Posted on January 12, 2012 by Scott M. Badami

More on the Posting of Allegedly Racially Offensive Signs at a Community Pool

Many of you read the blog post about the Cincinnati, Ohio landlord who claimed an African American girl’s hair product “clouded” an apartment community swimming pool. And that the young lady’s parents filed a fair housing case claiming that the landlord discriminated against the child by posting a “White Only” sign poolside.

Today, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 against reconsidering its finding from last fall. The Commission previously found probable cause to believe that the landlord, who is white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign at the pool where the girl was visiting her parents.

The parents, who have since moved to another home, filed the complaint and indicated that they wanted to “avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment.” A state investigation concluded that the landlord posted the offending sign on the gated entrance to the pool in May 2011 that stated “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.”  It was reported that multiple witnesses confirmed that the sign was posted, and the landlord indicated that she posted it because the girl used chemicals in her hair that would make the pool “cloudy.”

News reports stated the landlord did not attend today’s hearing. What will likely happen next is that the case will be referred to the Ohio attorney general’s office, the office which would represent the state agency’s findings before an administrative law judge. It is also possible for the parties to reach a settlement before further legal proceedings.

Readers of this blog know I always am concerned when only one side of the story is told, and while we cannot and should not rush to judgment without hearing from the landlord – it is safe to say it would be unwise to post a racially offensive sign at a community pool.

Just A Thought.

Tags:
Posted on January 9, 2012 by Scott M. Badami

Should Management Draft A Reasonable Accommodation/Reasonable Modification Policy? Yes.

As your Fair Housing Defense editor reviewed the articles our loyal readers sampled the most during 2011 -- it was clear that many of the most read posts had to do with reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications as well as steps taken to ensure that residents/applicants with disabilities could have their needs met.  I have written previously that in addition to an equal housing opportunity policy, management should draft a reasonable accommodation policy.
 
The purpose of a policy to address reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification requests is to make certain that requests from residents/applicants are appropriately addressed.  Indeed, a number of years ago HUD published a notice mandating that owners of all HUD subsidized housing have a reasonable accommodations policy. I respectfully suggest, however, that it makes good sense for all property owners/managers have a policy to address reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification requests. 

This type of policy will typically have two components. The first is the public statement of the company's priorities and intentions when working with applicants/residents with disabilities. This statement is similar to the fair housing policy statement, although it specifically addresses the needs of people with disabilities. For example:  "Ownership/Management at ABC Apartments welcomes all to our community and we do not discriminate against individuals with disabilities.  We offer an equal housing opportunity and provide accommodations to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities upon request, provided the accommodation/modification request is reasonable and feasible.  Requests for reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications should be submitted in writing to the community manager.  Depending on the disability, the applicant/resident may need to provide some limited information from a medical/health care provider to verify the disability.  Management will respond to the request in a timely manner."

The second component of a reasonable accommodations policy is a list of steps for management and the applicant/resident to follow in evaluating the accommodation request.  Consistent use of this list will help ensure that each request is handled properly and consistently over time. 
 
My next post will specifically address some of the issues that management may want to consider in developing a reasonable accommodation/reasonable modification policy. 
 
Just A Thought.
Tags:
Posted on January 4, 2012 by Scott M. Badami

Top Ten 2011 Fair Housing Defense Blog Posts

With 2011 now in the books, your friendly Fair Housing Defense blogger thought this might be a good time to review the Top Ten most read of the 48 blog posts during the past year.  Interestingly, they involve any number of items related to the Fair Housing Act and how management must comply with the law. 

