The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay the complainant $25,000, undergo fair housing training, draft a new non-discrimination policy which complies with the Fair Housing Act, and provide annual reports to the Department. On March 3, 2020, the district court entered judgment for the United States and against the defendant on liability in United States v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill.) (consolidated with Valencia v. City of Springfield (C.D. Ill.)). The complaint, which was filed on November 28, 2017, alleged the City discriminated on the basis of disability. The court held that the City of Springfield, Illinois engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, in violation of the Fair Housing Act , by imposing a 600-foot spacing rule on group homes of five or fewer persons with disabilities, but not on comparable homes of non-disabled persons. The court ordered Springfield to submit a remedial plan to cure these violations within 90 days. The court also denied Springfield’s summary judgment motion against the United States, finding that a reasonable jury could award damages to the group home residents and their families and that there was evidence to support an award of civil penalties.
The complaint, which was filed on December 15, 2016, alleged that the City violated RLUIPA when it denied the American Islamic Community Center’s special land use application to build a mosque in the City. The complaint also alleged that the denial imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the community intending to build a mosque without a compelling governmental justification pursued through the least restrictive means and discriminated against the community based on religion or religious denomination. The consent order requires the city to permit the AICC to construct a mosque in the city. The city has also agreed to publicize its non-discrimination policies and practices, undergo training on the requirements of RLUIPA, and report periodically to the Justice Department. On September 18, 2017, the United States filed a complaint and executed a settlement agreement in United States v. CitiFinancial Credit Co. (N.D. Tex.). The complaint alleged that Citi repossessed 164 automobiles between 2007 and 2010 from protected servicemembers without first obtaining court orders, in violation of Section 3952 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act .
Another woman testified that she had sex with Johnson at least 20 times because he threatened that the owner would evict her if she did not. The United States also presented evidence that Washtenaw County Commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who owned the properties, knew that Johnson was sexually harassing tenants but did nothing to stop it. Compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $115,000 will be divided among the six female tenants whom the jury found were victims of the harassment.
Note: Criminal Cases Are Listed By Defendant Name
The settlement agreement requires Citi to pay $907,000 in compensation to the servicemembers whose cars were illegally repossessed and to remove the repossessions from the servicemembers’ credit reports. The lawsuit is based on the results of testing conducted by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as prospective car buyers to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. Housing Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual harassment against tenants and housing applicants since at least 2005. Centanni’s alleged conduct includes, among other things, demanding sexual favors like oral sex to get or keep housing, offering housing benefits like reduced rent in exchange for sexual favors, touching tenants and applicants in a way that was sexual and unwelcome, making unwelcome sexual comments and advances to tenants and applicants, and initiating or threatening to initiate eviction actions against tenants who objected to or refused his sexual advances.
The complaint, which was filed on December 19, 2012, alleged Clarendon Hill Towers violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to a couple because they had three minor children. The consent decree requires standard injnctive relief, non-discriminatory occupany standards, record-keeping, reporting and training. The consent decree also required the defendants to pay $13,000 to the HUD complainants. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. On August 27, 2020, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Miller-Valentine Operations, Inc. (S.D. Ohio). The complaint, filed on May 9, 2019, alleged that Ohio-based Miller-Valentine Operations and affiliated owners, developers, and builders failed to design and construct 82 multifamily housing developments in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
The principal violations at the properties include, among other things, a lack of accessible routes to many covered units and public and common use areas due to steps, non-existent pedestrian routes, and steep running and cross slopes; a lack of accessible routes into and through the dwelling units due to high thresholds and narrow doors; and adaptive design violations in the bathrooms and kitchens. The consent order requires an injunction, fair housing training, record keeping obligations, reporting to the United States for a period of three years, a settlement fund of $400,000 to compensate victims, a civil penalty of $75,000, and retrofits to alleged non-compliant barriers on the accessible routes, in the public and common use areas, and in the covered effects of alcohol dwelling units at the 82 properties. On December 12, 2017, the United States executed a settlement agreement resolving United States v. MSM Brothers, Inc. d/b/a White Cliffs at Dover (D. N.H.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, which was filed on July 20, 2017, alleged that the complainant, a mother of an infant child, visited the White Cliffs at Dover apartments to inquire about two-bedroom apartments, but was told that White Cliffs had a policy of placing families with children under the age of 10 in first floor units only, and that no first floor units were currently available, nor was there room on the waiting list for first floor units. This policy was corroborated by the New Hampshire Legal Assistance Fair Housing Project.
The complaint further alleges that Besaw, who was employed by Prashad to assist with the management and maintenance of his rental properties, also sexually harassed and assaulted female tenants. Besaw’s alleged conduct includes subjecting female tenants to unwelcome sexual contact including groping, sexual assault, and forced touching of their bodies; exposing himself to female tenants; making unwelcome sexual comments and sexual advances toward female tenants; and making intrusive, unannounced visits to female tenants’ units to conduct and further his sexual advances. On August 12, 2016, the court entered a consent order with Encore Management Co. and Perkins Parke Limited Partnership, which required payment of $110,000 to seven adult and four minor victims and a $10,000 civil penalty. The case came to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received complaints, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development received a complaint, conducted an investigation and issued a charge of discrimination.
