Fair Housing Lawsuit Settled for $82,500

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) against a housing provider. I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

Earlier today (Tuesday, July 6, 2010), the owners and operators of Ivanhoe House Apartments, an apartment complex in Ann Arbor, Michigan, agreed to pay $82,500 to settle a fair housing lawsuit filed by the DOJ alleging that they had discriminated against African-American home-seekers.

On March 3, 2010, the DOJ filed the fair housing lawsuit alleging that the apartment complex's property manager had racially discriminated in the rental and inspection of apartments. The case was developed through testing conducted by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan (a private non-profit organization located in Ann Arbor). The lawsuit was based upon evidence generated by a series of fair housing tests conducted by the Center. In the tests, individuals posed as prospective renters for purposes of determining whether the defendants were providing equal treatment to similarly situated home seekers in compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

According to the lawsuit, the testing revealed that the defendants repeatedly and consistently treated African-American apartment-seekers less favorably than white apartment-seekers. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Ivanhoe House Apartments:

• Denied the availability of apartments for rent or inspection to African-American persons while at the same time telling white persons about apartments available to rent or inspect;

• Failed to provide African-American persons information about the availability of apartments to rent or inspect that is full, complete, and consistent with the information provided to white persons;

• Failed to provide to African-American persons the same terms, conditions, or privileges related to the renting of apartments as are provided to white persons; and

• Refused to accept or process applications by African American persons because of their race or color.

As a result, the DOJ alleged that the defendants had violated the Fair housing Act by:

• Refusing to negotiate for the rental of, or otherwise making unavailable or denying dwellings to persons because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);

• Discriminating against persons in the terms, conditions or privileges of rental, or in providing services in connection therewith, because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and

• Representing to persons because of race or color that dwellings are not available for inspection or rental when such dwellings are in fact so available, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d).

Under the terms of today’s settlement, the defendants are required to pay $35,000 in damages to three victims who were discriminated against because of their race . The defendants are also required to pay $7,500 in a civil penalty to the United States and to and pay $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan as damages for the non-profit’s efforts in testing and investigating the apartment complex. The settlement also requires the defendants and their employees to undergo fair housing training, conduct self-testing of the apartment complex, and provide periodic reports to the DOJ and the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan.

As every real estate professional should already know, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion and familial status.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice press release and legal complaint and settlement documents (portions of press release used with the express permission of the DOJ)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2010. All rights reserved.

$2.725 Million Settlement of Housing Discrimination Lawsuit

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit settled by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2009, the DOJ announced the largest monetary payment ever obtained by the DOJ in the settlement of a case alleging housing discrimination in the rental of apartments. Los Angeles apartment owner Donald T. Sterling agreed to pay $2.725 million to settle allegations that he discriminated against African-Americans, Hispanics and families with children at apartment buildings he controlled in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit, filed by the DOJ in August 2006, alleged that the defendants, Donald T. Sterling, his wife Rochelle Sterling and the Sterling Family Trust, engaged in discriminatory rental practices on the basis of race, national origin and familial status (having children under 18) at various apartment buildings that they owned and managed in Los Angeles. Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants discriminated against non-Korean tenants and prospective tenants at buildings the defendants owned in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants. The lawsuit also alleged that the 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 lawsuit alleged that the defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they owned or managed. Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children.

In court filings, the DOJ presented evidence that the defendants' employees prepared internal reports that identified the race of tenants at properties that the defendants purchased in Koreatown. Additionally, the defendants made statements to employees indicating that African-Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants. The DOJ also presented expert analysis showing that the defendants rented to far fewer Hispanics and African-Americans than would be expected based on income and other demographic characteristics.

The defendants, who manage their apartments under the name Beverly Hills Properties, own and manage approximately 119 apartment buildings comprising over 5,000 apartments in Los Angeles County. The settlement also resolves two related lawsuits filed by former tenants at one of the properties. The two families, an African-American family and an interracial married couple with bi-racial children, alleged that the defendants demolished the private yards that had been part of their apartment and took other actions against them because of their race.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are required to pay a $100,000 civil penalty to the United States. The defendants are also required to pay $2.625 million into a fund that will be used to pay monetary damages to persons who were harmed by the defendants’ discriminatory practices, including the tenants in the two related lawsuits discussed above. Any money left over would go to further fair housing education or enforcement in Los Angeles. The settlement must be approved by the court.