  1. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/01/articles/fha-basics/exemptions-to-the-fair-housing-act-not-many-but-here-are-some/
  2. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/04/articles/fha-basics/occupancy-standards-and-familial-status-how-do-they-intersect/
  3. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/11/articles/fha-basics/are-punitive-damages-available-in-a-fair-housing-lawsuit-only-in-extreme-cases/
  4. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/07/articles/disability/can-a-request-to-break-a-lease-be-considered-a-reasonable-accommodation-yes-depending-on-the-circumstances/
  5. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/05/articles/disability/this-is-what-can-happen-if-management-fails-to-appropriately-respond-to-an-accommodation-request/
  6. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/05/articles/fha-basics/huds-increased-fair-housing-activity-management-must-get-it-right/
  7. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/08/articles/fha-basics/criminal-background-checks-how-far-back-can-management-look/
  8. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/08/articles/fha-basics/are-business-cards-considered-advertising-subject-to-the-fair-housing-act/
  9. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/04/articles/discrimination/back-to-the-basics-of-reasonable-accommodations-and-reasonable-modifications/
  10. http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/09/articles/fha-basics/remember-that-hud-and-fair-housing-testers-are-reviewing-ads-to-confirm-compliance-with-the-fair-housing-act/

If you want to take a look at any of the most read entries, simply click on the above links.   From your editor's perspective, I was caught by the fact that what you read most are my tips and suggestions about what to do (and what not to do) concerning fair housing compliance as opposed to simply reporting on cases.  Let's see what I can do in 2012 to better meet those reader needs.

Just A Thought.

 

Tags:
Posted on December 22, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Additional Protections for Individuals With Disabilities

 

A couple of questions have arisen concerning disabilities and the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  As such, I thought this would be a good time to review some of the basics about reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications. 

To help ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to and enjoyment of their housing, the FHA provides residents/applicants with the right to request a reasonable accommodation or to make a reasonable modification.

A reasonable accommodation is a change to a rule, policy or procedure.  Under the law, a person with a recognized disability has the right to request that a housing provider make a reasonable accommodation that will allow the person with a disability to have an equal enjoyment of housing. Examples of reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to:

  • allowing a person with a service animal to live in an apartment with a “no pets” policy or to not charge a pet fee if the community permits animals; 
  • providing a friendly note on the last day of the month to remind a person with a developmental disability that the rent is due the following day; or
  • providing a way to communicate with a resident who has a hearing impairment

The law does not give specific detail as to what types of accommodations are reasonable.  In practice, it becomes a matter of judgment on behalf of both management and the resident/applicant.  Indeed, there are many times when management and the resident absolutely agree on the appropriate accommodation.

In addition to a reasonable accommodation, a resident with a disability has the right to request a physical modification to his or her rental unit if it is necessary to allow the resident with an equal enjoyment of his or her housing. Examples of reasonable modifications include:

  • installation of a ramp;
  • installation of grab bars;
  • widening of doorways; or 
  • lowering a mailbox;

In most cases (at conventional properties), the resident is responsible for the cost of the modifications made to the property and needs to ensure management that the work will be done properly and that any permits needed will be acquired. The tenant may be required to make payments into an escrow account to establish funds to remove the alteration, if indeed the change would interfere with the landlord’s or future tenant’s ability to enjoy the property.  In affordable communities, the rule is usually reversed and management is required to pay for the modification, provided that the cost would not reflect a fundamental alteration in the housing program.

At least as important as the final decision on reasonable accommodation or modification requests is a requirement that management timely consider and respond to the request.  I have seen any number of cases in which management's inaction causes more problems down the road.  It is also my usual recommendation that management provide the resident with an interim letter indicating that we have received your request and the leasing office staff is reviewing it.   

Just a thought.

Tags:
Posted on December 21, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Here is What Can Happen if Management Posts a Racially Offensive Sign at a Community Pool

We here at the Fair Housing Defense blog write over and over that we know there are always two sides to every case and that both stories deserve to be heard. Today’s post involves a case in which the Ohio Civil Rights Commission found probable cause to believe that unlawful discrimination took place. 

The allegations involve an Ohio landlord who posted a racially insensitive sign at a community swimming pool. Just last week the landlord called on the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to reconsider its September 2011 ruling that she had discriminated on the basis of race in violation of Ohio law when she posted a sign at the pool in one of her properties that read “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.”