On September 11, 2020, the Court granted the United States’ motion to amend and denied the County’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants on the basis of sex , and that the owner, manager, district manager, and site manager retaliated against tenants who complained about the sexual harassment. A separate settlement resolving a similar lawsuit brought by the AICC against the city has also been submitted to the court for approval. The case was handled by the Department’s Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Michigan. On September 19, 2019, the United States file a complaint in United States v. the City of Troy, Michigan (E.D. Mich.), alleging that the City of Troy violated the substantial burden and equal terms provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act .
Finding Stable Housing After Recovery
The brand names, logos, images and texts are the property of these third parties and their respective owners. If you have any questions or suggestions regarding this matter, you are welcome to contact our customer support team.
On March 3, 2011, Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr., issued an order requiring defendant Johnson to pay a $55,000 civil penalty, the maximum civil penalty for a first violation of the Fair Housing Act, and orders defendant Peterson to pay a $27,500 penalty. The order also permanently bars Johnson from having any further involvement in the management, rental or maintenance Alcohol detoxification of housing. The order requires Peterson to adopt and implement a comprehensive sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure at his properties. The complaint was filed on January 29, 2009, and was handled jointly by the Division and the U.S. This case was referred to the Department of Justice by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan.
On September 28, 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office executed a settlement agreement in United States v. VP2, LLC (D. Minn.), a Fair Housing Act election case. The complaint, filed on March 6, 2017, alleged the defendants denied a reasonable accommodation request to allow the HUD complainants to keep an assistance animal at an extended-stay hotel. The agreement requires the defendants to pay $11,000 to the HUD complainants and participate in fair housing training, as well as additional relief. On September 29, 2020, the United States filed an election complaint in United States v. Las Vegas Jaycees Senior Citizens Mobile Home Community (D. Nev.). The complaint alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Complainants on the basis of disability by failing to grant a reasonable accommodation to its breed restriction policy to allow a daughter with PTSD to visit her mother at the mobile home community with her assistance animal and that the Defendants interfered with their fair housing rights by banning the daughter and evicting the mother from the community. On May 24, 2017, the court entered a final partial consent decree in United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on January 18, 2017, against the designers and developers of The Verdesian, an apartment building in New York City, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by failing to design and construct The Verdesian so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
Civil Rights Division
which was filed on November 10, 2016, alleged that the Housing Authority violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to grant the HUD complainant’s request for a reasonable accommodation to be transferred to a different unit because of her disability. The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay the complainant $10,000 and to comply with the Fair Housing Act. Prior to entering into the settlement eco sober house cost agreement, the defendant had granted the complainant’s request for a unit transfer. , which was filed on August 28, 2015, alleges that the owners and manager of an eight-unit apartment complex in Sioux Falls, South Dakota violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by refusing to allow a tenant to return from a nursing facility to his unit if he was using a wheelchair because it could damage the carpet.
This is the first fair lending case brought by the Department of Justice alleging discrimination in connection with credit cards. The settlement provides for $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, as well as injunctive relief. On September 11, 2020, the United States filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia in All Muslim Association of America, Inc. v. Stafford County, et al. (E.D. Va.). On August 18, 2020, Stafford County revised its cemetery ordinance to impose 656-foot distance requirements between cemeteries and private wells along with an expensive, lengthy, and unnecessary permitting process, thereby prohibiting the All Muslim Association of America from developing a religious cemetery on the vast majority of the land it bought for such purpose. On September 8, 2020, the Division sought leave to file an Amended Complaint, which alleges that this revised ordinance continues to impose a substantial burden on the AMAA’s exercise of religion, in violation of RLUIPA.
This fianl consent decree resolves allegations against the architect of the Verdesian, SLCE Architects, LLP. It provides for standard injunctive relief, a payment of $15,000 to compensate aggrieved persons, and a $30,000 civil penalty. A prior partial consent decree, entered on February 13, 2017, resolved allegations against the developers of the property and provided for standard injunctive relief, compliance surveys for two additional properties developed by the defendants, retrofits of non-compliant features, payments of $175,000-$500,000 to aggrieved persons, and a $45,000 civil penalty. The case was litigated by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Sober living houses On September 26, 2019, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Louis A. Rupp (E.D. Mo.), alleging that the manager and owners of an apartment complex in St. Louis, MO, discriminated on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants terminated the tenancy of the HUD complainants because of the birth of their second child. At the time, the HUD complainants and one minor child had been renting their apartment unit from defendants for over a year. The complaint also alleges that the defendants’ Application Form, Lease Agreement, and correspondence with the HUD complainants state an explicit “No children” policy.
The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay the complainant $20,000 and to comply with the Fair Housing Act. On October 15, 2020, the court entered a consent order resolving United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.).The complaint, filed on September 10, 2020, alleged that ASAP engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by auctioning, selling or otherwise disposing of 33 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order requires ASAP to pay $99,500 to the servicemembers and $20,000 as a civil penalty. The consent order has a term of five years and requires ASAP to use Vehicle Identification Numbers to search publicly available databases to check for military status before auctioning off vehicles. On September 9, 2019, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Prashad (D. Mass.), alleging a pattern or practice of sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that Prashad sexually harassed female tenants of rental properties he owned, either individually or through LLCs.