In addition to the payments in damages and civil penalties, the settlement agreement requires the defendants to take various steps to ensure non-discriminatory practices at their rental properties, including:

• Enjoining the defendants from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, and familial status;

• Requiring the defendants to implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employee’s compliance with fair housing laws at their properties. The testing would be conducted by an independent contractor that would report the results to the defendants and the DOJ;

• Requiring the defendants to maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and

• Requiring the defendants to obtain fair housing training through an independent contractor for their employees who participate in renting, showing or managing apartments at the properties.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release and legal complaint and settlement documents(portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Flagrant Violations of the Fair Housing Act in Recent Lawsuit brought by the DOJ

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

Last Friday (October 16, 2009), the DOJ filed a lawsuit against TK Properties L.L.C., its owner, and two employees (property managers), for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by harassing and making discriminatory statements to an African-American family residing at Lakeport Village Apartments (located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota). In addition, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants intimidated white tenants who came to the family's defense.

Lakeport Village Apartments is a 48-unit apartment complex that is comprised of three buildings, each with 16 units. The complex is home to many families with children. On December 1, 2008, TK Properties hired Ann Wagner (hereinafter “Manager Wagner”) and Corey Anderson (hereinafter “Manager Anderson”) as on-site property managers.

On January 5, 2009, Michelle Chevalier, a white tenant at Lakeport Village, complained to Manager Wagner about noise coming from an apartment being rented by Charlotte and Untoma Gadsden (who lived there with their three minor children and one adult child). The Gadsdens are African-American. Tenant Chevalier and Manager Wagner went upstairs to speak to the Gadsdens. Charlotte Gadsden explained to Manager Wagner that her husband Untoma had just returned from the hospital and that the noise had been the result of his dialysis machine falling to the floor. Manager Wagner nevertheless yelled, "That's it, you're done, you're out of here, I've had enough," or words to that effect.

Following that confrontation, Manager Wagner urged Tenant Chevalier to file a false police report stating that the Gadsden's 17-year old son had attacked Tenant Chevalier. Tenant Chevalier refused to do so. Manager Wagner nevertheless stated she would file such a report, and told Ms. Chevalier that she needed her help in evicting the Gadsdens, whom she referred to as "nigger" tenants. When the police arrived, Tenant Chevalier denied that she had been threatened by the Gadsdens’ son and therefore no charges were filed.

Manager Anderson told Tenant Chevalier that, with regard to the maintenance requests of African-Americans, "them fucking niggers can wait, I'll get to them when I get to them," or words to that effect. Manager Anderson made the comment in the presence of Tenant Chevalier's children.

On February 11, 2009, Manager Anderson called the Sioux Falls Police Department and falsely reported that the Gadsdens' 15-year old son was attempting to steal change from the apartment complex's laundry machine. Scott Terveen (an owner of TK Properties) insisted that charges be filed. The charges were later dismissed.

On numerous occasions, white tenant Jenny Johnson heard Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner use the word "nigger" to describe black tenants, including the Gadsdens. On February 19, 2009, Tenant Johnson told another white tenant that she believed that Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner were racist. Manager Anderson, who learned of Tenant Johnson's allegations, responded by sending Tenant Johnson a text message that said, "Who in the hell do u think u r if u want 2 bitch about me and b nosy u know where I live." Manager Anderson also told another tenant that he would "punch [Tenant Johnson] in the mouth to shut her up," or words to that effect. The tenant told Tenant Johnson about Manager Anderson's threat.

Following Manager Anderson's text message and threat of assault, Manager Wagner and Tenant Johnson saw each other on the balconies of their respective units. Manager Wagner yelled, "Do you know the difference between a black person and a nigger? . . . They're niggers. They're niggers upstairs in 306," or words to that effect, referring to the Gadsden's unit.

On February 20, 2009, Tenant Chevalier, Tenants Gadsdens and Tenant Johnson went to the Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission ("Housing Authority") to complain about the discriminatory conduct of Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner. Manager Anderson and Manager Wagner saw them leave the property. Later that day, Tenants Gadsdens and Tenant Johnson returned to their apartments to find that they and other tenants on their floor did not have heat.

The following day (February 21, 2009), Manager Wagner sent Tenant Chevalier a text message asking, "is it true you were with Jen [Tenant Johnson] yesterday at housing [Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Commission]. we have never done anything 2 u or your family -- y r u against us?”

On February 22, 2009, Tenant Johnson received a voice mail message from Manager Wagner in which she yelled vulgarities and stated that she would use "every ounce in my body" to "take you out of here." Tenant Johnson felt threatened by the message and called the police the following day.

Defendants TK Properties and Scott Terveen (an owner of TK Properties) knew about Manager Anderson’s and Manager Wagner's discriminatory conduct, but failed to take corrective action. In February 2009, Tenant Johnson met with Michael Terveen (another owner of TK Properties) to complain about Manager Anderson’s and Manager Wagner's discriminatory conduct. Michael Terveen relayed Tenant Johnson's complaints to Scott Terveen.

Despite these complaints, Defendants TK Properties and Scott Terveen failed to curtail Manager Wagner’s and Manager Anderson's authority over the management of the complex and allowed them to continue on as managers. Both managers continued to live at the property rent-free and continued to serve as managers of the property until at least May 2009.