According to the Ohio investigators, the landlord directly accused the resident’s biracial daughter of making the water in the pool “cloudy” because of the chemicals that she used in her hair. Shortly thereafter, management allegedly posted the offending sign. Several witnesses confirmed that the sign was indeed posted. The parents filed a discrimination charge and moved out of the community to “avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment.” In defending against the charge, the landlord stated that she didn’t “have any problem with race at all. It’s a historical sign.” She also contended that the swimming pool at the apartment duplex is private property and that “everybody has to ask before getting in my pool.”  The landlord's motion for reconsideration is scheduled to be heard in January 2012.

 

The Fair Housing Act is clear that management cannot, among other things, post a sign that gives the appearance of discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap.  Enough said.  That prohibition extends not only to the rental of apartments, but also to the use of the amenities and common facilities – such as a pool.  Management representatives who fail to strictly comply with these laws expose themselves unnecessarily to potentially severe (and expensive) consequences.

 

Just a Thought.

 

Article by Christian Moffitt.

Tags:
Posted on December 7, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

What Can Be Required of Management to Accommodate our Hearing Impaired Residents?

A client contacted me seeking help with a reasonable accommodation question that I thought merited a blog entry.  The question concerned management's responsibilities to residents who are hearing impaired and require a reasonable accommodation.  Must management provide a sign language interpreter for every communication with the leasing office?  The short answer is that management must ensure that its communications to individuals with disabilities (such as those with hearing loss) are as effective as are communications with others.  As I have written many times before, management must timely evaluate and respond to all reasonable accommodation/modification requests.
 
In order to provide equal access, management can be required to provide auxiliary aids and services that promote effective communication.  Examples of auxiliary aids and services include, but are not limited to: qualified interpreters, captioning, TTYs, and computer software.
 
Many apartment communities already have TTY devices to assist hearing impaired residents and applicants.  One option that may work is some circumstances is to sign your community up with a TTY service and let the residents and applicants know the service exists.  
 
To be sure, I have also seen guidance which notes that a sign language interpreter may be required when the information being communicated in a transaction is complex or is exchanged for a long period of time. Again, while an interpreter is not always required for all communication situations, management does have to provide a solution that is reasonable. Factors to be considered when deciding if the use of an interpreter is appropriate can include the context of the conversation, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication.  The cost of the interpreter is also a factor -- but unless the cost is truly excessive -- if it is determined that this is the only way to go, management is going to be responsible.
 
Just a thought.

 

Tags:
Posted on December 7, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

DOJ Files Another Complaint: This One Concerning Occupancy Standards

The Department of Justice (DOJ) last month filed a lawsuit against the owners and managers of 23 rental homes in Magee, Mississippi for violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating against families with children.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, charges that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FHA or denied rights protected by the FHA by establishing and implementing occupancy standards limiting the number of children in the rental homes owned and/or leased.  The complaint also charges that, by refusing to rent a three-bedroom home to a woman with four kids because she had too many children under their occupancy guidelines, the defendants violated the FHA. 

 

As do so many other cases, this action started as a result of a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by a woman with four daughters who was searching for a three-bedroom rental home.  The woman’s search led her to the defendants, who lease a number of houses in the area.  However, when she contacted the owners, they told the applicant that she had too many children to rent a three-bedroom home.  While the defendants’ occupancy policy allowed five individuals to occupy the house, it permitted no more than three of the occupants to be children.  DOJ alleges that the defendants established similar limitations on the number of children that could live in their two and four bedroom rental homes.  After HUD investigated the complaint, it issued a charge of discrimination and the matter was referred to DOJ.

 

DOJ's complaint seeks a court order prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions, and a civil penalty.   As I always add when noting these types of cases, as a defense lawyer, I know there are two sides to the story and I will reserve judgment until I learn more.  However, this case gives all a moment to reflect on occupancy standards -- which are generally permitted, but which must not be unduly restrictive.  Or you might end up needing a lawyer like me.

