrances, doors that are too narrow for a wheelchair to pass through, and kitchens and bathrooms that are too small for wheelchair access. This matter was referred to the Department by HUD after HUD's investigation of a complaint received from the Intermountain Fair Housing Council alleging that the apartments did not meet the requirements of the Act.

On January 16, 2002, the parties entered into a consent decree to resolve the case. The terms of the consent decree require defendants, inter alia, to: (a) pay $10,000 to compensate an individual using a wheelchair who sought to live at the Elms and was unable to do so; (b) pay $4,000 to Intermountain Fair Housing Council; (c) pay $14,000 to compensate additional victims of discrimination at the Elms; (d) pay $10,000 to increase the availability of accessible housing in Idaho for people with disabilities; (e) pay $4,000 to the United States in civil penalties; and (f) build sixteen (16) units of accessible housing in Pocatello, Idaho.

The United States filed a complaint alleging that the Aurora Housing Authority violated Title VIII by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation request from a site-based Section 8 tenant. The complainants are a mother and her nine-year-old son. The son was taken hostage in their Section 8 apartment when he was four years-old by a man wanted for murder who ended the police standoff by attempting suicide in the son's presence. Both mother and son developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the incident. Their therapists urged that they be allowed to transfer out of the apartment where the tragedy occurred and not return to the same apartment. The private landlord refused to allow the family out of their lease and refused to relieve the family of responsibility for the damage caused during the hostage taking. The family requested that AHA transfer them from the site-based Section 8 program to the Section 8 certificate program. AHA refused to allow the transfer citing continued obligations between the complaints and their Section 8 private landlord, a separation of the two Section 8 programs, and non-participation by the family in the site-based Section 8 program since the family refused to return to the same apartment and discontinued paying rent. AHA also claims that the family failed to notify AHA that they had disabilities, that the mother and son are not persons with disabilities protected pursuant to Title VIII, that the request was not reasonable, and that the private landlord was solely responsible for accommodating the family, not AHA.

The consent decree provides for injunctive relief, including a requirement for training and a requirement that AHA develop and implement procedures for handling reasonable accommodation requests. The Decree also requires on-site monitoring and a requirement that AHA notify the United States whenever they refuse to grant a reasonable accommodation request.

United States v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, et al. (W.D. Tex.)6/12/06

On March 28, 2006, the court incorporated the terms of the parties' settlement and release agreement in granting the joint motion for an order of dismissal in United States v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, filed on June 3, 2005, alleged that the owners and managers of the Westminster Square Apartments, a Section 202 complex in San Antonio, Texas, violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused repeated requests by the complainants to transfer to a first floor unit. Antonio Maldonado, a double leg amputee who uses a wheelchair, and his wife Josefina Maldonado, who is also disabled, asked on several occasions to move from their third floor unit to a first floor unit so that they would not be dependent on the elevators and would not have to travel as far to get to their unit. The complaint alleged that the defendants denied the requests despite the availability of two first floor units. The settlement requires defendants to transfer the Maldonados to a first floor unit, to pay $125,000 in damages and attorneys' fees to the Maldonados and a fair housing organization that assisted them, to implement a comprehensive reasonable accommodation policy, to attend fair housing training and to submit to standard injunctive relief.

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 27, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California filed a complaint against the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura. The complaint alleges that the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura discriminated against an former tenant who is mobility impaired and requires the use of a walker, when it refused to grant a reasonable accommodation at a housing complex it owns and manages. The former tenant requested that one of two accessible parking spaces be assigned to her rather than to a tenant who did not own a car and a tenant who moved to the complex after she did. After the housing authority failed to grant the accommodation, she tripped and fell to the ground upon exiting her vehicle causing her to need emergency medical assistance and to decide to move out of the complex.

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.

In our complaint, filed on April 24, 1997, we claimed that the Town of Milford, whose population is virtually all white persons, and the local housing authority violated the Fair Housing Act when they withdrew from a scattered-site, affordable housing program that the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] had already funded. The town is located between the Cities of Bridgeport and New Haven. Our complaint contended that officials of the city responded to neighborhood opposition, motivated in significant part by fears that the subsidized housing would be occupied by persons from those two cities, the majority of whom are minority group members, and pressured the housing authority to cancel the project.

On October 5, 1998, the United States were able to resolve our claims against the housing authority through a consent decree, which requires it to acquire 28 new units of family public housing over the next three years and to market these units in Milford and surrounding communities, including the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport.

United States v. Housing Management Services (W.D. Wis.)10/22/07

On September 28, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Housing Management Services Inc. (W.D. Wis.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from HUD. The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners and property managers of a Section 8 apartment complex in Hudson, Wisconsin, violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to the complainant and subsequently evicting her. 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.

In our complaint we claimed that the bank charged African Americans higher up-front fees on home mortgages, known as overages. Under the agreement that we signed with Huntington, the company agreed to create a $420,000 fund to compensate victims and change its policies to ensure uniform pricing.

On August, 12, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Decree resolving United States v. Bruce Hurley, et al. (E.D. Tenn.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consent Decree provides that the Defendants will pay the complainant $10,000 and provide him a reference letter for future housing. The agreement also requires the Defendants to fulfill various training, reporting and monitoring requirements as well as to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy.

The complaint, filed on September 14, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of a rental complex discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to provide him with an accessible parking space close to his unit and by retaliating against him after he filed his HUD complaint.

United States v. Mahmoud Hussein (D. Conn.)8/14/07

On August 1, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Mahmoud Hussein (D. Conn.). The complaint alleges that the owner of a single-family house in Windsor Locks, Connecticut discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by rejecting the complainant's numerous requests for a reasonable accommodation to the defendant's "no-dogs" rule that would have allowed them to have an assistance dog for her daughter. The complaint states that the minor daughter has multiple disabilities, including cerebral palsy and seizure activity and that, while she was working with a service animal, the girl experienced few, if any, seizures. The complaint claims that the defendant retaliated against the complainant and her daughter by refusing to renew their lease and serving a notice to quit after the defendant became aware that the girl was entering a training program, pursuant to the recommendation of her physician, to obtain an assistance dog.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On November 19, 2001, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of Constance and Jason Schroeder, against Earcle Ibbotson. The complaint alleged that Earcle Ibbotson, the owner of a rental property consisting of a single-family trailer home, violated the Fair Housing Act by making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Ibbotson threatened the Schroeders' with eviction and intimidated them because they permitted an African American man to visit Mr. Ibbotson's rental property.

Under the terms of the decree, filed on February 7, 2002, the Ibbotsons will pay $18,000 in compensatory damages to the Schroeders and James Rogers. In addition, the Ibbotsons will be required to participate in fair housing training and are prohibited from making discriminatory statements with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling; he is also prohibited from coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with persons in their right to equal housing.

This case arose after the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a determination of reasonable cause and filed a charge of discrimination and one of the parties elected to have the matter resolved in federal court.

On December 26, 2002, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(b)(2) alleging a breach of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conciliation agreement in United States v. Vincent Incopero (N.D. Ill.). The Department alleges that the defendant, the owner of a single family rental house in Forest Park, Illinois, breached a conciliation agreement entered into through HUD's conciliation process by failing to make several urgently needed repairs, including repairs to a non-functional toilet and bathtub. The complaint asks the court to enforce the conciliation agreement and require the defendant, Vincent Incopero to make the repairs, enjoin the defendant from violating the Fair Housing Act, award actual and punitive damages to complainant, and assess a civil penalty.

The case originated when the complainants filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which alleged the defendant had discriminated against them based on disability.

On March 31, 1998, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the architects and builders of a condominium complex and four apartment buildings violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct them so that they were accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

On September 1, 1999, the United States was able to resolve our concerns regarding the apartment buildings with a consent decree which requires the defendants to modify both the common areas and the individual units of the four apartment complexes to provide accessibility to persons with disabilities. In addition, the company must examine their seven apartment complexes in Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona to determine whether they comply with the Act, and undertake the necessary modifications of the common areas and individual units at those properties, if they do not. The tenants who were injured as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act will share in a $50,000 fund and the defendants will pay a $35,000 civil penalty to the United States. Additionally, the order requires that the architects donate 300 hours of free technical assistance to non-profit organizations and receive training in the Fair Housing Act. In a separate consent decree, one architect agreed to pay a $15,000 civil penalty.

The portion of the lawsuit concerning the Echo Bay Condominiums remains in litigation.

In this case, which stemmed from complaints referred to the Department by HUD in 1998, we allege, in our complaint, that the City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Housing Authority have engaged in intentional discrimination based on race in the siting of public housing in Duval County. The United States allege that the City and Housing Authority violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to implement a plan to site new public housing units in non-minority neighborhoods when building replacement units after the demolition of the Blodgett Homes project. This included abandoning a plan to purchase a privately owned property on the west side of Jacksonville for use as a public housing site in response to public opposition from white neighbors. The United States also allege that the City engaged in unlawful race discrimination when it passed a 1994 amendment to its zoning code which required a special permit for public housing that was not required for private housing. The amendment, which has since been repealed, allowed the City Council to veto the Housing Authority's decisions regarding the siting of public housing, which has a majority African-American tenant population, and prevent the construction of public housing units in white neighborhoods.

The consent decree requires Defendants to create 225 new public housing units in designated areas of Duval County where public housing had not previously been built; to have all new units ready for occupancy within 6 years from the date the agreement is signed by the court, to develop and operate a Section 8 mobility counseling program to provide housing counseling services and moving expenses to families living in Northwest Jacksonville who currently receive Section 8 rent vouchers and are interested in living in other areas of Duval County; to implement a fair housing training program for certain City and Housing Authority officials and employees; to submit quarterly reports detailing progress in complying with the Decree and participate in quarterly meetings with DOJ; to consent to the appointment of an independent monitor if all parties are not satisfied with Defendants' progress after one year; and to pay a total of $380,750.00 in damages to the four individuals who filed complaints with HUD.

On March 20, 2008, the Division filed a proposed consent decree in United States v. James (W.D. Mo.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging sexual harassment by Ersil James, who was a maintenance person at several apartment complexes. The lawsuit alleged that Action Management & Consulting Services LLC, which manages the subject properties, and its on-site manager Dan Miller discriminated by failing to take action to prevent defendant James from continuing to harass female tenants. The lawsuit also alleged that the owners of some of the complexes, Missouri Rural Housing of Platte City L.P. and its general partner, MACO Management Co. Inc., were liable for those actions. The consent decree, which still must be approved by the court, requires the defendants to pay $75,000 to four victims and $20,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, defendants will be enjoined from further illegal discrimination and must establish a sexual harassment policy and provide training to employees.

On November 24, 1997, the United States filed a complaint claiming that the architect and developer engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against persons with disabilities. On June 11, 1999, the United States settled this case with a consent decree. Pursuant to the decree, $92,000 will be used to retrofit non-compliant units at Acorn Glen over a 10 year period. The remaining money will go towards retrofitting the public use and common areas of Acorn Glen.

This case was based on evidence developed through our testing program.

On June 27, 2001, the Unites States filed a complaint alleging that Johnson, the owner of the Carriage Inn Apartments in Mobile, Alabama, and Dawn Stockton, a former manager of the complex, engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination based on race and familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Johnson instructed his employees not to rent to black persons or families with young children and that his employees carried out these instructions by denying apartments to persons because of their race or familial status.

On September 30, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Max Joyner, et al. (E.D.N.C.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges the defendants' failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Greenville, North Carolina so that it is accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the consent order, the defendants will retrofit the interiors of 73 ground-floor of the Meridian Park Apartment complex, as well as sidewalks, mailboxes, tennis courts, and other exterior spaces. The defendants will also construct several apartments with accessibility enhancements that are not required by federal law in future phases of construction. The Farrior defendants will pay $95,000 into a retrofit fund used to pay a portion of the costs of retrofitting the covered ground floor units and the public and common use areas in Phase 1 at Meridian Park. The Joyner-Tozer-Janowski defendants will also pay $26,000 to compensate individuals who experienced harm at the complex due to non-compliance, and $10,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. The consent order has other provisions of injunctive relief, such as non-discrimination in future design and construction, document retention, educational training and reporting requirements. The court entered the consent order on October 11, 2005. The consent order will last for a term of five years.

On August 15, 2006, the court entered the consent order resolving United States v. Kaemmerer (S.D. Ill.), The complaint, filed on September 13, 2005, alleged that Cletus and Billie Kaemmerer, the owners of a three-unit rental building in Belleville, Illinois, violated the familial status provisions of sections 3604(a) and 3604(c) of the FHA by evicting HUD complainant Melody Sue Rachels from her one-bedroom loft apartment in her ninth month of pregnancy on the grounds that their insurance company refused to insure the loft apartments if children were allowed to live in them. The consent order prohibits defendant Cletus Kaemmerer from discriminating against families with children, requires him to keep records and to implement non-discriminatory standards for rentals and requires him to pay $7,500 to Ms. Rachels.