On February 26, 2009, Charlotte Gadsden, Untoma Gadsden, Chevalier, and Johnson, on behalf of themselves and their minor children, filed three discrimination complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). Following an investigation, HUD determined that that reasonable cause existed to believe that the defendants had engaged in illegal discriminatory housing practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, HUD issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination against Defendants.

On September 15, 2009, Tenants Gadsden, Tenant Chevalier, and Tenant Johnson timely elected to have these charges resolved in a federal civil action. As a result, the DOJ filed this lawsuit, on October 16, 2009 ,which is pending in the United State District Court of South Dakota.

The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that defendants' actions violate the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, awarding monetary damages to all persons harmed by the defendants' discriminatory practices and assessing a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest. The complaint is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proven in federal court.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release and legal complaint (portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Man Convicted of Criminal Interference with the Right to Fair Housing (Hate Crime)

Here is another summary of a recent legal case involving a fair housing issue. This case is a little different than the typical fair housing case because it involves the criminal interference with the right to fair housing instead of the usual civil violation. Although this case doesn’t provide much guidance about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act for real estate professionals, I thought it was nevertheless interesting and worth posting.

On Tuesday (October 13, 2009), a Louisiana man plead guilty to firing three shots from a shotgun at the home of three Hispanic men and, after they fled, entering the home and setting a fire that burned it to the ground.

Johnny D. Mathis plead guilty to three criminal counts, including (1) criminal interference with the right to fair housing; (2) use of fire to commit a felony; and (3) use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each count carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, a $250,000 fine, or both. Furthermore, the ten year penalties for use of fire to commit a felony and use of a firearm during a crime of violence are mandatory, meaning that Mr. Mathis now faces a maximum sentence of 30 years and a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for January 13, 2010.

Testimony presented at the plea hearing established that on June 15, 2008, Mr. Mathis fired three shots from a shotgun at the home of three Hispanic men who shared the residence in a rural area of western Louisiana. Mr. Mathis’ home was across the street from the victims’ house. After hearing two shots, the victims fled their house. Once outside, the victims watched as Mr. Mathis fired a third shot into the trees and then entered the house, left briefly, and then returned. Minutes later, the house was engulfed in flames as Mr. Mathis exited the house. Subsequent investigation determined that the fire started in the kitchen where the victims had seen Mr. Mathis. Mr. Mathis admitted that his crime was motivated by the victims’ race and national origin and was intended to interfere with their right to live in their home.

Although this matter did not involve a real estate professional or a real estate transaction, it is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. Real estate agents who violate the Fair Housing Act face only civil (monetary) damages and not prison time. The case against Mr. Mathis was different for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release (portions of press release used with permission)

-----------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Types of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Prohibited by the Fair Housing Act

The goal of the Fair Housing Act is to ensure “no person shall be subjected to discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale, rental or advertising of dwellings, in the provision of brokerage services, or in the availability of residential real-estate related transactions.” With respect to people with disabilities, the Act serves to:

• Give people with disabilities opportunities to choose where they want to live;

• Assure that reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications are made so that a person with a disability can secure and use housing as fully as a person without a disability.

• Assure that persons with disabilities are able to live free from intimidation and harassment; and

• Require that multi-family housing built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, has certain accessible features (e.g., a usable kitchen for a person who uses a wheelchair).

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against applicants or residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them and from treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act also prohibits housing providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or, with some narrow exceptions, placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable modifications or reasonable accommodations.

With respect to reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications:

• The Act makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford . . . person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

• The Act makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to permit, at the expense of the [disabled] person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

*********************************************

To learn more about Fair Housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. 123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of continuing education courses to real estate professionals in Michigan. Our online Michigan real estate con ed courses are fully approved and properly certified by the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

When and How a Tenant Must Request a Reasonable Accommodation or Permission to Make a Reasonable Modification

Under the Fair Housing Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.

Similarly, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable modification request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the premises because of her disability. She should explain that she has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known to the housing provider, the type of modification she is requesting, and the relationship between the requested modification and her disability.

An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation or modification unless she requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make the reasonable accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation or modification request does not need to mention the Act or use the words “reasonable accommodation” or “reasonable modification.” However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability or that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.

Although a reasonable accommodation or modification request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation and modification requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider’s preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.

Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even though the tenant would not use the provider’s designated form.

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

******************************************

To learn more about Fair Housing issues (and many other treal estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. 123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of continuing education courses to real estate professionals in Michigan. Our online Michigan real estate con ed courses are fully approved and properly certified by the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Sexual Harassment under Fair Housing Laws

Every real estate professional should already know that the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of sex. What many real estate professionals do not realize, however, is that that includes sexual harassment.