 

Just a thought.  

Tags:
Posted on November 23, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Reasonable Accommodation Update: DOJ Files Another Case Concerning Service Animals

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit this week against a university and various university employees in Nebraska alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating against students with disabilities.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Nebraska, alleges the university and its employees engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FHA by denying reasonable accommodation requests by students with psychological or emotional disabilities who sought to live with emotional assistance animals in university housing. The case also alleges that the defendants required students with psychological disabilities to disclose sensitive medical and other information that is unnecessary to evaluate their accommodation requests.  This lawsuit began following a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by a student who requested an emotional assistance dog.  

 

As we have reviewed any number of times in the Fair Housing Defense blog, reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification requests must be reviewed/responded to in a timely basis.  The law is clear that management can only request enough medical information to confirm that the disability is recognized and that the accommodation (in this case a service animal) is reasonably related (or has a nexus) to the disability.  DOJ's suit seeks a court order prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, monetary damages for those harmed, and a civil penalty. 

 

Now remember, I am a defense lawyer.  The complaint is only an allegation of unlawful conduct. There is always another side to the story and I want to hear from the defense before drawing any conclusions.  But management (in this case a university) must always consider and respond to reasonable accommodation/modification requests.  Or you may well face an action like this.

 

Just a thought.

Tags:
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Can Management Restrict Families With Children to the First Floor? No.

The Department of Justice recently filed suit against the owners of three apartment complexes in Massillon, Ohio. The government alleges that the owners of three communities engaged in systematic discrimination on the basis of race and familial status. Regular readers of this blog recognize, of course, that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) explicitly forbids such discrimination. 

In the Complaint, the government alleges that the defendants have (1) denied apartments to African-Americans; (2) misrepresented the availability of units to African-Americans; and (3) treated similarly situated African-American tenants and Caucasian tenants differently. In addition, the owner of the apartment complex has allegedly discriminated against families with children by refusing to rent them upper level apartments and by restricting them to basement-level apartments. The government’s investigation began as a result of numerous complaints from not only residents, but also the owner’s own property managers.

 

More than 40 years after the enactment of the FHA, it should go without saying that apartment owners cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of the color or national origin. Owners and management representatives I know work to fight against such unlawful discrimination. While I always want to hear the other side of the story, even the filing of a lawsuit can have a severe negative impact on an apartment owner’s reputation, not only within his or her local community, but also on a national level. As a result, it’s imperative that all property owners and management take affirmative steps to ensure that discrimination is not occurring on their properties and to implement policies and procedures to comply with the FHA.

 

This case also poses an interesting question – Can property owners discriminate against prospective tenants with small children by restricting them to lower level apartments? It’s easy to see the lure here. Many property managers have been confronted, oftentimes repeatedly, by the resident of a lower level unit who complains about the noise caused by running and jumping children who live in the apartment above them. And what looks like an easy fix is to simply put children on the lowest floor. While you may sympathize with solution, however, you must remember the obligations imposed on you by the FHA – you cannot treat a tenant with children differently than a tenant without children. That means that you cannot do what the defendant in this case has allegedly done by sequestering families to lower level units. If the downstairs tenant has a problem with noise, you can address problems as they arise and determine the best way to deal with noise issues on a case-by-case, day-by-day basis. 

 

Because if you restrict families with children to first floor units, you might need to speak with a lawyer like me.

 

Just a thought.

 

Article by Christian Moffitt.

Tags:
Posted on November 2, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Protected Classes: We Must Know the Laws in the Jurisdictions in Which We Operate

As readers of this blog know, the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) contains seven protected classes:
 
    Race;
    Color;
    Religion;
    National Origin;
    Gender;
    Disability; and
    Familial Status

 While most of these are self-explanatory, "familial status" essentially means a community cannot discriminate against families with children or women who are pregnant.  But these seven classes do not tell the entire story.  Professional apartment owners and managers must also know the laws in the states, cities, and counties in which you have properties.  For example, if you are located in California, state law has added protections for:

      Age
      Ancestry
      Gender Identity 
      Marital Status
      Sexual Orientation 
      Medical Condition
      Source of Income

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court has noted that protections against unlawful discrimination are not necessarily restricted to these classifications.  State law is intended to cover all arbitrary and international acts of discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics.
 