On August 10, 2004, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation (S.D. W.Va.). The complaint alleged that the defendant, the owner of a cooperatively owned apartment complex in South Charleston, West Virginia, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to its no-pet policy for a woman with an emotional disability who needed a support animal in order to allow her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her apartment. The defendant required that the animal be trained and certified and that the complainant provide authorization from a physician specializing in her specific disability.

Under the consent decree, the defendant will amend its rule so as to allow an emotionally disabled person to keep an animal on the strength of a statement from a licensed mental-health professional that the person is disabled and would derive therapeutic benefit from having the animal. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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 9, 2004, a jury in the case of United States v. John Koch (D. Neb.), returned a verdict against the defendant. The United States' complaint, filed October 2, 2003, alleged that John Koch, a landlord in Omaha, Nebraska, sexually harassed his female tenants, offering among other things, to exchange rent for sex. Following a two-week trial, the jury found that Mr. Koch had engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment and ordered him to pay $69,152 in damages to ten women who the jury found were injured by Mr. Koch's harassment. On December 27, 2004, the United States filed a motion for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for addition to increase the amount of damages awarded to the victims. On March 29, 2005, the court denied the United States' motion for a new trial or additional compensation for the victims and granted the United States motion for a civil penalty and injunctive relief and ordered the defendants to pay $40,000.

United States v. Robert L. Kreisler, Jr., a/k/a Bob Peterson, et al. (D. Minn.) 8/17/06

On August 29, 2006, the Court approved and entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Kreisler, Jr., a/k/a Bob Peterson, et al. (D. Minn.). The United States' pattern or practice complaint, filed on July 9, 2003, alleged, inter alia, that Kreisler violated the Fair Housing Act when he discriminated against black tenants at two apartment complexes which he owns and manages by: evicting blacks while not evicting similarly situated non-blacks, requiring black tenants to vacate their apartments permanently due to "renovation work" while not requiring non-black tenants to do so, and failing to provide necessary and requested maintenance to black tenants while providing such maintenance to non-black tenants.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, which must still be approved by the court, the Defendants must pay $525,000 to 19 households, hire an independent management company to operate the rental properties, post and publish a nondiscrimination policy, and correct the rental records of several former tenants against whom Defendants filed unlawful detainer actions. The Defendants will also pay a $50,000 civil penalty.

On June 30, 1999, the United States obtained a consent decree, which resolved our long-standing litigation against the defendant who had repeatedly made sexual comments to his tenants. The case began with one individual who filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. In 1995, an administrative law judge held that he had sexually harassed a former tenant, and ordered him to pay $32,000 in damages and civil penalties. The United States successfully defended the ALJ's opinion in the court of appeals.

In 1998, we filed a complaint in district court alleging that Krueger had breached a HUD-approved Conciliation Agreement, which resolved a claim of sexual and racial harassment filed by a second tenant. The United States later amended the complaint to allege that defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against other female tenants.

Under the consent decree, the defendant will not manage any residential rental properties for a period of six years. In addition, he will pay the $32,000 judgment, plus applicable interest, due as a result of the initial ALJ proceeding, the $2,000, also plus interest, due under the conciliation agreement, and will pay $2,000 to a third victim.

United States v. Lake County Board of Commissioners, et al. (N.D. Ind.) 6/6/07

On May 25, 2007, Judge Rudy Lozano entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Lake County Board of Commissioners, et al. (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 7, 2004, alleged that the defendants, the Lake County Board of Commissioners and Lake County Redevelopment Commission, violated the Fair Housing Act by retaliating against two County employees for supporting a new housing development in which African-Americans may have purchased homes and for assisting the Division in an earlier fair housing lawsuit against the City of Lake Station, Indiana.

The Consent Decree requires the defendants to pay a total of $350,000 to the two complainants. The payment includes fees for the attorney representing one of the complainants, who intervened in the action. It also requires the defendants to document their contention that they presently have a fair housing policy, conduct training for employees, and post a fair housing sign, and to continue those practices. The Court retains jurisdiction over the case for two years.

On September 30, 2003, the United States filed a Complaint in United States v. Little Rock Planning Commission (E.D. Ark.), alleging that the Commission violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race when it denied a special use permit to an African American family who wanted to build a manufactured home in a white residential neighborhood. The complaint alleges that the Commission voted to deny the permit after white residents opposed the request at a public hearing although the application met all applicable zoning requirements and the manufactured home was compatible with the existing area, which included other manufactured homes and mobile homes.

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 1, 2006, the United States filed a proposed consent decree resolving United States v. LNL Associates/Architects, P.A., et al. (D. Kan.). The complaint, filed April 16, 2002, alleges that the developers, contractors, architect and civil engineer of two apartment complexes in Olathe, Kansas violated the Fair Housing Act by designing and constructing multifamily housing that is not accessible to or adaptable for use by persons with disabilities. The architect and civil engineer in this suit are defendants in United States v. Bleakley, a related suit the Division filed last May relating to two other apartment complexes in Olathe.

The consent decree, which must be approved by the court, requires the owners of the complexes to retrofit parking areas, paths and walkways, public and common-use areas, as well as the interiors of ground-floor units, to enhance the accessibility of the complexes to disabled residents and their guests for an estimated cost of about $1.2 million. In addition, the defendants are required to establish funds to pay for enhanced accessibility features upon request, for a total of $200,000, provide $200,000 in damages for unidentified victims, and pay $50,000 in civil penalties. The settlement also requires the defendants to obtain training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for four years.

United States v. Loftus (D. Kan.) 9/21/06

On September 15, 2006, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving in United States v. Loftus (D. Kan.). The complaint, filed, on November 10, 2005, alleged the Defendant violated the Fair Housing Act when she refused to rent an apartment to an African-American man because of race and made statements with respect to the rental of an apartment indicating a preference or limitation based on race. The consent order provides for $17,500 in monetary damages and injunctive relief and will remain in effect for three years. 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.

In this instance, the bank allowed its employee loan officers and independent loan brokers to charge, at their discretion, an additional amount over its base price for the loan. Our complaint, filed on September 5, 1996, alleged a pattern of African American, Hispanic, female, and older borrowers paying a greater amount for their loans than other borrowers. Under the settlement agreement, also filed on September 5^th, the company paid $3 million in damages to 1,200 victims of discrimination.

On November 1, 2002, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Complaint in United States v. Lora (N.D. Ill.). The United States Attorney alleged that the defendants, the owner and property manager of a 4-unit rental apartment building in Chicago, IL, together with the property manager's son and daughter, discriminated against an African-American woman tenant and her two year old son, on the basis of their race. The United States Attorney further alleged that when the tenant spoke to defendants about renting an apartment, the defendants made statements indicating that they did not wish to rent to African-Americans. When the two moved into the apartment notwithstanding these statements, the property manager's seventeen year old son began racial harassing the family, including using racial epithets and physically threatening the woman and her child. The United States Attorney alleges that the owner and property manager knew of the harassment by the property manager's son but failed to stop it, and instead told the family to move out of their apartment because they could not guarantee their safety.

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.

United States v. Luke (C.D. Cal.)3/13/08

On March 5, 2008, the Court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Luke (C.D. Cal.), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin. The complaint, filed on November 16, 2006, and amended on September 17, 2007, alleged that the Defendants discriminated against Hispanics in favor of Vietnamese people by denying or making housing unavailable to them in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and by making statements indicating preferences on the basis of national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604. In addition to the claim brought on behalf of the HUD complainants, the United States' complaint also alleged that the Defendants conduct constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

Under the Consent Decree, the defendants must pay $174,000 in damages to private plaintiffs and $59,344 to counsel for private plaintiffs in the form of attorney's costs, fees and litigation expenses. Defendants must also pay $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States, and $7,500 in damages to an additional aggrieved individual. Along with these payments, the defendants are also required to attend fair housing training, to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and to keep certain records.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received multiple complaints, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

Our complaint, filed on January 12, 2000, which resulted from the election of a HUD charge, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status. The complaint alleges that defendants discriminated by telling the complainant that the apartment was unsuitable for children and that she should look for something else. As part of the consent decree, filed on March 7, 2001, the defendants have agreed to pay $3,500, to attend training given by the Idaho Fair Housing Council, and to comply with other advertising and reporting requirements.

On August 9, 1999, the United States filed a suit contending that the owner and manager of numerous rental properties in Jackson, Mississippi, violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. The amended complaint alleged his female tenants were subjected to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, including: unwanted verbal sexual advances or touching; conditioning the terms and conditions of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual favors; and threatening and taking steps to evict or taking other adverse action against female tenants and prospective female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.

On March 28, 2002, a federal jury in Jackson, Mississippi returned a $451,208 verdict against L.T. Jackson and the L.T. Jackson Trust for violating the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. Most of the victims are lower-income, single women who had limited opportunities to seek other housing, making them particularly vulnerable to harassment by a landlord. At the trial, 22 current and former tenants testified that Jackson's actions included unwanted verbal sexual advances, unwanted sexual touching, asking for sexual favors in exchange for tenancy and threatening to retaliate against women who refused his sexual advances. Punitive and compensatory damages in the amount of $451,208 will be divided among 22 female tenants whom the jury found were victims of the harassment.

On March 10, 2003, the Court approved the parties' Consent Decree and Final Order in United States v. Lytton IV Housing Corp., et al. (N.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed October 20, 2000, alleged that the defendants, the designers and builders of Lytton Courtyard, a three-story elevator building in Palo Alto, California, discriminated on the basis of disability by designing and constructing the building so that it did not have the features of accessibility and adaptability required by the Act. Lytton Courtyard is HUD-funded housing for low-income senior citizens. It has 51 apartments - all having inaccessible kitchens and bathrooms. The Consent Decree requires defendants to pay $87,500 in damages to Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing and $532,500 into a fund to modify the inaccessible units and common areas. The Decree also enjoins defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act in the future, requires them to undergo fair housing training and periodic recordkeeping. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for three years.

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 May 25, 2005, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. David Madrid d/b/a Trinity House Living Services (D.N.M.). The complaint, filed on June 17, 2004, alleged that David Madrid, who owns, rents and/or manages Trinity House Living Services, had engaged in a pattern or practice of harassing his mentally disabled tenants on the basis of their disability and/or sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Trinity House Living Services consists of several group residences that house individuals with mental disabilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The complaint specifically alleged the that defendant Madrid: (1) subjected tenants with mental disabilities to severe and pervasive unwelcome physical harassment and discriminatory living conditions (including verbal harassment); (2) subjected female tenants to severe and pervasive unwelcome sexual harassment including, but not limited, to hugs, massages, and touching of intimate body parts; and (3) threatened to evict or take other adverse actions against tenants who refused, objected to or reported his discriminatory actions.

Under the terms of the consent decree, Mr. Madrid will pay $67,500 in monetary damages as well as a $7,500 civil penalty to the government, and will refrain from personally managing any group home facilities for the five year duration of the decree.

On July 29, 2002, the court (B. Lynn Winmill) entered a Consent Order to resolve the case of United States v. Madsen (D. Idaho), a complaint, filed on September 12, 2001, in which the Division alleged that defendants Victoria and Floyd Madsen, owners of Pioneer Village Mobile Home Park in Weiser, Idaho, violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent a mobile home space to a woman and her adult son, on the basis of his mental disability; and that defendant Victoria Madsen made statements indicating that she did not want tenants with mental disabilities. The United States also alleged that because of this discrimination, the complainants could not purchase the home of their choice from third-party sellers, and were forced into a far more expensive and less satisfactory home. The Consent Order provides that the Madsens will pay them a total of $30,000; that Pioneer Village will implement nondiscriminatory policies and will inform all residents and applicants of these policies and of their rights under the Fair Housing Act and Idaho state law; and that the relevant agents of defendants will attend fair housing training. The Consent Order also contains provisions for monitoring of Pioneer Village's tenant and applicant records, and for requiring the defendants to advertise to the public in accordance with HUD's fair housing advertising guidelines. These provisions will remain in effect for 3 years plus 3 months from entry of the Consent Order. Plaintiff-intervenor Idaho Human Rights Commission joined in the United States' allegations and is a party to the Consent Order.