Courts throughout the country have consistently recognized sexual harassment as a form of discrimination that violates the Fair Housing Act. In order to sustain a claim of sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act, an individual must show that the sexual conduct was unwelcome. Nonetheless, if an individual submitted to the sexual conduct, that conduct still may have been unwelcome and a claim may be tiled.

Courts recognize two types of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment (i.e., when a housing provider, or his/her employee, agent or contractor conditions access to or retention of housing or housing-related services or transactions on a victim's submission to sexual conduct); and (2) hostile environment sexual harassment (i.e., when a housing provider or his/her employee, agent or contractor, or in certain circumstances another tenant, engages in sexual behavior of such severity or pervasiveness that it alters the terms or conditions of tenancy and results in an environment that is intimidating, hostile, offensive, or otherwise significantly less desirable). Claims may be filed even if the alleged victim did not experience the loss of a housing opportunity or some tangible economic loss. Complaints alleging sexual harassment involve one or both types of harassment.

Sexually harassing conduct can be verbal (derogatory remarks, slurs, jokes, intimidation, and even threats of violence), physical (body gestures, whistling, ogling, unwelcome touching or physical violence), or visual (inappropriate sexually-oriented written materials or pictures). Sexual harassment also occurs when a resident’s housing is conditioned on agreeing to sexual favors. For example: A manager demands a date in exchange for a rent reduction. The legal term for this type of harassment is quid pro quo – “this for that.” Again, the treatment is considered harassment if it rises to the level of “severe or pervasive” conduct.

With respect to harassment in the rental context, a property manager has a duty not to engage in sexual harassment. Additionally, property managers have a duty to prevent or stop sexual harassment committed by employees, agents, or contractors and that they may be liable for acts committed by such persons. If a property manager knows or should have known that an employee, agent or contractor is sexually harassing applicants, tenants or residents, he/she has the duty to take action to stop the harassment. For example, if an apartment manager authorizes a maintenance worker to enter a tenant's home to make a repair, and the maintenance worker sexually harasses the tenant, the management company may be held vicariously liable for the maintenance worker's actions. A property manager may be held liable if any of his/her employees, agents, or contractors sexually harass an applicant, resident or tenant.

In recent years, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") has been looking more closely at sexual harassment in housing in its Fair Housing enforcement efforts. Women, particularly those who are poor, and with limited housing options, often have little recourse but to tolerate the humiliation and degradation of sexual harassment or risk having their families and themselves removed from their homes. The DOJ's enforcement program is aimed at landlords who create an untenable living environment by demanding sexual favors from tenants or by creating a sexually hostile environment for them. By this, the DOJ is seeking both to obtain relief (usually large monetary fines) for tenants who have been treated unfairly by a landlord because of sex and also deter other potential abusers by making it clear that they cannot continue their conduct without facing repercussions.

------------------------------------------------

To learn more about fair housing issues (along with a variety of other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Operation Home Sweet Home

Ever heard of the Fair Housing testing program, where someone visits rental communities to observe customer service? HUD and local fair housing agencies use such a testing process to assess a specific complaint or to check a random market for fair housing compliance. Any applicant could be a fair housing tester.

Fair housing testing is a tool used to measure the practices of housing providers relating to the Fair Housing Act. Some unlawful housing discrimination practices can only be discovered through fair housing testing. Information gathered through fair housing testing can be used as evidence to support a client’s administrative housing discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or a private lawsuit against a housing provider. The United States Supreme Court has recognized and affirmed the important of fair housing testing in fighting housing discrimination.

In order to enforce fair housing laws, the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), brings suit to enforce the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. The Fair Housing Act authorizes the DOJ to bring suits where investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.

In 1991, the DOJ established a fair housing testing program and commenced testing in 1992. Testing refers to the use of individuals who, without any bona fide intent to rent or purchase a home, apartment, or other dwelling, pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate for the purpose of gathering information, which may indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair housing laws. The primary focus of the fair housing testing program has been to identify unlawful housing discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, or familial status.

The DOJ employs various means to accomplish testing in local communities, including contracts with private fair housing organizations, contracts with individuals, and by using non-attorney DOJ employees throughout the country. The DOJ employees are volunteers who have been trained to participate as testers. Since 1992, the testing program has recruited and trained over 1,000 employees from various DOJ components throughout the nation to participate as testers. These are in addition to the numerous individuals retained by private fair housing organizations. The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section conducts numerous investigations simultaneously at any given time.