Now, for those of you not in California. your state and/or local laws may have some of these other protected classes.  Here is the bottom line:  it is incumbent on management to follow the laws of our jurisdictions.  Trust me -- saying you were not aware of the law will not be an effective defense should you get sued for housing discrimination.
 
Just a Thought.

 

Tags:
Posted on November 1, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

DOJ Files Yet Another Fair Housing Act Case

From time to time I include in the Fair Housing Defense blog new cases filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and/or the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dealing with the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  Just last month, DOJ filed a lawsuit against the manager and owner of the Geneva Terrace Apartments, a community in La Crosse, Wisconsin, alleging discrimination against African-Americans who were seeking to rent apartments at the complex.

 

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleges that the manager and owner of Geneva Terrace told prospective African American renters that apartments were not available when they were, while telling prospective white renters that there were apartments available.

As alleged in the complaint, in 2009 and 2010,  the community manager told an African-American couple who were interested in renting an apartment in Geneva Terrace that there were no apartments available, even though the complex had posted a sign advertising vacancies.  The couple found it suspicious and asked a white friend to contact the complex. It is alleged that the white friend  was told there were available apartments.  The couple then reported their experience to a nonprofit fair housing organization.  That organization conducted fair housing tests, which  it is alleged in the complaint confirmed that  the community manager  was telling African Americans that apartments were not available when they were while showing available apartments to white persons. 

 

The couple also filed a complaint with HUD, which conducted an investigation and, after issuing a charge of discrimination, referred the matter to DOJ.   The lawsuit seeks an order prohibiting the defendants from engaging in future unlawful discrimination.  It also seeks payment of a civil penalty and monetary damages for the persons who were refused the opportunity to rent at Geneva Terrace because of their race. 

As I have written before, as a defense lawyer I always know there are two sides to the story and I always look forward to hearing what the defendants will say.  However, this case provides yet another compelling reason to ensure all of us in the professional apartment ownership and management business continue to follow the law and ensure that our communities and employees do not discriminate.  DOJ and HUD -- along with fair housing testers -- continue to probe and file new cases.  You do not want to be next.   If you are, you may need a lawyer like me.

Just a Thought. 

Tags:
Posted on October 18, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Does My Property Have to Accept a Section 8 Voucher?

This question comes up every once in a while.  Do conventional apartment communities have to accept Section 8 housing vouchers?  While I would prefer to use this blog and answer questions with a "yes" or a "no" -- sometimes I just cannot.  Like with this question.  The answer is:  it depends.  "Source of income" is not a protected class included in the federal Fair Housing Act.
 
Specifically, the answer depends on if your community is located in a state, city, or county that has included "source of income" as a protected class.  If the answer is yes, then you must consider the amount of the Section 8 voucher when processing the applicant. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, I also recommend you do not have a line such as "no Section 8" in your advertising materials.  If, however, your state, city, or county does not include "source of income" as a protected class, then management gets to decide if you wish to accept the voucher.  There are reasons some properties accept vouchers and others which do not.
 
If you do not know if your property is in a "source of income" jurisdiction, you might want to reach out to your fair housing defense lawyer to find out.  And then ensure your policies conform to the law.
 
Just a Thought.
Tags:
Posted on October 17, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Just What is "Steering" in Housing?

In our fair housing world, “steering” is essentially segregating families with children toward a particular area of a community or outright directing families with children to other communities altogether.  Both of these practices are illegal and will subject management to scrutiny under the Fair Housing Act.  Additionally, it is also against the law to restrict families with children to downstairs units. All potential renters have the absolute right to view all available housing options within a community and to select the location of their choice.