The case was originally 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 March 21, 2005, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving, Memphis Center for Independent Living and United States v. Makowsky Construction Co., Inc. et al. (W.D. Tenn), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The Complaint, filed on November 9, 2001, alleges that Makowsky Construction Company, Inc., the general contractor, Archeon, Inc., an architectural firm, Reaves Sweeney Marcom, Inc., and W. H. Porter & Co. Inc., engineering firms, Penn Investors, Inc., JAN Realty, Inc., Belz/South Bluffs, Inc., MRB-Windyke, L.P., and MRB-Stonebridge, L.P., who are owners and developers, failed to design and construct three Memphis apartment complexes (Champion Hills at Stonebridge, Champion Hills at Windyke and Eton Square Apartments) and two Mississippi apartment complexes (The Magnolias in Hernando, Mississippi, and Cypress Lakes Apartments in Robinsonville, Mississippi) in accordance with the accessibility guidelines provisions of the Act. Also named as a party is Makowsky Ringel Greenberg, LLC, the manager of these properties.

Under the Consent Order, the defendants will retrofit Stonebridge, Windyke and Eton Square apartment complexes including the interiors of ground-floor units as well as sidewalks, entryways, and other public exterior spaces. They will also make certain other accessibility enhancements which are not required by federal law are available upon request such as roll in showers and roll under cooking surfaces. They will also survey The Magnolias and Cypress Lakes Apartments for compliance with the access requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

The defendants will pay $260,000 to compensate individuals who experienced harm at any of these properties due to non-compliance. The defendants will also pay $20,000 to Plaintiff, Memphis Center for Independent Living, and $20,000 as a civil penalty to the United States.

On January 29, 2003, the United States filed a Consent Decree with the United States District Court in Topeka, Kansas, to resolve United States v. Maldonado. The complaint, filed on February 13, 2002, involved allegations that Trinidad Maldonado, the owner of the Midway Mobile Home Park in Junction City, Kansas, sexually harassed female tenants, many of whom were the spouses of men stationed at the nearby Ft. Riley army base. The United States alleged that Mr. Maldonado made repeated and unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, offered female tenants reductions in their rent and other privileges in exchange for sexual acts, entered female tenants' trailers without permission and without a legitimate reason, and inappropriately touched female tenants. The Defendants will pay $245,000 to nine identified victims of the harassment, $25,000 to be used as a fund to compensate as-yet unidentified victims, and $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States. Mr. Maldonado is also required to refrain from future contact with tenants. The Park will also be required institute a sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure and ensure that all persons who work at the park receive training from a third party in fair housing laws, and to have no further involvement in the management of the park for the five year term of the Decree. The Consent Decree was entered by the Court on January 31, 2003, and will remain in effect for five years and three months.

The case was originally referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated, and issued a charge of discrimination. The United States later amended its complaint to allege that the defendants' actions constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

On February 11, 2005, the United States filed a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Mammarrapallil (N.D. Ill.). The Complaint, filed on August 16, 2004, alleged that the defendant, the owner and manager of three rental properties in Alsip, Illinois. The complaint alleged the defendant discriminated on the basis of race by imposing more burdensome application procedures on the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities' black tester. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay $25,000 to the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and enjoins them from further discrimination on the basis of race. The consent decree will remain in effect for 3 years.

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.

United States v. Matusoff Rental Company (S.D. Ohio)4/5/07

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an Order in United States v. Matusoff Rental Company (S.D. Ohio) finding that Defendant Roger Matusoff had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and familial status and ordering him to pay a total of $535,000 to 26 aggrieved persons, $405,000 in compensatory damages (in damage awards ranging from $7,500 to $20,000) and $130,000 in punitive damages ($5,000 per victim). The court declined to enter injunctive relief and did not address the United States' request for civil penalties.

After investigation, the United States filed a complaint on November 24, 1999, which was later amended. The amended complaint alleged that Defendant Roger Matusoff, the owner of three apartment complexes located in Xenia, Troy and Sidney, Ohio violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against several African-Americans and families with children, who were applying for housing. The complaint also alleged that Defendant Matusoff had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race or color by instructing employees to identify the race of rental applications as a means to further the Defendant Matusoff's policy of denying apartments to African-Americans.

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 29, 2003, the Court entered an order  order (PDF version 384KB) denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on constitutional and statutory grounds in United States v. Maui County (D. Haw.). The case, filed on July 10, 2003, was the first brought by the Division under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The complaint arose from the Maui Planning Commission's 2001 decision to deny a special zoning permit to the Hale O Kaula Church, a non-traditional, agriculturally-centered Christian church, to use its land to conduct worship services and to construct a church building in which to hold those services. Following cases in the Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, the Court found that RLUIPA was a valid exercise of congressional power, and that the law did not violate the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court also held that the United States has standing to file the suit and that the action is not barred by any statute of limitations. On January 5, 2004, the Court entered an order granting the church's motion to consolidate the Division's suit with the private action.

The Division seeks injunctive relief that prohibits the Maui Planning Commission from applying its zoning laws in a manner that substantially burdens religious exercise, that discriminates against the Church on the basis of religion or religious denomination, or that unreasonably limits its use of its land, and that also ensures that the Commission's future practices and procedures do not violate the statute.

On March 15, 2005, the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Wisconsin filed a Stipulation for Partial Settlement in United States v. Meadowlark Manor Condominium Association (W.D. Wis.). The complaint filed on July 30, 2004, alleged that the defendant unlawfully conditioned its approval of the complainant's request for a reasonable modification to install a ramp at the rear entrance of her building on her agreement to sign a release stating that she would maintain the ramp at her own expense. The stipulation requires the condominium association to maintain the ramp in good repair as long as she resides at the property, to comply with the Fair Housing Act and to refrain from retaliating against the complainant.

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 May 8, 2002, the Court approved a consent decree to resolve the United States' complaint. The complaint, filed on October 22, 2001, included allegations that defendants had published rules that restricted the use of common areas at the Meadows Apartments in Sparks, Nevada to persons under the age of eighteen, including a playground, basketball court, and a swimming pool area, irrespective of adult or parental supervision.

The Consent Decree provides standard relief and includes standard injunctive relief including a requirement that all current and future employees must sign a certification acknowledging receipt of the Consent Decree and defendants' non-discrimination policy. The Decree also requires defendants to distribute to each tenant and every applicant at any of their properties a copy of their non-discrimination policy as well as the HUD pamphlet entitled " Are You a Victim of Housing Discrimination?"

This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination and the complainant elected to proceed in federal court.

On November 20, 2003, the Court entered a consent decreeresolving United States v. Meadows of Jupiter, Ltd. et al. (S.D. Fla.), a case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color and familial status. The complaint, filed on August 27, 2002, alleged that managers of the Mallards Cove used a variety of tactics to discourage black persons from renting an apartment at the 240-unit complex. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants told black prospective applicants that there were no apartments available for rent at Mallards Cove while at the same time telling white applicants that apartments were available. In addition, the complaint alleged that the managers made numerous statements indicating they did not want to rent to families with children and indicated to apartment seekers with children that no apartments were available.

Under the consent decree, the owners and managers of the Mallards Cove apartment complex in Jupiter, Florida will contribute $520,000 to compensate any individuals who may have been injured as a result of defendants' discriminatory housing practices and pay a civil penalty of $50,000. As part of the consent decree, the defendants will also: adopt non-discriminatory standards and procedures for the processing of rental applications at Mallards Cove; undergo testing to ensure future compliance; and receive training on the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for 5 years.

This case was based on evidence developed through the division's testing program.

On May 16, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Order resolving United States v. MEM Property Management Corp. et al. (D.N.J.). The Defendants in this case are a condominium association, its president, its retained management firm, and the management firm employee responsible for the complex. The complaint alleged that the defendants refused to allow the complainant to install a clothes washer and dryer in her condominium, and thereby denied her a reasonable accommodation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The complainant alleged that she needed these appliances because of her disabilities, including carpal tunnel syndrome and asthma, which made it impossible for her to carry loads of laundry to the common laundry room located on the ground floor. The consent decree requires the defendants to: allow the complainant to install the requested appliances; pay her $2,000 in compensatory damages; adopt a nondiscrimination policy, and conduct training for employees and members of the board of the condominium association. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

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 30, 2002, the United States submitted a consent order to the U.S. District Court in Chicago, resolving a lawsuit alleging that Mid America Bank, fsb violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by unlawfully failing to market and provide its lending products and services to predominantly African American and Hispanic neighborhoods, a practice commonly known as redlining. Mid America, a federally chartered savings and loan association, is the largest independent thrift institution in the Chicago metropolitan area and the second largest such institution in Illinois. Under the settlement, Mid America will open two new branch offices in the allegedly redlined areas and invest $10 million over five years in a special financing program, under which it will offer residents of the redlined areas home mortgages and other residential real estate-related loan products on more favorable terms than would normally be provided.

The Division's complaint, filed on December 30, 2002, alleged that the 34-branch Mid America has never opened a full-service branch office in a census tract with a majority African American or majority African American/Hispanic population, despite opening or acquiring 20 new branch offices between 1994 and early 2002. The complaint also alleges that the Bank made nearly $6 billion in single-family residential real-estate loans between 1996 and 2000, but that only 1% of that amount went to census tracts with majority African American populations and only 2.75% to majority African American, African American/Hispanic, and Hispanic census tracts combined. The complaint further alleges that Mid America, until December 2001, defined its service area in an unusually restrictive way that excluded most minority neighborhoods. Additionally, the complaint alleges that although Mid America solicited and funded a large number of loans outside its defined service area, those loans also were made primarily to residents of predominantly white census tracts.

United States v. Midtown Development, LLC (S.D. Miss.)6/20/07

On June 20, 2007, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Midtown Development, LLC (S.D. Miss.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owner and property manager of an apartment complex in Biloxi, Mississippi, violated sections 3604(f)(2), 3604(f)(3)(B) and section 3617 of the Fair Housing Act by failing to provide the HUD complainant an assigned accessible parking space and by taking steps to evict him in retaliation for his reasonable accommodation requests.

On February 10, 2001, the United States filed a complaint against co-owners of a ten-unit apartment complex, alleging: (1) that the defendants discriminated against a rental applicant, an African-American man, on the basis of his race; and (2) that the defendants maintained a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-Americans. This matter was referred to the Department by HUD.

In addition to the payment of $30,500 in compensatory damages to the African-American student and $1000 in civil penalties to the United States, the consent order, filed on January 8, 2002, requires the defendants to complete fair housing training, adopt non-discriminatory rental policies, inform the public that they are an equal housing opportunity provider and provide the Department with bi-annual reports during a three-year monitoring period.

On June 7, 2000, the United States filed a complaint against the property owner and former rental manager of an apartment complex in Manchester, New Hampshire, claiming that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in housing based upon sex. This case began following a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants had discriminated against a tenant on the basis of sex. Upon further investigation the United States discovered additional evidence of the rental agent's pervasive sexual harassment and sexual assaults against female tenants. The United States contended that the owner knew or should have known about the rental agent's conduct but refused to take action to curtail and/or prevent the rental agent's discriminatory conduct. The 11 unit apartment complex's tenants are primarily, if not all, Section 8 tenants.

The consent decree, filed on November 14, 2001, provides for an injunctive prohibiting the defendants from further violations of the Fair Housing Act; permanent injunction against the manager from having any involvement whatsoever in the ownership or management of rental housing properties; letters of apology from both defendants to all aggrieved victims; a $15,000 civil penalty to the United States; and $90,500 in damages to four aggrieved parties.

On February 26, 2007, the United States filed a lawsuit  in the Southern District of Ohio against James G. Mitchell, the owner and operator of numerous rental properties in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. The complaint alleges that Mitchell engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Mitchell subjected female tenants to unwanted verbal sexual advances and unwanted sexual touching, entered the apartments 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 suit seeks monetary damages to compensate the victims, civil penalties, and a court order barring future discrimination. This matter was initially referred to the Division by Housing Opportunities Made Equal, a fair housing organization in Cincinnati.

Our complaint, filed on December 18, 2000, alleges that the owners/managers of an apartment complex in Bismarck, ND violated the Fair Housing Act by denying available apartments to families with young children. Defendants denied housing to the families by failing to inform them about all available apartments and making comments indicating that families with young children were not welcome. The case came to our office after HUD determined that the defendants had discriminated against families with children and issued a charge of discrimination. The complainants include two families and the North Dakota Fair Housing Council, who conducted familial status testing at defendants' apartments to determine if the defendants were complying with the Fair Housing Act.

The consent decree, filed on September 25, 2001, provides $42,000 for the three complainants and our standard injunctive relief, including reporting and training requirements.

On December 23, 2004, the United Stated filed a complaint in United States v. The Mortgage Super Center (D. Ariz.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the Mortgage Center and Nogales Realty, breached a conciliation agreement they had entered into with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to resolve a complaint that the defendants had discriminated on the basis of national origin. The complaint alleges that in the Conciliation Agreement, the defendants agree to pay $1000 to the complainants and to refinance the Complainants' first and second mortgages as one loan and that they failed to do so.