Testing is a method to determine whether or not a home seeker is treated differently in his or her search for housing. A person’s race or national origin, for example, would be impermissible factors upon which to base a denial of an opportunity to purchase a home. Testing for housing discrimination involves individual testers posing as prospective home buyers or renters. Testers are paired and assigned profiles so that they are equally qualified to rent or purchase an apartment or home in question. They are similar in all respects except for one of the protected classes, such as race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, age, or marital status. The experiences of testers are used to compare the treatment of one home seeker (protected class) to another (non-protected class). In this context, testing measures the difference in treatment afforded a home seeker as determined by the information and services provided by real estate firms, property management firms, rental agents/brokers and others.

If differences are found that relate to race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, age, or marital status, a housing discrimination is filed. The vast majority of testing cases filed to date are based on testing evidence that involved allegations of agents misrepresenting the availability of rental units or offering different terms and conditions based on race, and/or national origin, and/or familial status.

In February 2006, the DOJ launched Operation Home Sweet Home, which is a fair housing testing program that employs individuals who pose as renters for purposes of gathering information about possible discriminatory apartment rental practices. The initiative was inspired by the plight of displaced victims of Hurricane Katrina who were suddenly forced to find new places to live. Operation Home Sweet Home, however, is not limited to the areas hit by Hurricane Katrina, but targets housing discrimination all over the country.

So remember that any applicant could be a fair housing tester. And, contrary to what most real estate professionals think, it is not easy to spot a tester. You likely will never know that you were visited by testers unless, of course, a discrimination complaint is filed against you.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Filed Alleging Racial Discrimination at Apartment Complex

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

This afternoon (July 21, 2009), the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the owner and employees of Rolling Oaks Apartments, a 72-unit complex in Clanton, Alabama, for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis of race or color in the rental of apartments.

The lawsuit alleges that the employees told white testers that a selling point of Rolling Oaks Apartments was the lack of African American tenants and that they had adopted rental policies intended to discourage African American rental applicants. The lawsuit is based on evidence generated by the DOJ’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. The complaint also named the owner of the apartment complex.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions, civil penalties and a court order barring future discrimination. The lawsuit is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proven in court. I will try to follow this case and provide an update when the case is resolved.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Filed Against Mobile Home Park

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate professionals about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

On Friday, June 19, 2009, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the former owner and managers of Homestead Mobile Home Village, a mobile home park in Gulfport, Mississippi, for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against black tenants on the basis of race or color. The lawsuit also names as a defendant Indigo Investments LLC, the owner of Homestead Mobile Home Park at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The lawsuit alleges that Edward and Barbara Hamilton, the former managers of the mobile home park, unjustly sought to evict a black couple and their five minor children who had moved there after being displaced by Hurricane Katrina. According to the lawsuit, the Hamiltons attempted to evict the family and other black residents for allegedly violating the rules of the park, but did not attempt to evict white residents for as many or more violations. The lawsuit also alleges the Hamiltons harassed and intimidated black tenants and that the defendants’ conduct constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination or a denial of rights to a group of persons.

The lawsuit arose from a complaint filed with HUD by two black residents of Homestead Mobile Home Village. The complainants also sought assistance from the Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center, a private, non-profit fair housing organization which provided additional information to HUD. After investigating the complaint, HUD issued a charge of discrimination and after one of the respondents named in HUD’s charge elected to have the case heard in federal court, the case was referred to the DOJ.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions, civil penalties and a court order barring future discrimination. The lawsuit is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proven in federal court.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

I will try to follow this case and provide an update when the case is resolved.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are a leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

A Few Examples of Illegal Housing Practices Against Persons with Disabilities Under the Fair Housing Act

Here is a little reminder for everyone about their obligations under the Fair Housing act with respect to people with disabilities. The following are a few examples of illegal housing practices against persons with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act:

• Refusing to rent or sell or otherwise making unavailable to an individual with a disability a dwelling unit, because of the buyer’s or renter’s disability;

• Imposing different terms and conditions on the sale or rental of a dwelling unit due to the buyer’s or renter’s disability;

• Coercing, intimidating or threatening a person for exercising his or her rights under the Fair Housing Act;

• Informing an individual with a disability that a dwelling was not available for inspection, when in fact the dwelling was available;

• Discriminating against any person who associates with a person with a disability in the sale or rental of a covered dwelling unit;

• Blockbusting – that is paying someone to rent or sell a dwelling unit to another person, so as to prevent an individual with a disability from moving into a neighborhood;

• Refusing to make reasonable accommodations of rules, policies, practices or services that are needed to accommodate an individual with a disability;

• Refusing to allow a tenant with a disability to undertake reasonable structural modifications to an existing building which may be necessary to accommodate that person’s disability;

• Engaging in any real estate-related transaction that promotes discrimination against an individual with a disability;

• Denying a person with a disability access to a multiple listing service, real estate broker’s organization or other related service based upon his or her disability;

• Asking a prospective tenant/home-buyer about his or her disability;

• Requiring tenants or others living in housing to be able to “live independently”;

• Requiring a person with a disability to pay a higher security deposit than that requested from a tenant without a disability;

• Publishing an advertisement, notice or statement which limits or excludes individuals with disabilities from renting or purchasing a dwelling;

• Denying housing due to a present or past history of a mental illness;

• Asking a prospective tenant about illegal drug use or illegal drug convictions unless those questions are asked of all prospective tenants.

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

******************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Types of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Prohibited by the Fair Housing Act

The goal of the Fair Housing Act is to ensure “no person shall be subjected to discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale, rental or advertising of dwellings, in the provision of brokerage services, or in the availability of residential real-estate related transactions.” With respect to people with disabilities, the Act serves to:

• Give people with disabilities opportunities to choose where they want to live;

• Assure that reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications are made so that a person with a disability can secure and use housing as fully as a person without a disability.

• Assure that persons with disabilities are able to live free from intimidation and harassment; and

• Require that multi-family housing built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, has certain accessible features (e.g., a usable kitchen for a person who uses a wheelchair).

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against applicants or residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them and from treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act also prohibits housing providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or, with some narrow exceptions, placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable modifications or reasonable accommodations.

With respect to reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications:

• The Act makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford . . . person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

• The Act makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to permit, at the expense of the [disabled] person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

*********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Rules About When/How a Tenant Must Request a Reasonable Accommodation or Permission to Make a Reasonable Modification

Under the Fair Housing Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable accommodation request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of her disability. She should explain what type of accommodation she is requesting and, if the need for the accommodation is not readily apparent or not known to the provider, explain the relationship between the requested accommodation and her disability.

Similarly, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable modification request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting permission to make a structural change to the premises because of her disability. She should explain that she has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known to the housing provider, the type of modification she is requesting, and the relationship between the requested modification and her disability.

An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable accommodation or modification unless she requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make the reasonable accommodation request; the request can be made by a family member or someone else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable accommodation or modification request does not need to mention the Act or use the words “reasonable accommodation” or “reasonable modification.” However, the requester must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for an exception, change, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability or that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for permission to make a structural change because of a disability.

Although a reasonable accommodation or modification request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers must give appropriate consideration to reasonable accommodation and modification requests even if the requester makes the request orally or does not use the provider’s preferred forms or procedures for making such requests.

Example: A tenant in a large apartment building makes an oral request that she be assigned a mailbox in a location that she can easily access because of a physical disability that limits her ability to reach and bend. The provider would prefer that the tenant make the accommodation request on a pre-printed form, but the tenant fails to complete the form. The provider must consider the reasonable accommodation request even though the tenant would not use the provider’s designated form.

It is important for all real estate professionals to remember that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.

******************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other topics affecting real estate professionals), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. 123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of continuing education courses to real estate professionals in Michigan. Our online real estate con ed courses are fully approved and properly certified by the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth. All of our courses are designed to offer our students the most information, as quickly and economically as possible.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

When does a housing provider know that a reasonable accommodation is needed?

The duty to accommodate arises only when the housing provider has knowledge that a disability exists and that an accommodation may be required for the disabled person to use and enjoy the housing. Here are key points:

• The applicant or resident must make a request for an accommodation.

• The request does not need to mention fair housing or use the words “reasonable accommodation.”

• The request should describe the accommodation and explain the disability-related need for the requested action. For example: A resident who becomes disabled may request a transfer to a ground floor apartment because climbing the stairs has become difficult.

• The request does not need to be in writing. Although management may use a specific form, an accommodation cannot be refused just because the person requesting it did not use the form. It is important for management to document these requests.

• Reasonable accommodations can be requested whenever they are needed. A person may make requests when applying for housing, when entering into a rental agreement, during tenancy, and even during an eviction process.

• An individual with a disability may make multiple requests for accommodations, as the need arises.

The housing provider must evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis, in a timely and professional manner, and should document interactions with the resident. A housing provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to reasonable accommodation requests. An undue delay in responding to a request may be considered to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. If in doubt about whether accommodation policies and rules comply with fair housing laws, ask a fair housing agency to review them and suggest rephrasing if necessary.

A housing provider is not obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation to a resident or applicant if an accommodation has not been requested. A provider has notice that a reasonable accommodation request has been made if a person, her family member, or someone acting on her behalf requests a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice, or service because of a disability, even if the words “reasonable accommodation” are not used as part of the request.