Make no mistake, even what could well be a benign comment such as "apartment two is closer to the playground" could be perceived as steering.  Leasing office staff can and should certainly show the applicants a map of the community and let the potential new residents make the decision as to which available unit they wish to rent.  Again, management must not get in the business of recommending "kid friendly" units or otherwise directing applicants to certain apartments.

Just A Thought.

 

Tags:
Posted on October 12, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

More On Breaking a Lease as a Reasonable Accommodation for a Disability

My recent blog post discussing if terminating a lease early could be considered a reasonable accommodation sparked a few comments.  On the one hand, as I wrote, it does not seem logical to permit a resident to break a lease as an accommodation when the whole purpose of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) is to find and maintain housing for all.  To phrase it another way, the reason behind the FHA is to get people into homes -- not to permit residents to leave.
 
Nevertheless, a number of court decisions and other guidance makes clear that there are circumstances under which breaking a lease can indeed be considered a reasonable accommodation for a disability.  To be sure, it is a fact intensive inquiry into demonstrating how breaking the lease will assist the person with a disability.
 
Because we here at the Fair Housing Defense blog like to show the other side of the story, a case with a different, but related, fact patten was Congdon v. Strine, 854 F. Supp. 355 (E.D. Pa. 1994). There, a  resident who began using a wheelchair years after she lived in a fourth floor apartment sued her landlord for various violations of the FHA. The tenant rented on a month to month basis and, as such, early termination of a lease was not an issue. The tenant alleged that the landlord kept the elevator in a state of disrepair and that, as a result, she was frequently trapped inside her apartment.  Significantly, the landlord had offered the resident a ground floor apartment as well as an apartment in another building he owned, but the tenant declined those offers.  
 
Next, the resident claimed that the landlord's failure to maintain the elevator: (1) denied a dwelling or made it "unavailable" to her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1); (2) discriminated in the terms and conditions of rental in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) because of the disparate impact on tenants with  disabilities; and (3) constituted a failure to make reasonable accommodations in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). The court rejected the first and third claims because the landlord had offered the tenant other accessible apartments. The court rejected the second claim based on a balancing test involving many factors, but the driving factor appeared to be that the tenant was offered other effective accommodations.

The lessons learned from Congdon are that management must always respond to reasonable accommodation (or reasonable modification) requests and that if  management offers a resident an accessible apartment that is not to the tenant's liking, management may well have discharged its duty to accommodate. The resident may not be able to successfully pursue a claim under the FHA unless he or she can show that the offered accommodation was not effective.  

Just a Thought. 

Tags:
Posted on October 6, 2011 by Scott M. Badami

Do I Really Have to Design and Construct a Building Accessible to Individuals With Disabilities? Yes.

As I have written many times previously, the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) and fair housing testers are out there looking for instances where they believe housing discrimination is taking place.  Indeed, just last month, DOJ announced that the developer and designers of an apartment complex in Washington Township, Michigan agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that they violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when they designed and constructed a 200 unit apartment complex with steps to the front door and other barriers that make it inaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Under a proposed agreement, the defendants will make extensive modifications to the complex over the next three years to improve accessibility and will pay $30,000 to compensate persons who have been harmed by the inaccessible design and construction.  The proposed consent order would settle a lawsuit filed by DOJ in January 2009.   Pursuant to the terms of the deal, the defendants will:

  • Make retrofits to all 200 units in the complex to make them more accessible;
  • Ensure that future or ongoing construction meets the accessibility requirements of the FHA; and
  • Establish a $30,000 fund to pay individuals who were harmed by the lack of accessible features at the properties.

The lawsuit arose after a fair housing group conducted accessibility testing at the Enclave Apartments and provided the testing results to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.   Named defendants include the developer, the architects who designed the complexes, and the civil engineer involved with the project.  This settlement confirms, yet again, that apartment ownership and management must pay attention to the design and construction requirements in applicable law to ensure accessibility.   Our you might really need a lawyer like me.

 

Just A Thought.

Tags: