Fair Housing Defense : Fair Housing Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), Discrimination Complaints

As a part of every fair housing action, the investigator assigned to the case ALWAYS asks if management wants to settle (or conciliate) the complaint. To be sure, it is in the Fair Housing Act that HUD (and the various state, city, and county agencies) are to work to bring the parties together. I am told that there will be some agreed upon relief for the complainant and there will be a few “standard” public interest provisions in an agreement. 

While I am certainly not adverse to amicably resolving a case in the appropriate circumstance, I ALWAYS tell my clients to: (a) listen to what the complainant wants/demands; and (2) carefully review any language in an agreement.

Some complainants think their fair housing case represents lottery winnings. Almost all of them are wrong. And most of the investigators let them know that a $100,000 check is not coming their way – even if management made a good faith mistake. Indeed, when a complaint looks for the big payday, it can make the investigator a bit more skeptical when evaluating the allegations.

Furthermore, contrary to what you may be told, the “standard” language varies from each investigator and each agency. In truth, nothing is standard and the provisions always change. Trust me, I have a stack of agreements in my files – and ALL of them are different. All agencies negotiate settlement terms. You will find that some are more willing to alter or amend provisions than are others. 

Also, as a tactical matter, there are times when I am willing to resolve a case, but I want the complainant to withdraw the allegations. There are situations when I find withdrawal of a charge with prejudice to be extremely effective.

There are many reasons to amicably conclude a fair housing case, including controlling litigation defense costs and the risks associated with the claims.  That being said, there are many times when settlement just cannot happen and we take the case to the end.  No two cases are alike and there is no cookie cutter advice on whether management should settle a claim.  But I can say that a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances leading up to the charge is important.  Additionally, management's written record and the file of the resident/applicant are critical to our defense of the action.

Just a Thought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, we wrote entries about service animals and a variety of issues that property management and owners of service and/or companion animals should consider here and here (or you can scroll down). Further illustrating the timeliness of the service/companion animal issue, HUD just recently announced that it is charging two New York landlords with violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) for allegedly refusing to allow a Vietnam-era veteran to have a therapeutic service dog in his apartment. The tenant alleged that he had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and seizures, and that doctors had prescribed the dog to help reduce his symptoms. The property owners purportedly refused the tenant’s request because the apartment building had a “no-pets” policy. The property owners admit that the resident requested the dog, but allege that the tenant never made it clear why the dog was necessary and that he never provided any proof that the animal had been prescribed by a medical professional.

HUD has now charged the property owners with a violation of the FHA for denying the tenant’s reasonable accommodation request and for allegedly threatening to evict the tenant when they learned that the tenant had filed a housing discrimination complaint. Not surprisingly, the property owners deny that they threatened to evict the tenant.  In addition to the claim regarding unlawful discrimination, HUD carefully investigates allegations of retaliation as the department wants to ensure that nobody feels intimidated into not exercising their rights under the FHA.

As we have indicated in the past, the FHA prohibits property owners and/or landlords from refusing to grant persons with disabilities a reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification, including making changes to rules and policies prohibiting a tenant from owning a pet when that pet is a prescribed service or companion animal. In addition, as noted above, the FHA prohibits a property owner from retaliating against a tenant who has filed a housing discrimination complaint. 

In short, as this example makes clear -- always respond to reasonable accommodation or modification requests submitted by residents. In almost all cases, service and companion animals should be permitted. To be sure, while there may be times management cannot make the precise accommodation or modification sought, we can guarantee that failing to respond to or simply denying a request that should otherwise be granted can cause serious – and unnecessary – consequences.

Just A Thought.

Article by Christian Moffitt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as various state, city, and county civil rights agencies – often assisted by fair housing testers – continue to seek out and file cases alleging discrimination in housing across the country.

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice announced a proposed settlement with Fountain View Apartments, Inc., its landlord, and a former rental manager in which the defendants agreed to pay $415,000 in monetary damages and civil penalties to settle a Fair Housing Act (FHA) lawsuit alleging that they discriminated against African Americans and families with children at Fountain View Apartments, a 42-unit apartment complex in Orange City, Fla. Under the proposed consent decree, the defendants will pay $175,000 to nine individuals identified by the United States as victims of defendants’ discriminatory conduct, $140,000 to three plaintiffs who intervened in the lawsuit, and $100,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the consent decree prohibits the defendants from engaging in discrimination and requires Fountain View Apartments Inc. to retain an independent manager to manage the property.

The case stated when an African American woman visited Fountain View with her grandson and inquired about the availability of apartments. The community manager told her that there were no vacancies and while the manager provided an application, the prospective resident was not permitted to submit it. The application also contained the notation "ADULTS ONLY" in the space designated for the number of children. Later that same day, the prospective resident had a friend telephone Fountain View to request information about apartment availability and she was told that apartments were available. A local television station subsequently conducted a series of fair housing tests – simulated transactions to compare responses given by housing providers to different types of apartment-seekers to determine whether illegal discrimination is occurring – and found that the defendants were providing more information and better treatment to white persons than to African American persons.

In December 2009, the court found that the defendants had violated the FHA by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against families with children. Additionally, the DOJ was prepared to show that the defendants also discriminated against African Americans by, among other things, telling white persons that a selling point of the apartment complex is that Fountain View does not have any black residents; denying the availability of apartments to African American persons while at the same time telling white persons about available apartments; refusing to show apartments to African American persons while at the same time showing apartments to white persons; discouraging African American persons from applying for an apartment while encouraging white persons to apply; refusing to negotiate with African American prospective tenants for rental; threatening to evict one or more tenants who were known or believed to have African American friends and associates; and making statements with respect to the rental of apartments at Fountain View indicating a preference, a limitation, or discrimination because of race or color.

Cases and settlements like these continue to illustrate while management must continue to be vigilant in following our anti-discrimination laws. It is not only that we have an obligation to follow the law – it is also the right thing to do.

Just A Thought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link