*********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other topics affecting real estate professionals), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. 123 ConEd LLC (www.123ConEd.com) is a leading online provider of continuing education courses to real estate professionals in Michigan. Our online Michigan real estate con ed courses are fully approved and properly certified by the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth. All of our courses are designed to offer our students the most information, as quickly and economically as possible.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Settled for $130,000 + Retrofitting Costs

Here is another example of a recent settlement of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate agents and brokers about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

Yesterday afternoon (Wednesday, May 20, 2009), the DOJ settled a Fair Housing Act lawsuit that was brought against the developers, architects, and professional engineers responsible for building four multifamily housing complexes in Spokane, Washington. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants designed and built the complexes in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to make the complexes accessible to wheelchair users and other persons with physical disabilities.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants each designed portions of one or more of the complexes without including required accessibility features in the designs. Since 1989, federal law has required that new multifamily housing contain certain features to make it accessible to and usable by wheelchair users and other persons with physical disabilities.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will pay all costs related to making the apartment complexes accessible to persons with disabilities and will pay $120,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The developer will pay a $10,000 civil penalty to vindicate the public interest and most of the defendants will undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

The retrofitting includes modifying walkways to eliminate excess slopes and level changes, providing accessible curb ramps, and parking and routes to site amenities, such as clubhouses, pools, mailboxes and trash facilities. The settlement also provides for the replacement of inaccessible knob door hardware with levers, the widening of inaccessible doorways, and the reconfiguration of bathrooms and kitchens to accommodate persons who use wheelchairs.

As all real estate professionals should already know, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. Among other things, the Act requires that new multifamily housing development be designed and constructed with basic accessibility features, including accessible common and public use areas, accessible routes to and through apartments, doors wide enough for wheelchair users, kitchens and bathrooms with sufficient maneuvering space for wheelchair users, outlets and environmental controls in accessible locations and bathrooms with reinforcements for grab bars.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Filed Against Town

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate agents and brokers about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

Yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, May 19, 2009), the DOJ filed a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the town of Garner, North Carolina, and the town’s board of adjustment alleging that they violated the Fair Housing Act when they refused to allow up to eight men recovering from drug and alcohol addictions to live together as a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants had engaged in a denial of rights to a group of persons or a pattern or practice of discrimination by failing or refusing to recognize their obligation to make reasonable accommodations. The home is chartered by Oxford House Inc., a non-profit organization that assists in the development of self-governing houses in which persons in recovery support one another’s determination to remain sober. The town of Garner permits up to six persons to live in the home, but has refused to consider requests by Oxford House to increase the number to eight.

The Fair Housing Act requires jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations in their rules when necessary to provide persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to housing. As a result, the DOJ believes that the town should have granted the request to allow eight people as a reasonable accommodation.

This case arose as a result of a complaint filed with HUD by Oxford House. HUD conducted an investigation and referred the matter to the DOJ.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for the victims, a civil penalty and a court order requiring Garner to grant the requested accommodation and establish a procedure for considering future accommodation requests. The complaint is an allegation of unlawful conduct. The allegations must still be proven in federal court.

I will try to follow this case and provide an update when the case is resolved.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Act Lawsuit Filed Alleging Disability-Based Housing Discrimination

Here is another example of a recent Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate agents and brokers about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

On May 7, 2009, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Equity Homes Inc, PBR LLC, BBR LLC and Shane Hartung in federal court alleging that the defendants failed to provide accessible features required by the Fair Housing Act at six separate multi-family housing developments in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The lawsuit, which originated from a complaint filed with HUD, concerns six Sioux Falls complexes. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. Among other things, the Act requires that new multifamily housing developments be designed and constructed with basic accessibility features, including accessible common and public use areas, accessible routes to and through apartments, doors wide enough for wheelchair users, kitchens and bathrooms with sufficient maneuvering space for wheelchair users, outlets and environmental controls in accessible locations, and bathrooms with reinforcements for grab bars. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to include certain of these required accessibility features at each of the six complexes.

When builders and designers construct homes without regard for accessible features, they are effectively shutting the door to persons with disabilities. Designing and constructing multi-family housing without basic features of accessibility violates the law and subjects the builders and designers to liability under the Act.

The lawsuit 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, as well as monetary damages to compensate victims. The lawsuit filed by the DOJ is an allegation of unlawful conduct, and the allegations must still be proven in court.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Settled for $200,000

Here is another example of a recent settlement of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate agents and brokers about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue

On April 30, 2009, the DOJ settled a Fair Housing Act lawsuit that was brought against the owners, a manager and a former manager of Cottage Manor Apartments (located in Lakewood, New Jersey) because they discriminated against tenants on the basis of religion, national origin and race.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants transferred or attempted to transfer Hispanic and African American tenants from their apartments located in its most desirable building to make room for Orthodox Jews whom they courted as new tenants from 2002 to 2004. The defendants then assigned the non-Jewish tenants to less desirable apartments in the rear of the property, which had fewer amenities and were less well maintained than the most desirable building at the front of the property. The defendants charged the incoming Jewish tenants less rent than they did to non-Jewish tenants for apartments of similar size. Segregating tenants and providing discounted rents based upon religion, national origin or race is degrading and discriminatory.