This case was referred to the Division by HUD after HUD determined that the defendants had breached the conciliation agreement.

United States v. Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, et al. (S.D. Iowa)

On September 1, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, et al. (S.D. Iowa). The complaint alleges the Municipal Housing Agency of Council Bluffs, Iowa, violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they inquired into the HUD complainants' mental disabilities, submitted them to different terms and conditions, and rejected their application based on the medical information they received. The complaint also alleges that the Defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

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.

United States v. NPI, et al. (E.D. Pa.)2/5/07

On February 1, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. National Properties Inc, NPI Management Corp., Barrcrest Manor Associates, L.P., and Sandy Brown (E.D. Pa.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of housing discrimination on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a visually-impaired individual who uses a guide dog because of the apartment's "no-dog" policy. The evidence was developed by the Section's testing program.

The complaint filed on June 16, 2000, alleged that the defendant discriminated against a white tenant because the tenant had a relationship with a black male. The United States alleged that the defendant harassed and intimidated the tenant leading to her moving out of the apartment.

The terms of the consent order, filed on March 13, 2001, provide that the Defendant must pay $20,000 to the two victims to compensate them for the damages suffered as a result of the discrimination, apologize in writing to the victims, cease and resign from performing any management duties with respect to any residential rental property and hire an independent rental manager to manage the property; and give written notice to current and future tenants, notifying them of their rights to equal housing opportunity and nondiscrimination. Further, the Order provides that the Court, at a public hearing with the Defendant present, will make a statement on the record admonishing Defendant Nail for his violations of the Fair Housing Act, and making clear just how serious such violations are and how carefully the Defendant must avoid any such violation in the future.

On December 1, 1994, the United States reached an agreement with the defendants, resolving allegations that the owner and property manager of an apartment building in Chicago, Illinois had violated the Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. In our complaint, filed on March 25, 1993, we alleged that the owner and property manager had subjected female tenants to continual sexual harassment by conditioning tenancy on the granting of sexual favors, creating a hostile environment, and retaliating against women who refused to grant him sexual favors and who filed complaints of sexual harassment against him. The consent decree required the owner and property manager to pay $180,000 in monetary relief, to refrain from managing or entering the apartment building, and to make a good faith effort to sell the building.

In this lawsuit, filed on November 18, 1998, based on evidence developed through our testing program, we claimed in our complaint that the owner of numerous rental units in Jackson, Mississippi and his former rental agents discriminated on the basis of race. The United States contended that the defendant and his agents gave false information about apartment availability to African-American testers and applicants.

On February 18, 2000, the United States resolved this suit with a consent decree. The decree provides a total of $200,000 in monetary relief, including a $5000 civil penalty. The remainder of the money will compensate approximately thirty-five victims of the company practices in amounts ranging from $1000 to $6500 apiece. The decree also requires all of the owner's employees to undergo fair housing training and further requires the owner to maintain detailed records of apartment availability, to make that information available to all prospects and to notify the public of his non-discriminatory rental policy.

United States v. Allen Norman, Nancy Norman, and John Norman (W.D. Mo.) 2/24/06

On February 23, 2006, the Court entered the Consent Decree in United States v. Norman (W.D. Mo.). The complaint, filed on April 21, 2005, alleged that the complainant, an African American female, was discriminated against because of her race and sex by John Norman, the white maintenance man for her rental unit. In addition, the complaint alleged that Allen and Nancy Norman, owners of the property and John Norman's parents, retaliated against her after she obtained a restraining order against John Norman. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $15,000 to the complainant, establish a nondiscrimination policy, undergo fair housing training, and submit reports to the Division. It also prohibits John Norman from working on any rental units except those in completely unoccupied buildings. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

In this case, our complaint, filed on June 1, 1995, contended that the bank failed to make the same efforts to approve African American and Hispanic mortgage loan applicants as it did for white applicants, and it made special efforts to qualify white applicants while it did not make similar efforts for minority applicants. Under the consent decree, also filed on June 1, 1995, the bank agreed to create a $700,000 fund to compensate victims and take a number of other corrective measures.

On September 11, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Order in United States v. Dennis Ohnstad, et al., C.A. No. 02-2172 (C.D. Ill.). In this complaint, filed on July 30, 2002, the United States alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of the Surbana Estates Mobile Home Park in Urbana, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race or color when they sought to evict a white resident and her African-American boyfriend after he moved into her mobile home. The Consent Order requires defendants to pay $5,000 to the tenant and $10,000 to her boyfriend. The Order also: enjoins defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race; requires the defendant Dennis Ohnstad to undergo training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act pertaining to racial discrimination; requires the defendants to display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in all advertising; and requires the defendants to advise the United States of any written complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation. The Consent Order will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division and handled by the United States Attorney's Office for central district of Illinois after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.

On June 20, 2000, the United States filed a complaint under the Fair Housing Act on behalf of three individuals and a fair housing organization following a determination of reasonable cause by HUD with respect to complaints they had filed. HUD's investigation found that soon after the defendants purchased a 42-unit apartment building in an integrated Chicago neighborhood in 1997, they told the individual complainants (who are African-American) that he wanted to get rid of the black tenants in his building. HUD found that similar remarks where made to a white tester sent by the fair housing organization and that he informed the white tester of a greater availability of apartments than the black tester.

Under the consent order, filed on December 13, 2000, the defendants agree to pay $30,000 in damages and attorney's fees and submit to three years of Justice Department monitoring. The consent order also provides that the defendants must undergo training, release the eviction judgments previously entered against the complainants, and change their procedures for advertising and filling vacancies.

In this case, we filed a complaint on July 1, 1999, claiming that the architect and developer built residential properties, Creekside of Spring Creek and Convington Knolls, violated the Fair Housing Act when they did not include certain features that would make the units accessible to persons with disabilities. Specifically, the housing complexes have inaccessible common areas, inaccessible routes into and through the units, doors that are too narrow for the passage of wheelchairs, and bathrooms that cannot accommodate grab bars.

The United States settled this case on July 27, 1999, with a consent decree which calls for the defendants to modify condominium and townhouses that are not in compliance with the Act. The defendants also agreed to pay $20,000 to aggrieved persons identified by the United States.

This case was based on evidence developed through our testing program.

On December 22, 2004, the United States filed a complaint and the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleged that these defendants discriminated on the basis of disability. Specifically, the complaint alleged the defendants evicted residents with disabilities if they were unable to walk without assistance or if they required too many hours of assistive services and conducted health assessments of residents as a condition of tenancy. Under the consent order the former owner and manager, respectively, of The Summit at Newforest (now Newforest Estates Retirement Community), are required to pay a total of $420,000 to settle allegations that they discriminated against tenants with disabilities. The monetary amount includes: $260,000 for six former and current residents; $50,000 in civil penalties, and $110,000 for a settlement fund to compensate any additional victims. The defendants are also required to implement nondiscriminatory rental standards and tenant rules and to replace current leases containing discriminatory policies. In addition, these defendant are required to pay $200,000 to settle a related private suit.

The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On October 21, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Decree (PDF 732 KB) resolving United States v. Pacific Northwest Electric (D. Idaho). The Complaint, filed on January 11, 2001, alleged the defendants: Boise, Idaho developers, Walter T. Sigmont and Wirt Edmonds, Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., Edmonds Construction Co., Inc., and architects Teal Whitworth Architects, P.A. and Capstone, Inc. discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct five Boise complexes in accordance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements for new multifamily housing. The five Boise complexes that were the subject of the suit are Grayling Place, Jade Village, Imperial Court, Eagleson Park and Harborview Station (formerly known as Lawton Apartments).

The Consent Decree requires the defendants: to retrofit the complexes by, among other things: removing steps; reconfiguring kitchens and bathrooms to provide added maneuvering space; widening doorways; leveling sidewalks; and adding accessible parking and curb ramps at an estimated cost of approximately $300,000. In addition, the defendants are required to: pay damages in the amount of $29,000 to persons harmed by the lack of accessible features at the complexes; pay $5,000 in damages to the Intermountain Fair Housing Council ("IFHC"); and ensure that new construction complies with the Fair Housing Act with respect to new construction comply with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after HUD investigated complaints it had received from the Intermountain Fair Housing Council ("IFHC").

United States v. Pacific Properties and Dev. Corp., et al. (D. Nevada)5/15/07

On May 23, 2007, the Court approved and entered a Consent Decree (pdf) resolving United States v. Pacific Properties and Dev. Corp., et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint, filed November 15, 2005, alleged that the designers and builders of Pacific Legends West, a condominium complex in Las Vegas, Nevada with 92 ground floor units, violated the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct the units and public and commons areas with features necessary to make them readily usable by and accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, the defendants must retrofit the covered ground floor units upon the request of the homeowners; retrofit the public and common use areas; provide accessible pedestrian routes; pay $100,000 in damages to nine aggrieved individuals; and undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree, which has yet to be approved by the court, will remain in effect for two years and six months.

On February 28, 2001, the United States filed a complaint and consent decree in this case alleging that the defendant discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at four complexes - two rental properties and two condominium complexes - in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendant has agreed to spend approximately $208,000 to retrofit the public and common use areas, as well as the interior of the units at the four properties. Additionally, defendant will contribute $30,000 to an organization in the Las Vegas metropolitan area whose purpose is to serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities and pay $1200 to two residents at one of the complexes who were required to pay for modifications that would not have been necessary had defendants designed the unit to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Act.

On August 21, 2007, the Division filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. Pacifico Ford (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia-area car dealership engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American customers by charging them higher dealer markups on car loan interest rates, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The dealership cooperated fully with the Division's investigation. Under the consent order, which was entered on September 4, 2007, Pacifico Ford will pay up to $363,166, plus interest, to African-American customers who were charged higher interest rates. In addition, the dealership agreed to implement changes in the way it sets markups, including guidelines to ensure that the dealership follows the same procedures for setting markups for all customers, and that only good faith, competitive factors consistent with ECOA influence that process. The dealership will also provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to officers and employees who set rates for automobile loans

United States v. Palazzolo and Lombardo (E.D. Mich.)8/9/07

On July 9, 2007, the United States filed a complaint and a proposed consent decree in United States v. Palazzolo and Lombardo (E.D. Mich.), a case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination based on disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The District Court entered the consent decree on August 8, 2007. The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Act when they failed to design and construct an apartment and condominium complex in Sterling Heights, Michigan with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. The proposed consent decree requires Defendants to retrofit the apartments and common areas of the condominiums; to pay $96,000 to be used for retrofitting of condominiums that have already been sold; to pay up to $25,000 to aggrieved persons; and to pay $25,000 as a civil penalty.

United States v. Perlick Family Trust, et al. (E.D. Wis.)8/21/07

On September 14, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States and Spears v. Perlick Family Trust, et al. (E.D. Wis.). This is a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case, which was referred to the Division by HUD and alleges discrimination on the basis of familial status. The Division's complaint, filed on September 1, 2005, alleged that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to a woman and her ten year old daughter, implemented rental practices that discriminated based on familial status, and made discriminatory statements. The HUD complainants intervened in the case. The consent decree resulted from a settlement conference with the magistrate judge and is pending approval by the court. The consent decree provides for a non-discrimination injunction; revisions to defendants' rental policies and practices; posting of non-discrimination notices; training; record keeping and reporting; payment of $39,000 in damages and attorney's fees to the intervening private plaintiffs; and payment of an $11,000 civil penalty. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

United States v. Pine Properties Inc., et al.(D. Mass.)1/24/08

On January 22, 2008, the United States filed and the Court entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Pine Properties Inc., et al. (D. Mass.), a case alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin. The complaint, filed on September 26, 2007, alleged that the defendants, who own and manage multifamily housing in Lowell, Massachusetts, discriminated against Cambodian-Americans based on national origin by (1) telling Cambodian-American persons that their employment and/or credit had to be verified before they could see available dwellings while at the same time taking white persons to see available dwellings without first verifying their employment or credit; and/or (2) telling Cambodian-American persons that they had to have a separate appointment to see available dwellings while at the same time taking white persons to see available dwellings immediately, with no prior appointment. This case was developed based on evidence developed through the Department's fair housing testing program, part of the Division's "Operation Home Sweet Home"program.

Under the Consent Decree, which the defendants will pay up to $114,000 to compensate victims, pay a $44,000 civil penalty to the U.S. government, establish and follow non-discriminatory tenancy procedures, undergo fair housing training, and file reports with the government.

The United States filed this case after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Pinewood Associates, Ltd., and other defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with children. Our complaint, filed on December 19, 1995, added a claim that the defendants also discriminated against tenants on the basis of race. The United States contended that the defendants' employees harassed tenant families by yelling obscenities at young children and threatening parents with eviction for minor infractions of rules that imposed unreasonable and discriminatory restrictions on children. The complaint also alleged that the defendants' employees treated minority tenants less favorably than white tenants and used racial epithets.

The United States were able to resolve this matter on March 8, 1999, with a consent order in which the defendants admitted that they had violated the Fair Housing Act. The decree required the defendants to provide fair housing training for their employees and publicize a non-discrimination housing policy at their apartment complexes and revise the tenant rules and regulations affecting families with children. In addition, the order establishes a $240,000 fund to compensate any persons who are identified victims of the alleged discriminatory practices and pay $42,500 to the complainant.

On November 7, 2007, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. First National Bank of Pontotoc (N.D. Miss.), the first sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the Justice Department under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The lawsuit, filed on April 27, 2006, and amended in July 2007 to include claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleged that William W. Anderson Jr., a former vice president of the First National Bank of Pontotoc, used his position with the Bank to sexually harass female borrowers and applicants for credit. Anderson’s conduct included making offensive comments, engaging in unwanted sexual touching, and requesting or demanding sexual favors from female customers in connection with the extension of credit, over a period of years before his employment with the bank ended in May 2004. The lawsuit also alleged that the bank was liable for those actions. The consent decree will require the defendants to pay $250,000 to 15 already identified victims, up to $50,000 for any additional victims, and $50,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. Under the settlement, employees of the First National Bank of Pontotoc are required to receive training on the prohibition against sexual harassment under federal fair lending laws. The agreement also requires the bank to implement both a sexual harassment policy and a procedure by which an individual may file a sexual harassment complaint against any employee or agent of the First National Bank of Pontotoc. The consent decree will remain in effect for five years.

United States v. Port Liberte Condo 1 Ass'n, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.)9/29/06

After a two day bench trial on September 13-14, 2006, the Court ruled in favor of the Defendants in United States v. Port Liberte Condo 1 Ass'n, Inc., et al. (D,N.J.). In his Opinion, United States Senior District Judge Debevoise stated that the Defendant's had made a reasonable accommodation with respect to the complainant's request for a handicap parking space and awarded costs to the Defendant. The complaint, filed on June 15, 2004, alleged that the condominium association and property manager of a condominium complex in Jersey City, New Jersey, discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to provide the complainant an accessible parking space close to his unit. On December 20, 2005, the Court denied the Defendants' motion for Summary Judgment.

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 8, 2005, the United States filed a Consent Order resolving United States v. Powers (E.D. Wis.). The complaint, filed on November 16, 2004, alleged that the Defendant, the owner of three duplexes in Wisconsin, violated the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act by stating that he would not rent an apartment to the complainant because she had children. The Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council (MMFHC), a non-profit fair housing organization, conducted two tests which provided additional evidence that the defendant did not want to rent to families with children. The consent order requires the defendant to pay $13,000 in damages to the complainant. The consent order also requires the defendant to fulfill training, reporting and monitoring requirements. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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.

The United States filed this complainton December 15, 1999, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of familial status in the rental of an apartment in Fargo, North Dakota. In our complaint we claim the resident manager repeatedly stated that no children were allowed at the complex and the management company raised the tenants' rent significantly more than it did any other tenant's rent. The United States also contend that the defendants retaliated against the complainants for filing a complaint with HUD by falsely accusing them of failing to pay one month's rent and by placing negative information to that effect in their credit history.

Under the consent order, filed on November 3, 2000, the defendants will attend fair housing training, notify tenants and the public of their non-discrimination policy, comply with reporting requirements, and make a payment of $15,000.00 to the complainants.

The United States filed this complaint on March 8, 1999, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that Prestonwood Properties, in McKinney, Texas, had violated the Fair Housing when its property manager had sexually harassed female tenants over a six-year period. The United States contend that the property manager of the complex entered women's apartments while they slept or showered and sexually assaulted them, threatened to evict and evicted women who declined his sexual advances, offered women rent subsidies and bigger apartments in exchange for sex, and made vulgar comments to women in the rental office.

A consent order was entered on September 14, 2000, in which the defendants agreed to pay $150,000 to compensate 17 women the United States identified as victims. The order also bars the defendant from owning or managing any residential rental property for four years.

United States v. Paul E. and Shirley L. Price (W.D. Wash.)5/3/07

On May 1, 2007, the United States filed a complaint  pdf version in United States v. Paul E. and Shirley L. Price (W.D. Wash.), a Fair Housing Act election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Defendants own Valley View Apartments, a 24 unit apartment complex located in Longview, Washington. The complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for the HUD complainant by giving him adequate space to park and then seeking to evict after he requested it.

On February 11, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Order in United States of America v. Quality Built Construction, Inc. et al. (E.D.N.C.), a design and construction case, originally filed on December 7, 2000, involving 192 covered ground-floor units and their associated public and common use areas in Breezewood Condominiums and Hyde Park Apartments in Greenville, North Carolina. The Court had already granted full summary judgment on liability to the United States. The consent order resolves the case with respect to the owner and developer of the complexes; the Division had previously reached a $340,000 Consent Order with the architectural firm responsible for the design of the properties. Under the terms of the consent order, William E. Dansey, Jr., and Quality Built Construction, Inc., must pay a total of $800,000. Of that sum, $700,000 will be used to make substantial retrofits to the public and common use areas and the interior of units at both the complexes; $70,000 will compensate aggrieved individuals for damages; and $30,000 will be paid to the United States as a civil penalty. The two consent orders therefore provide for payments totally over $1.1 million dollars for retrofit funds and monetary damages. The term of the order is five years, with the exception of the provisions addressing the interior retrofits to the condominium units, which will last for eight years.

On January 23, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving the United States' complaint in United States v. James B. McCollum d/b/a Queen Point Manor, et al. (D.N.M.). The complaint, filed on June 1, 2001, alleged that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status when they refused to negotiate to rent apartments on the basis of familial status. Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants had stated a preference to rent only downstairs units to families with young children, had quoted higher rental rates to families with children, and had published advertisements designed to promote renting to families without children. The consent order enjoins the defendants from future discrimination on the basis of familial status and requires Queens Point Manor to rescind the policies set forth above, include "Families with Children Welcome" in all advertising, receive fair housing training for employees, submit to record keeping and reporting requirements, and pay $12,000 for damages to aggrieved persons and a civil penalty. The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years and nine months and applies to all rental properties owned/managed or operated by the Defendants.

The Complaint resulted from a referral by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) following its investigation of administrative complaints filed by the Fair Housing Project of the Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque, Inc. ("FHP") and a woman with two minor children. The administrative complaints were filed with HUD after testing conducted by the FHP revealed that defendants had stated preferences to rent to families without children and quoted higher rental rates to families with children.

On January 8, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design condominiums in St. Charles, Illinois, in compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The evidence showed that the defendants failed to design and construct condominium units at Hunt Club in compliance with the Act. The major deficiencies in this complex include the construction of doorways throughout the units with widths which are too narrow for a person using a wheelchair to use; bathrooms without adequate space for a person in a wheelchair and without reinforced walls for the later installation of grab bars; and inadequate accessibility to the public and common use areas of one of the buildings.

On May 9, 2002, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the lawsuit. The decree prohibits the defendants from further discriminating, requires the defendants to retrofit certain common use area features, establishes a $95,000 fund to provide grants to individual owners who wish to retrofit their units, and requires the defendants to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

On November 17, 2003, the United States filed a Brief  in support of the United States' Motion for Contempt and Supplemental Relief.

On April 20, 2004, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Raimo, et al. (N.D. Ill.), a case that involved the violation of a HUD Conciliation Agreement. The consent decree resolved both the Division's complaint against the defendant and the HUD complainant's default judgment against defendants. Under the terms of the consent decree the defendants will pay $7,500 to the complainant.

This matter was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The original HUD complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race and sex in connection with a loan guarantee. The United States' complaint, filed on January 27, 2004, alleged the defendant agreed to resolve the complaint by paying $1,000 to the complainant, but then breached the agreement by failing to make the payment.

On February 27, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent order alleging that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at Raintree Village Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will pay approximately $150,000 to retrofit the common and public use areas; up to $120,000 to retrofit the interiors of individual units, to compensate those who choose to retrofit their units, and to relocate those owners who cannot remain in their homes while they are being modified; and $70,000 to individual unit owners who suffered damages as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Act. The agreement also requires that defendants provide training to their employees on the requirements of the Act, notify the Justice Department of any future construction of multifamily dwellings, and ensure that such housing complies with the requirements of the Act. This case was based on a pattern or practice referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

On December 15, 2005, the United States filed a Complaint in United States v. Raleigh Annex Apartments TC LP et al. (S.D. Miss.). The complaint alleged the defendants refused to rent a subsidized unit to a man with physical and mental disabilities. On December 19, 2005, the Court entered the Division's Consent Decree, resolving the complaint. The consent decree requires the defendants to: pay the complainant $60,000; advertise all units on an equal housing opportunity basis; provide all employees, tenants, and prospective tenants a copy of the defendants non-discrimination policy; establish and adopt a uniform complaint process; attend fair housing training; and submit to report and recordkeeping requirements. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

United States v. Rapp (E.D. Ark.)5/4/06

On April 6, 2006, the United Stated entered a Consent Order resolving United States & Rios v. Rapp (E.D. Ark.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on November 1, 2004, alleged the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused to rent a house to an Hispanic family on the basis of national origin. On November 22, 2005, the Court issued an Order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Under the consent order, the defendants will pay $15,500 to the three HUD complainants, including Raquel Rios, her adult son and her minor daughter. In addition, the defendants will attend fair housing training, post fair housing notices and submit to standard injunctive relief. The order also states that the United States may conduct fair housing testing at any dwelling in which any defendant, now or in the future, has a direct or indirect ownership, management, or financial interest. This case was handled primarily by the United States Attorney's Office. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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 October 17, 2002, the United States filed a complaint and consent order with Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. (N.D. Ill.). The United States alleges that the Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc. and Resurrection Health Care, Inc., discriminated against individuals with disabilities who sought to live at Resurrection Retirement Community, a 500 unit retirement community on the northwest side of Chicago. After receiving a complaint in 2001, the Division conducted an investigation and alleges the defendants: (1) discouraged persons who use wheelchairs from renting apartment units at Resurrection; (2) steered applicants who use wheelchairs away from Resurrection to assisted living facilities even though the applicants did not need assisted living services; (3) asked applicants whether they have disabilities and the nature and severity of their disabilities; and (4) required some applicants to submit to a medical assessment conducted by an employee of defendants' as a term or condition of tenancy. The United States alleges that such practices violate the Fair Housing Act.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants have agreed to pay a total of $220,000 in damages and penalties. Specifically, the defendants will pay $20,000 as a civil penalty and $200,000 to compensate aggrieved persons. In addition, the consent order enjoins the defendants from future violations of the law and requires the defendants to adopt and implement uniform, non-discriminatory policies. Among other things, the defendants are required to rescind their previous policy requiring persons with disabilities to submit to a medical assessment as a condition of living at Resurrection Retirement Community; receive fair housing training and require employees to undergo such training; institute compliance testing and report their compliance to the United States for five years; and ensure that persons with disabilities are not discouraged from living at Resurrection Retirement Community because of their disability. The settlement is believed to be the first agreement involving such practices at a major retirement community. The Court entered the Consent Order on October 22, 2002.

This lawsuit was based on evidence developed through the Division's fair housing testing program.

The United States filed this case on January 16, 1998, after a determination by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] that reasonable cause existed to believe that the owners and managers of Wedgewood Village Apartments, a Richmond, Virginia, apartment complex, refused to rent to African Americans. Based on our further investigation, our complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination.

As part of the decree, entered on October 15, 1998, the owners agreed to develop a fair housing policy, require their employees to attend fair housing training, and hire an independent consulting firm to conduct self-testing of the apartment complex over the next three years. The agreement requires the owners and managers of Wedgewood to pay $480,000 in damages, including $200,000 to compensate any persons identified as victims of the alleged discrimination; a total of $235,000 to the individual complainants and H.O.M.E.; and $40,000 in civil penalties.

The United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana filed this lawsuit against Byron Richard, the owner of the Hylites Lounge, claiming that he violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating on the basis of race in the operation of his business. In our complaint, filed on, August 31, 1999, we contended that he refused to admit or serve African American customers. This is the fourth case filed in recent years in Louisiana alleging discrimination on the basis of race in public accommodations.

The consent decree, filed on February 25, 2000, contains an admission that the club's owner engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination and that, in particular, the bartender refused to serve three African-American men pursuant to the owner's orders. The decree permanently enjoins defendant from engaging in any further discriminatory conduct, requires him to engage in affirmative advertising and to pay for civil rights training for himself and all his employees. The decree lists the names of all the employees of defendant's two bars, and states that if they violate the decree, they will be subject to the full contempt power of the court, ranging from monetary penalties to incarceration. The decree also requires Richard to post signs at the Hylites Lounge and any of his other businesses stating that the establishment is open to all members of the public without regard to race or color and that any person who feels that he or she has been discriminated against should contact the Housing Section. The decree subjects defendant to reporting requirements for three years, and to the court's enforcement powers permanently

The United States claimed in our complaint, filed on December 15, 1997, that the Rock Springs Vista Development Company and J.A. Black Construction violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct five condominium developments located in Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Our complaint noted that the common areas of the condominium developments included steps in the pathways and into the individual units, pathways that were too steep for wheelchairs to maneuver, inadequate curb cuts, and parking lots that lacked adequate accessible parking spaces. The complaint also alleged that the individual condominium units had doors that were too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs, bathrooms that were too small to be used by individuals who use wheelchairs, and thermostats and electrical outlets in inaccessible locations.

Under the terms of the consent decree, entered on November 29, 1999, which settled this case, the defendants will pay over 1 million dollars for interior and exterior modifications so that the properties comply with federal law and to compensate individual unit owners who suffered damages as a result of their units not having the accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act. The amount also includes a fund, which will be used to retrofit the units of those owners who have not yet come forward to request them, as well as over a quarter of a million dollars in compensatory damages to those persons who were victims of the defendants' actions. Additionally, the consent decree requires that the defendants certify to the United States that any future construction complies with the Act.

In our complaint, filed on August 30, 2000, we alleged that the landlord violated the Fair Housing Act by rejecting the rental application of the claimant because he was both black and male. The terms of the consent order, entered on May 29, 2001, require the Landlord to pay $25,000 in damages to the claimant and retain a management company to manage the apartment complex. The consent order will also require the landlord to adopt and publicize a nondiscrimination policy, follow uniform nondiscriminatory procedures in advertising and filling vacancies, obtain fair housing training for himself and his employees, and submit periodic reports to the Justice Department.

On February 18, 2005, a jury returned a verdict  (pdf version) of $314,209 ($14,209 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages) for the United States and plaintiff-intervenor Joyce Grad in United States & Joyce Grad v. Royalwood Cooperative Apts., Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich.). The complaint, filed on August 8, 2003, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to waive a no-pets rule to allow the complainant to keep an emotional support dog in her unit. The case was handled primarily by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit.

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.

United States v. Sandpointe Associates, et al. (E.D. Cal.)7/17/07

On July 2, 2007, the district court entered a consent order in United States v. Sandpointe Associates, et al. (E.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act election case ,which was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed November 2006, alleged that the defendants published a discriminatory statement when they enacted a rule requiring children under the age of 14 to be accompanied by an adult in all apartment common areas. The decree provides for a total of $20,000 in monetary compensation for the three HUD complainants: $3,750 each for two minor children, and $12,500 for their mother. In addition, the decree requires the defendants to comply with training, notice, and reporting requirements, and directs the defendants to develop a common area policy that is neutral with respect to familial status.

On January 16, 2004, the Court entered a consent decree in United States, et al. v. San Francisco Housing Authority (N.D. Cal.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination against public housing residents on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion. The complaint, filed on September 18, 2002, alleged that residents of public housing in San Francisco have been victims of racial, ethnic, and religious harassment including verbal abuse, racial slurs, threats, assaults, vandalism, and robbery and that the Housing Authority had knowledge of the harassment, but failed to take reasonable steps to protect its tenants as required by law. The United States alleged that the victims of the harassment included white, African American, Iraqi. and Hispanic public housing residents, as well as residents of the Muslim faith. The United States contended that the harassment of residents of Iraqi descent and Muslim faith increased following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The consent decree requires the Housing Authority to pay $200,000 to compensate victims of discrimination. The consent decree also requires the Housing Authority to modify its current civil rights policy to ensure prompt action in response to complaints, to establish a civil rights complaint hot line with a language translation service, to train its employees to identify and respond to civil rights complaints, and to submit to monitoring by the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On February 26, 2003, the Court entered the parties' Consent Decree in United States v. San Miguel 1 Homeowners Association, et al. (S.D. Cal.) In its complaint, filed on January 25, 2002, the United States Attorneys' Office for the Southern District of California alleged that the defendants; the homeowners' association and the president of the board of directors of a condominium complex in Oceanside, California, violated the Fair Housing Act when they failed to make a reasonable accommodation for a former resident who used a wheelchair. The Association installed an electric security gate at the entrance to an underground parking garage which left no accessible exit in the case of a power failure or malfunction of the gate. There had been power failures at the complex in the past and the complainant feared for his physical safety. He moved out of the complex when the Association refused to install any type of emergency back-up system to ensure that people with disabilities would be able to exit the garage in the event of a power failure or other emergency that rendered the electric gate inoperable. The Consent Decree requires the defendants to pay the complainant $60,000 in damages, enjoins them from violating the Fair Housing Act in the future, requires them to adopt specific guidelines for assessing requests for reasonable accommodations, and requires the Association to train all its employees about the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The Consent Decree will remain in effect for two years.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On June 30, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sarasota County, Florida (M.D. Fla.), alleging that the County discriminated against persons with disabilities when it refused to allow Renaissance Manor, Inc., to operate six homes for individuals with mental illness and a history of substance abuse. The homes provide a supportive environment for residents, but are otherwise similar to other houses in the County that have unrelated residents who share living space and common facilities. The complaint alleges that the County made its decision that the homes violated the local zoning ordinance because of the disabilities of the residents. It also alleges that the County retaliated against the operator of the homes by refusing to release grant funds that had been previously awarded to it.

The case was referred to the Division by HUD after it received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

On January 19, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that Satyam, L.L.C., which owns and operates the Comfort Inn in Selma, Alabama, its former manager, and its former desk clerk and housekeeper, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American guests based on race or color. The United States alleged that this conduct violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants steered African American guests to rooms on the second floor of the hotel towards the back and denied African Americans an opportunity to rent suites and first floor rooms. The complaint also alleged that defendants charged African American guests higher prices than they charged white guests and denied African American guests equal access to hotel facilities and services. On April 4, 2002, the court entered a consent order that resolves this case. The consent order permanently enjoins defendants and their employees from discriminating against African American hotel guests and requires defendants and their employees to undergo civil rights training. In addition, the order requires defendants to implement non-discriminatory policies and to publicize these policies in newspaper advertisements, billboards, and signs at the hotel. The order also requires the defendants to pay for a program of compliance testing to monitor whether their employees are discriminating on a basis of race and to report to the Justice Department concerning their compliance with the order for a four year period.

On April 30, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska approved a Consent Order in United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (D. Neb.). The complaint, filed on November 29, 2001, alleged that the Defendants, owners and operators of the Savannah Pines Retirement Community, discriminated against persons with disabilities by: prohibiting tenants who use motorized wheelchairs or scooters from using these devices in common areas of the facility, charging an additional $1000 security deposit to such persons; requiring such persons to obtain liability insurance; and restricting such persons to apartments on the first floor. The complaint also alleged that as a result of the Defendants' enforcement of the policy, tenants who used motorized wheelchairs or scooters were not able to use the dining facilities and some of them missed meals for which they were charged as part of their monthly rental fees.

The Consent Order requires that the defendants rescind the policies set forth above and ensures that persons who use motorized scooters or wheelchairs at Savannah Pines will have full and equal access to the facilities in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Under the Consent Order, the Defendants will pay over $87,000, including providing free rent for a period of time to persons who were harmed by its past practices, paying civil penalties, compensating identified victims and providing a settlement fund for other victims. The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years.

In this HUD election case, filed on January 18, 2001, we alleged in our complaint that the defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status by refusing to rent or show apartments containing lead-based paint to families with young children. The complainant who called to inquire about an apartment she had seen advertised. When the defendant heard the complainant young daughter in the background, she said the apartment could not be rented because it was not de-leaded. State law requires the owners of dwellings containing lead-based paint to de-lead any property in which a child under the age of six lives, and specifically prohibits familial status discrimination on this basis. Nonetheless, the defendants, who were property owners as well as rental agents, consistently told testers that lead-containing apartments could not be rented to families with young children. They also offered unadvertised but available apartments to testers who did not have children, but failed to mention these apartments to testers with young children. In addition to injunctive relief, the consent order, entered on April 4, 2001, requires the defendants to pay $9,000 to Tracy Parrott.

United States v. SDC Legend Communities, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.)4/17/07

On October 2, 2006, the Court entered a consent order in United States v. SDC Legend Communities, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.). The complaint, was amended on September 28, 2006, and a proposed consent order alleged a pattern or practice of disability discrimination by the architects, engineers, developers, builders, and owners of two, multi-family residential complexes constructed in Austin, Texas, through the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The complaint alleged the Defendants' failure to design and construct 52 ground level units at St. Johns Village and 110 ground level units at Huntington Meadows and the public and common areas in compliance with the accessibility and adaptability features violated section 804(f)(3)(C) of the Fair Housing Act.

The order provides for retrofits of routes, entrances, and public and common-use areas, as well as interior retrofits in certain units and installation of enhanced accessibility features in others. The order also requires the defendants to establish a $50,000 fund which will be used to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing and to pay $10,000 in civil penalties to the government. The order also provides for injunctive relief, training, reporting and record keeping. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On February 6, 2003, the United States filed a consolidated consent decree in United States, et al. v. Janice Schaberg, (D. Mont.). The complaint filed on August 2, 2002, alleged the defendant, Schaberg, had refused to rent an apartment to a male applicant pursuant to a policy of not renting at the location in question to males for single occupancy. The defendant asserted her policy was a reasonable accommodation for a female resident of the apartment complex in question who had a disability causing her to have "a great fear of adult males in a residential setting." The consent decree enjoins the defendant from future discrimination on the basis of sex, and requires the defendant to pay $18,000 in damages to the aggrieved applicant and the local fair-housing organization which had conducted testing, and requires the defendant to 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 July 23, 2001, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the Seattle Housing Authority discriminated against Marguerite Richard, a resident of the Authority, by refusing to grant her an accommodation that was reasonable and necessary, on account of her handicap, to afford her equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Seattle Housing Authority denied Ms. Richard's repeated requests for a transfer from her unit, after she notified the Authority that she had asthma and that the second hand cigarette smoke from her neighbors was entering her unit and adversely affecting her.

On June 6, 2002, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the United States's claims in United States v. Seattle Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.). The Consent Decree provides for injunctive relief, including requirements for training and that the Seattle Housing Authority develop and implement procedures for handling reasonable accommodation requests. The Decree also provides that the Authority will implement a proposal to turn all buildings in one of its housing facilities into non-smoking buildings and that the Authority will provide Ms. Richard with an air filtration unit as long as she stays in Authority housing. Ms. Richard has filed a motion to intervene in the case and will continue to litigate for monetary relief.

This complaint, filed on September 18, 1995, challenged the bank's alleged practice of charging Hispanics higher interest rates on consumer loans than non-Hispanic applicants. Under the agreement, filed simultaneously with the complaint, the bank agreed to create a $500,000 fund to compensate victims, pay $10,000 in civil penalties, and take a series of corrective measures.

United States v. Shanrie Company, Inc., et al.(S.D. Ill.)4/4/07

On April 25, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Shanrie Company, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct a multi-unit apartment complex, Applegate Apartments, located in Belleville, Illinois, in compliance the accessibility guidelines of the Fair Housing Act. The defendants include the owner/developer (Shanrie Company, Inc.), the president of Shanrie (Dan Sheils), and two engineering firms (Netemeyer Engineering Associates and Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc.). The complaint also alleges that the Defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons. On January 26, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' motion to remand the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for further conciliation. On June 23, 2006, the United States filed a brief in support of summary judgment.

On April 25, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Shanrie Company, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct a multi-unit apartment complex, Applegate Apartments, located in Belleville, Illinois, in compliance the accessibility guidelines of the Fair Housing Act. The defendants include the owner/developer (Shanrie Company, Inc.), the president of Shanrie (Dan Sheils), and two engineering firms (Netemeyer Engineering Associates and Thouvenot, Wade & Moerchen, Inc. (TWM)). The complaint also alleged that the Defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons. On January 26, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' motion to remand the case to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for further conciliation. On June 23, 2006, the United States filed a brief in support of summary judgment.

On March 30, 2007, the Court found that the developer defendants and the architect defendant are liable for designing and constructing the complex in violation of the Fair Housing Act and that they have denied rights to a group of persons. The Court rejects the defendants' site impracticability defense holding that their site impractically analysis was untimely and that, as a matter of law, any site impracticability defense has to be based on an analysis done before construction. The court found that there were material issues of fact regarding the extent of the involvement of TWM, the engineering firm, and therefore denied the cross motions for summary judgment by both parties.

