Fair Housing Forum » Case Law Discussions

HUD v. Lovejoy-Summerhill

erik — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:20:19 +0000

Settlement in discrimination case in Renton. Illustrates the importance of equitable and consistent treatment of all applicants.

Landlord agrees to pay $1M in harassment suit

admin — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:31:15 +0000

A former landlord in Cincinnati and his company have agreed to pay $1 million for violating the Fair Housing Act’s prohibitions against sexual harassment, the largest FHA sexual harassment award ever won by the Justice Department in a settlement. U.S. Fed News quotes Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, as saying that 12 women “were subjected to blatant, threatening, and unwanted sexual advances in their homes.” The judgment, which has to be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, requires the defendants to pay $890,000 to the 12 women and $110,000 in civil penalties to the government.

Justice Department Settle Idaho Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination based on Disability

admin — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:44 +0000

Thursday, May 29, 2008 – WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced that the owners and managers of Shadow Canyon Apartments, located in Idaho Falls, Idaho, have agreed to pay $62,000 to resolve a lawsuit filed by the Department alleging that defendants refused to allow residents with disabilities to keep assistance dogs.

The Fair Housing Act requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities,” said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Department will continue to vigorously enforce laws that prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.”

This lawsuit arose as a result of a charge of discrimination issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) following HUD’s investigation of a complaint filed by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council.

The consent decree, which must be approved by the U.S. District Court in Idaho, calls for training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping, and monitoring. Additionally, defendants will pay $7,500 to compensate a former tenant and $17,000 to compensate the Intermountain Fair Housing Council. In addition, they will establish a $12,500 fund to compensate any victims subsequently identified by the United States, and they will pay a $25,000 civil penalty to the United States.

Individuals who believe that they may have been a victim of discrimination at Shadow Canyon Apartments should call the Justice Department’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section at 1-800-896-7743. Anyone wishing to report other unlawful housing discrimination should also contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-669-9777.

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. Since Jan. 1, 2001, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has filed 247 cases to enforce the Fair Housing Act, 117 of which have alleged discrimination based on disability.

More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt.

9th Circuit Court Decision in Garcia v. Brockway

admin — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12:22 +0000

While the Fair Housing Act and related law are relatively static and unchanging, the interpretation and enforcement of the Act are dynamic, and evolve over time as the body of case law and decisions grows. As significant decisions are rendered, they may be referenced here for educational purposes to help viewers better understand enforcement actions and court decisions that influence future activities.

Garcia v. Brockway Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 5/13/2008 (Currently making its way through the courts)

Case Summary (from Daily Case Report)

“In consolidated cases, plaintiffs brought design-and-construction claims under the Fair Housing Act against the builders and owners of residential buildings for failure to have certain features that would make them accessible to the disabled.

Affirming the grants of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the limitations period had expired where the cases where filed more than two years after the conclusion of the construction phases of the buildings.”