The lawsuit originated from charges filed by HUD on behalf of current and former tenants of Cottage Manor Apartments. The lawsuit alleged that the apartment owners of Cottage Manor Apartments, Triple H. Realty LLC, its principal manager Harry Kantor and former managing agent Vincent Ortiz, violated the Fair Housing Act when they discriminated against Hispanic and African American tenants.

HUD’s investigation found that non-Jewish, African-American and Hispanic tenants received little to no apartment maintenance as compared to the maintenance provided to Jewish tenants. For example, Cottage Manor Apartments management refused to properly exterminate a non-Jewish family’s apartment, as well as failed to perform adequate maintenance repairs in the family’s bedroom and bathroom.

HUD’s on-site investigation confirmed that the maintenance of the one building occupied by non-Jewish tenants was substantially different. The building housing many of the Jewish families had a well-manicured lawn in the front courtyard that was enclosed by a white picket fence. Conversely, the buildings with the majority of African-American and Hispanic tenants were not well maintained, had little or no lawn in the courtyards, and the courtyards were not enclosed.

Cottage Manor management also instituted different lawn policies for tenants that were not Jewish. African-American and Hispanic tenants were told that they could not leave any toys or personal items on the lawns, but Jewish tenants were allowed to leave personal items on the lawns.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants were required to pay a total of $170,000 to identified victims of discrimination and an additional $30,000 to the government as a civil penalty.

Fair housing laws require equal access to housing, including equal access for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Copyright © 123 ConEd LLC 2009. All rights reserved.

Fair Housing Lawsuit Settled Last Week for $280,000 + Retrofitting Costs

Here is another example of a recent settlement of a Fair Housing Act lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). I try to post case summaries in order to provide timely updates to real estate agents and brokers about the "dos and don'ts" under the Fair Housing Act, since fair housing is such an important issue.

On April 14, 2009, the DOJ settled a Fair Housing Act lawsuit that was brought against twenty-five defendants (individuals involved in the design and construction of various multi-family housing complexes) for failing to provide required accessible features for persons with disabilities at eleven multi-family housing developments in Kentucky. The lawsuit alleged that the individuals involved in the design and construction of twelve multifamily housing complexes discriminated on the basis of disability.

According to the lawsuit, the public and common use areas of those housing developments had steps leading to covered dwelling units, lacked walkway connections to covered dwelling units, lacked accessible parking, and had routes leading to covered dwelling units that were too steeply sloped to be accessible to persons who use mobility assistance devices. Inside the dwelling units, doors and hallways were insufficiently wide, thermostats were mounted too high, and bathrooms and kitchens lacked sufficient clear floor space for people who use wheelchairs.

The lawsuit arose as a result of a complaint to the DOJ by the Fair Housing Council, then a local Louisville, Kentucky non-profit organization that received funding from HUD.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants were required to pay all costs related to making the apartment complexes accessible to persons with disabilities and pay $255,000 to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. The defendants were also filed $25,000 as a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest and undergo training on the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

The retrofitting of the apartment complexes includes modifying walkways, removing steps, providing accessible curb ramps and parking, and providing accessible walks to site amenities, such as the clubhouses, pools, mailboxes and trash facilities. It also requires the defendants to replace inaccessible knob door hardware with levers, lower thermostats to accessible heights, and reconfigure bathrooms and kitchens.

Fair housing laws require equal access to housing, including equal access for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other real estate topics), please visit us at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of Michigan real estate continuing education. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan, and are offered online.

Discrimination in Housing Based Upon Sex, Including Sexual Harassment

Every real estate agent and broker should already know that the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of sex (among other things). What many real estate professionals do not realize, though, is that the Fair Housing Act's prohibition extends to sexual harassment.

In recent years, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") has been looking closely at sexual harassment in housing in its Fair Housing enforcement efforts. Women, particularly those who are poor, and with limited housing options, often have little recourse but to tolerate the humiliation and degradation of sexual harassment or risk having their families and themselves removed from their homes. The DOJ's enforcement program is aimed at landlords who create an untenable living environment by demanding sexual favors from tenants or by creating a sexually hostile environment for them. By this, the DOJ is seeking both to obtain relief (usually large monetary fines) for tenants who have been treated unfairly by a landlord because of sex and also deter other potential abusers by making it clear that they cannot continue their conduct without facing repercussions.

In addition, pricing discrimination in mortgage lending may also adversely affect women, particularly minority women. This type of discrimination is unlawful under both the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

********************************************

To learn more about fair housing issues (and many other topics affecting real estate professionals), please stop by our website at www.123ConEd.com. We are the leading online provider of continuing education courses to Michigan real estate agents and brokers. All of our courses are fully approved and properly certified by the State of Michigan.