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 July 5, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Shanrie Co. Inc., et al. (S.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination based on disability and a denial of rights to a group of persons. The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Act when they failed to design and construct an apartment complex in Shiloh, Illinois with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act.

On June 4, 2004, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sharlands Terrace LLC, et al. (D. Nev.). The complaint alleges that the developer, builder, architect, civil engineer, and owners of the Sharlands Terrace Apartments in Reno, Nevada, discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct 152 covered units and the public and common use areas in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that this failure constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination. The United States is seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and a civil penalty.

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 13, 1993, the bank resolved allegations that it refused to make loans to qualified African American and Hispanic applicants with an agreement to create a $960,000 fund to compensate victims.

On September 6, 2005, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Silva (W.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, the owners of nine-single family homes in the Austin and San Antonio areas, violated Sections 3604(a), 3604(b), 3605, and 3617 of the FHA by leading Hispanics to believe they were purchasing properties offered for sale by the defendants when in fact the complainants were entering into lease agreements for the properties. The United States also alleges that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

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.

In this lawsuit, filed on March 22, 2000, we claim that the owner and operator of Sleepy Hollow Estates, a trailer park in rural Alamance County, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race. Our fair housing testing program gathered the evidence on which we based our complaint. The testing evidence showed that the defendants consistently gave false or misleading information about the availability of dwellings to black testers and, in some instances, made statements to the white testers indicating it was her policy and intent to discriminate because of race.

The consent order, entered on March 29, 2000, requires the Defendants to pay $25,000 in a civil penalty and pay $37,500 into a fund to be distributed to individuals harmed by the alleged discrimination. The order also requires the Defendants to receive fair housing training, notify the public that they do not discriminate, and submit to monitoring by the Department of Justice.

On August 30, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Order in United States v. Smith (C.D. Ill.). The complaint, filed on November 15, 2004, alleged that the Defendants refused to rent to a mixed race couple because of the husband's race and refused to rent to testers from the South Suburban Housing Center ("SSHC") because of race and familial status. The former wife and SSHC intervened. The Consent Order provides that the Defendants will pay the three complainants a total of $40,000 and pay $25,000 in attorneys' fees to plaintiff-intervenors' counsel.

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.

United States v. Sokoloff (E.D. Pa.)8/20/07

On August 15, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sokoloff (E.D. Pa.), a Fair Housing Act election case referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status. The complaint alleges that the defendants owned and managed several small apartment buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. When the complainants inquired about renting a two or three bedroom apartment via email, they were told a two bedroom unit would be available for their time frame. However, when the complainants e-mailed back informing the owner that they were in the process of adopting a son, the defendants informed the complainants that they do not rent to families with children.

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 14, 2007 the court denied the defendants’ motion for remittitur or a new trial in United States v. Space Hunters, Inc. (SDNY), a Fair Housing Act election case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. On October 3, a jury returned a verdict of $150,000 in punitive damages for HUD complainant Keith Toto. The complaint, which was filed on March 7, 2000, alleged that the defendants discriminated against Mr. Toto, who is hearing-impaired, when he attempted to place calls to the defendants through a relay service operator. Defendants, who supply information about rooms to rent in exchange for a fee, maintained a policy of refusing to accept telephone calls from persons who called through a relay service operator and refused to accept Toto’s calls. In 2002, the first jury returned a verdict of $1,500 in compensatory damages, but was prohibited by the judge from considering punitive damages. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the punitive damages claim. This case is being handled by the United States Attorney’s Office.

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 21, 2007, the Division filed a complaint and proposed consent order in United States v. Springfield Ford, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia-area car dealership engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against African-American customers by charging them higher dealer markups on car loan interest rates, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The dealership cooperated fully with the Division's investigation. Under the consent order, which was approved on September 4, 2007, Springfield Ford will pay up to $94,565, plus interest, to African-American customers who were charged higher interest rates. In addition, the dealership agreed to implement changes in the way it sets markups, including guidelines to ensure that the dealership follows the same procedures for setting markups for all customers, and that only good faith, competitive factors consistent with ECOA influence that process. The dealership will also provide enhanced equal credit opportunity training to officers and employees who set rates for automobile loans.

In this case we alleged that the owner of a number of apartment complexes and single family homes in the Danville, Illinois area violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race. In our complaint, filed on November 17, 1999, we contend that employees were instructed to discourage African-American home seekers from applying and to steer them away from certain of the defendants' apartment properties.

On March 15, 2000, the parties entered into a consent order to resolve the United States allegations. The consent order provides standard injunctive relief and requires the defendants to pay a total of $415,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, attorney fees for class counsel, and a civil penalty.

On January 18, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Decree   in United States v. Spyder Web Enterprises, LLC (D.N.J.), a Fair Housing Act case alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination by Spyder Web Enterprises, LLC ("Spyder Web"), the proprietor of the website "TheSublet.com." The complaint, filed on April 3, 2003, alleged that the proprietor published advertisements for rental housing on its website which contained discriminatory statements indicating a preference based on race, sex, family status, and/or national origin. The consent decree enjoins the defendants from publishing, or causing to be published, discriminatory advertisements on "TheSublet.com" website, or any of Spyder Web's other housing-related web sites, in the future. Additionally, the consent decree requires the defendant to: establish a $10,000 victim fund to compensate individuals who subscribed to the website and were discouraged from obtaining housing as a result of discriminatory advertisements; pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States; implement a written non-discrimination policy to be issued to subscribers of Web's websites, as well as posted on the homepage of "TheSublet.com" and each of Spyder Web's other housing-related websites, and provide annual Fair Housing Act training for Spyder Web employees who are responsible for posting advertisements on the website. The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years.

On March 14, 2005, the Court entered the Consent Order resolving United States v. S-16 Limited Partnership, et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on April 11, 2003, alleged that defendants--the owners and developers of the 254-unit Village at Columbia apartment complex in Boise, Idaho and the architects and engineering firm involved in its design-- failed to design and construct the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The Consent Order requires Defendants to retrofit the common use areas of the complex and 76 ground-floor apartments. The Order also requires Defendants to pay $2,000 in damages to the Inter-mountain Fair Housing Council, the original HUD complainant in the case, and to establish a fund of $40,000 to compensate victims of defendants' discriminatory practices. In addition, the order includes: a general injunction against future discrimination; requires defendants to inform the Division of future development and design work in which they become involved and obtain statements that design plans comply with the Act; mandates that defendants require all supervisory employees and agents to participate in fair housing training and certify that they have read the order; and requires that defendants post signs describing their policy of nondiscrimination in housing; and meet reporting and record-keeping obligations.

The Consent Order will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Stealth Investments, LLC, et al. (D. Idaho)11/27/07

On November 21, the Division filed a Complaint in United States v. Stealth Investments, LLC, et al, (D. ID.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case that was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent an apartment to a person who uses a service animal, refusing to make a reasonable accommodation, and making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on disability, or causing such statements to be made.

United States v. Donald Sterling, et al. (C.D. Cal.)8/8/06

On August 7, 2006, the Unites States filed a pattern or practice complaint in the Central District of California against Donald Sterling, Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust and the Korean Land Company, L.L.C. for violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status. The complaint alleges that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresented the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and provided inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. The complaint also alleges that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they own or manage in Los Angeles County. The Division also alleges that the Sterling Defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that express a preference for Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles and express discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in Los Angeles County.

On April 28, 2000, we filed our complaint  which alleged that the owners violated the Fair Housing Act by informing families with children that they could only rent units on the first floor of the apartment complex. Our allegations were based on evidence developed through our testing program.

On October 25, 2000, the United States settled this case with a consent decree which included the payment of $24,000 to a fair housing group and another $5,000 in civil penalties.

The apartment complex was sold during the course of this litigation and the new owners are not named in the lawsuit.

On December 4, 2006, the Court entered a consent order resolving United States v. Stevens (S.D. Ala.) The complaint, filed on May 18, 2005, alleged the defendant discriminated on the basis race by harassing and later evicting the complainant after learning the complainant, who is Caucasian had a bi-racial (African-American) child and had African American friends. The complaint further alleged the defendant told the complainant she did not want African-Americans in her mobile home and would not have rented to her had she know her daughter was bi-racial.

The consent order, resolves the government's case as well as the related claims of Ms. Jones and Angela Macon, a neighbor of Ms. Jones, both of whom intervened in the government's lawsuit. Under the consent order, the defendant has agreed to pay more than $40,000 in damages and penalties; to post a nondiscriminatory rental policy; to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act; and to submit periodic reports to the Justice Department. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On September 19, 2000, the United States filed a fair housing complaint against United States v. Strieter, et al. (C.D. Ill.) alleging that the defendants discriminatorily denied housing to Randy Upton and his wife, Tara Upton, based upon Randy Upton's use of a wheelchair and a discriminatory "no wheelchairs" policy.

On November 2, 2001, the parties reached a settlement in which the defendants agreed to adopt policies clarifying that no restrictions shall be placed on any person with disability from using wheelchairs within their apartment units, conduct outreach to organizations providing housing counseling to persons with disabilities, and pay $35,000 in damages to the complainants.

The lawsuit arose as a result of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

United States v. Stuber (C.D. Ill.)06/12/07

On July 18, 2007, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Stuber (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, filed on October 20, 2006, alleged that the owners and managers of a nine-unit apartment building in Morton, Illinois violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race by refusing to rent an apartment to an African-American woman and her twelve year old daughter. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $40,000 and to submit to injunctive relief, including, recordkeeping and monitoring, and training. The decree also contains an admission from defendants that they violated the Fair Housing Act and a statement that they regret any harm caused by this violation. The United States Attorney's Office also filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the minor complainant. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

United States v. Sturdevant, et al. (D. Kan.)06/12/07

On June 1, 2007, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Sturdevant, et al. (D. Kan.), alleging that the defendants retaliated against Melissa Kothe in violation of Section 818 of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants terminated her employment in response to Ms. Kothe's cooperating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") investigators and assisting others to file complaints with HUD.

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.

United States v. Sunburst Mobile Home Village, Inc. et al. (D.N.M.)

On November 26, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vázquez approved a consent order in United States v. Sunburst Mobile Home Village, Inc. et al. (D.N.M.). The complaint, filed on October 19, 2001, alleged that Mr. Geiger, the owner of Sunburst Mobile Home Village, and Mr. Rivera, the Mexican-American on-site manager, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the Division alleged that Defendants' rental practices revealed a pattern of discriminatory treatment of tenants and rental applicants of Cuban national origin. Under the terms of the consent order, the defendants' will pay $19,000 in monetary damages, and a $1,000 civil penalty. Additionally, the defendants must establish nondiscriminatory standards and procedures at the mobile home park, notify all employees and tenants of their nondiscriminatory policies, attend fair housing training, pay for three (3) years of fair housing testing, and file reports with the Division. The consent order will remain in effect for three (3) years.

The case was originally 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.

United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., et al. (D. Idaho)7/21/06

On July 18, 2006, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., et al. (D. Idaho), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint, filed on July 11, 2001, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct Centennial Trail Apartments in Post Falls, Idaho, in accordance with the accessibility provisions of the Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. On September 29, 2003, the Court had granted in part the United States' motion for summary judgment. The Court found that there was no genuine issue of dispute that defendants violated the Act and the ADA by failing to design and construct the complex in accordance with both laws. The complex fails in many respects to meet the accessibility requirements, e.g., the rental office was on the second floor and its bathroom and other features were inaccessible; interior doors are too narrow; the kitchens and some bathrooms lack sufficient maneuvering space; and common areas, including the mailboxes and sidewalks, are inaccessible. On January 25, 2006, the court issued an order that the retrofits must be made within one year and without regard to whether any resident requests the retrofits. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the defendants will complete the retrofitting and pay $58,000 to compensate aggrieved individuals, including residents who experienced difficulties living at the complex and persons who were unable to live there, due to its non-compliance. The consent decree will remain in effect for three and a half years.

United States v. Tamarack Property Management Co., et al. (D. Mont.)

On August 11, 2003, the United States filed a consent decree in United States & Martinez/Avalos v. Tamarack Property Management Co., et al. (D. Mont.). The complaint, filed on June 5, 2002, alleged that the defendants (Tamarack Property Management Co., Forsyth Development, Foundation, Inc., the city of Forsyth, and other individuals) violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability when they refused to permit tenants at Riverview Villa, a fifty-unit retirement development in Forsyth, Montana, to install, at their expense, a wheelchair ramp, and a portable hot tub, which one of the tenants needed for medical reasons to relieve the significant pain he experienced from his disability. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the defendants will pay $98,000 in monetary damages, establish non-discriminatory written policies for receiving requests for reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations, notify employees and tenants of the non-discriminatory policies, receive fair housing training, and submit reports to the United States twice a year for the three year and three month term of the consent decree.

The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigated and issued a charge of discrimination.

United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)1/24/08

On January 22, 2008, the Court entered a consent decree in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.) to settle its lawsuit against developers Bruce Tanski, the Bruce Tanski Construction and Development Company, Michael Dennis, and the Mountain Ledge Development Corporation. The complaint, filed on June 21, 2004, and amended for the second time on January 20, 2006, alleged that the various defendants failed to design and construct 362 ground-floor apartments and the public and common areas at the McGregor Village Apartments in Wilton, N.Y., and several other properties in accordance with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act. In addition to the claim brought on behalf of the HUD complainant, the United States' complaint added an allegation that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern and practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

The consent decree will require the defendants to eliminate steps at ground-floor units and retrofit the apartments; to retrofit public and common use areas; and to pay $155,000 in damages to persons identified by the government as having been harmed by these inaccessible features, and $20,000 in civil penalties to the government. In addition, the settlement requires the defendants to comply with federal accessibility requirements in all future construction of apartment complexes; to report to the government on any future construction projects; and to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The consent decree will remain in effect for four (4) years after the date of its entry or eighteen (18) months after the date that the last retrofit is completed.

On July 7, 2005, the Court entered a partial consent decree (PDF Version) resolving its claims against an engineering company, Keystone Associates L.L.C.. The firm was responsible for the site plan for one of the seven properties at issue in the case. In addition to injunctive relief, the decree provided that Keystone will pay $10,000 into a retrofit fund and 5,000 into a victims' compensation fund. The partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On February 28, 2006, the Court entered a second partial consent decree (PDF Version) in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.). The consent decree entered on February 28, 2006, resolves the United States' claims against Howard Jacobson, an engineer who sealed the building plans used in the construction of certain non-compliant apartment buildings. The second partial consent decree requires defendant Jacobson to pay $12,000 into a retrofit fund and pay $8,000 into a victims' fund for persons who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility, as well as requires training and other injunctive relief. The second partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

On October 22, 2007, the Court entered a third partial consent decree in United States v. Tanski, et al. (N.D.N.Y.). The consent decree entered on October 22, 2007, resolves the United States claims against Yates Scott Lansing, an engineer who was hired by Bruce Tanski to draw the architectural plans based on a template provided to Lansing by Bruce Tanski. The third partial consent decree requires defendant Lansing to pay $5,000 into a retrofit fund and pay $5,000 into a victims' fund for persons who may have been harmed by the lack of accessibility, as well as requires training and other injunctive relief. The third partial consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.

The United States has reach a settlement in this case.

The United States had filed a complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges that defendants denied lodging to African Americans and other minority guests; provided inferior room accommodations to guests on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and attempted to ascertain the race, color, or national origin of potential guests over the telephone in order to tell minorities that there were no rooms available.

The consent decree's requires the defendants to pay for certain measures that will be undertaken by the new owner of the motel to prevent future discrimination and to remedy the effects of the defendant's past conduct. The measures include but are not limited to training the new owner's employees, voluntary testing, affirmative marketing, and permanently posting nondiscrimination signs. The new owners have agreed to cooperate with these measures. Furthermore, defendants have agreed to not have any unsolicited contact with the new owners or any of the former employees who came forward as witnesses for the United States' case.

On March 11, 2005, the Court entered the consent order in United States v. Thomas Development Co., et al. (D. Idaho). The complaint, filed on February 13, 2002, alleged the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the ground floor units and public and common uses areas in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that some of the defendants retaliated against a tenant family at one of the complexes by attempting to evict the family after one of the family members requested a reasonable accommodation. The consent order, which includes injunctive relief and monetary payments totaling $125,000, affects over 700 ground floor apartments in 31 complexes in four states. The consent order will remain in effect for three years.

The complaint was referred to the Division by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

United States v. Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (M.D.N.C.) 10/17/07

On October 2, 2007, the court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (M.D.N.C.). The complaint, filed on December 12, 2005, alleged that the town violated the federal Fair Housing Act when it refused to grant a citizen of Chapel Hill an accommodation for her disabled daughter. The citizen, then a resident of public housing, had repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of a transfer to a wheelchair-accessible unit. The city operates the Chapel Hill Department of Housing, which manages 336 public housing units sites in Chapel Hill. Under the terms of the consent decree Chapel Hill will pay $30,000 in damages to the family. The consent decree also requires the town employees to undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and that the town adopt a reasonable accommodation policy, post non-discrimination policies, and submit periodic reports to the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three (3) years. 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.

In our complaint, filed on January 21, 1993, we alleged that the Town of Cicero violated the Fair Housing Act by enacting, and then selectively enforcing, an occupancy ordinance, which restricted occupancy of some three-bedroom dwellings to as few as two persons. Our suit contended that the town had not enforced the ordinance against current residents, the majority of whom were white, but only against new purchasers of property, the majority of whom were Hispanic. The United States resolved the case with a consent order, which required the town to pay $60,000 to compensate persons who were harmed by its enforcement of the ordinance, to refrain from enforcing the ordinance, and, if it adopts a new occupancy standard, not to adopt one more restrictive than the nationally recognized building codes.

United States v. Town of Lake Hunting and Fishing Club (C.D. Ill.) 4/19/07

On April 18, 2007, the court entered the revised consent decree in United States v. Town of Lake Hunting and Fishing Club (C.D. Ill.), a Fair Housing Act (FHA) election referral from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2005, alleged that the refusal of a residential hunting and fishing club in Momence, Illinois to allow complainants Bill and Gail Joly to install wheelchair ramps and a sidewalk at the entrances to their house and a later decision to expel them from the club constituted a refusal to allow a reasonable modification and retaliation under the FHA. The consent decree requires the defendant to pay the Jolys $40,000 in damages and attorney’s fees, to allow the requested ramps and sidewalks to be installed, to waive all prior claims against the Jolys for past dues and attorney’s fees, to reinstate Bill Joly as a member of the club in good standing, to send the president of its board of directors to fair housing training and to submit to the Division’s notice and record-keeping requirements for the three-year term of the decree. At the court’s instruction, the revised consent decree, rather than leaving the case open for three years, terminates the case immediately upon entry of the decree, but leaves the court with jurisdiction to enforce the decree during its three-year term.

On March 17, 2000, the United States filed a complaint behalf of complainant The Hand, Inc., a corporation composed of five African-American men who wished to open a group home for children and adolescents with emotional and mental disabilities in Maiden, North Carolina. The United States alleged that the defendants discriminated against The Hand on the basis of race and disability by interfering with The Hand's efforts to locate a group home in Maiden.

On May 7, 2002, the Court signed a consent order resolving the case. The Consent Order provides that the defendants will pay $45,000 to compensate The Hand. The Order further provides that all employees of the Town of Maiden who have responsibility for zoning, planning, or approval for group homes or similar facilities must receive training in their responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act; that the Town adopt a nondiscrimination policy and distribute it to all such employees and all applicants for permits for group homes or similar facilities; that the Town must report to the United States annually for three years on applications for such permits; and that the Town will report to the United States all discrimination complaints made against the Town during the duration of the Consent Order

This case originated with a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination and the parties elected to proceed in federal court.

On September 21, 2007, the United States filed a pattern or practice complaint in United States v. Town of St. John (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act referral from HUD alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complaint alleges that the Town violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a variance to a St. John's resident who wanted to allow one unrelated person with a disability to live with the resident in his single-family home.

On January 12, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Decree in United States v. Torino Construction Corporation of Nevada, Inc., et al. (D. Nev.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The Division's complaint, which was filed simultaneously with the Consent Decree, alleged that defendants, Torino Construction Corporation of Nevada, Inc., Sedona Corporation, Paradise Village F&B, and Canyon Willow II, LLC, failed to design and construct Canyon Willow Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, in compliance with the design and construction provisions of the Act. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will pay $1,500,000 to make the 360 covered ground- floor units as well as the public and common areas of the complex accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, $75,000 will be available to compensate individuals who may have been harmed as a result of defendants' conduct. The settlement also requires defendants to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the United States. The consent decree will remain in effect for two and one-half years.

United States v. Triple H. Realty, et al. (D. N.J.)10/2/06

On September 29, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Triple H. Realty, et al. (D. N.J.), a Fair Housing Act election case which was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Eight HUD complainants, non-Jewish, Hispanic and/or African-American individuals, are former tenants of Cottage Manor Apartments in Lakewood, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the defendants tried to force them to transfer from one building to another to make room for Orthodox Jews whom were courted as tenants in 2002-2004; that they were threatened if they objected; and, that the buildings in which non-Jewish tenants lived in the rear of the property had fewer amenities and were less well maintained than buildings at the front of the property that housed the new Jewish tenants. The complaint also alleges that the incoming Jewish tenants paid less rent for apartments comparable to theirs. The United States also alleges that the defendants' conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons.

On June 7, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi entered into a Mutual Settlement Agreement and Release in United States v. Silas J. Tucker (S.D. Miss.). The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) referred this matter to the Division after determining that the respondent had failed to comply with the damages and civil penalty provisions of the Secretary's Final Decision and Order. HUD's Order found that the respondent had violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against the two HUD complainants based on their race. On December 11, 2003, the Appellate Section obtained a judgment from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enforcing the Order. The Division then referred the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office's Financial Litigation Unit (FLU) for collection of the judgment. The settlement agreement provides for $10,000 for the two complainants and the waiver of HUD's civil penalty.

In connection with the provisions of our consent decree, with the Tunica County School District and the construction of a new elementary school in Tunica, the county's board of supervisors has adopted a resolution to implement a county-wide affordable housing plan. Under that plan, the county will provide housing counseling services, home buyer seminars, and fair housing training. This plan includes working with the North Delta Planning Development District, a regional planning commission, to create developer incentives for construction of affordable housing in the county and the Mississippi Home Corporation, a state housing finance agency, to provide funding for the county's counseling and education program and to develop affordable housing in the county. As part of the order, the school district has agreed to market the services of the affordable housing plan to families with school age children, to make school facilities available for housing-related activities, and to use a state mortgage assistance program for teachers as a marketing tool to attract and keep teachers in the district.

On September 30, 2005, the United States filed a complaint and consent order in United States v. Twining Services Corporation ("TSC") (E.D. Penn.), a pattern or practice case brought under the Fair Housing Act. TSC owns and operates Twining Village, a 400-unit continuing care retirement community that, until February 2005, banned manual wheelchairs from its dining rooms and continued to ban motorized wheelchairs and scooters from those rooms and other public and common use areas. It also required persons who use scooters to indemnify TSC and to submit to an evaluation and training program annually, even if there was no reason to think the person had difficulty operating the scooter safely. Under the terms of the consent order, TSC will adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability such that residents of Twining Village who have physical disabilities that require the use of mobility aids may use such aids throughout the entire Twining Village complex, without the requirement for indemnification or annual evaluations. TSC will pay a resident aggrieved by the former policies $17,500 in damages, establish a $67,500 settlement fund, and pay a $7,500 civil penalty to the United States. The consent order also calls for employee training, record keeping, and monitoring through the use of testers, if necessary. The Consent order will remain in effect for three years.

On November 12, 2003, the Court entered a Consent Order resolving United States v. Urban Rental Company, et al., Case No. 02-3244 (C.D. Ill.). The complaint alleged that the defendants, the owners and managers of the Urban Mobile Home Village in Taylorville, Illinois, discriminated on the basis of race or color in connection with the rental of a mobile home space to an African-American couple. The Consent Order requires the defendants to pay $3,500 to the two HUD complainants. In addition, the consent order also: enjoins the defendants from violating the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race or color; requires the individual defendants to undergo training on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act pertaining to racial discrimination; display fair housing posters and use the fair housing logo in all advertising, and advise the United States of any complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of race or color or retaliation. The consent order will remain in effect for two years.

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. The case was handled by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of Illinois.

On October 27, 2005, the Court entered a consent decree resolving United States v. Urbana MHP, LLC (S.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged that the owners and property managers of a mobile home park in Urbana, Ohio discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $18,750 in damages to complainants and contains standard injunctive relief, training, advertising and reporting provisions. The consent decree will remain in effect for two years.

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 6, 2006, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Daniel Waisbord, et al. (E.D. Pa.) The complaint, filed on March 15, 2006, alleged the defendants discriminated on the basis of race when they refused to rent an apartment to an African-American woman and stated the neighbors would not like it. The defendants eventually rented the unit to a white woman at a lower rent than had been discussed with the complainant.

Under the consent decree the defendants are required to pay $40,000 in monetary damages to the complainant, undergo training, adopt and post a nondiscrimination policy, and provide reports to the Division. The consent decree will remain in effect for three years.

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.