The Fair Housing Act: Department of Justice Enforcement May 2014-April 2015 U.S. Attorney’s...

The Fair Housing Act: The Fair Housing Act: Department of Justice Department of Justice Enforcement May 2014-April Enforcement May 2014-April 20152015

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the

District of IdahoDistrict of Idaho

April 2015April 2015

Fair Housing Act (FHA)Fair Housing Act (FHA)Prohibits discrimination on the basis of:Prohibits discrimination on the basis of:

Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Disability Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Disability (1988), Family Status (1988)(1988), Family Status (1988)

Who is NOT protected?Who is NOT protected?

• AgeAge

• Marital StatusMarital Status

• Sexual OrientationSexual Orientation

• Source of Income (But see ECOA)Source of Income (But see ECOA)

State or local law may prevent State or local law may prevent discrimination on these discrimination on these

groundsgrounds

Fair Housing Protection for the Fair Housing Protection for the LGBT communityLGBT community

• March 2012 HUD RuleMarch 2012 HUD Rule– Bars those who own or operate HUD-funded housing from Bars those who own or operate HUD-funded housing from

asking about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender asking about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identityidentity

• State ProtectionState Protection– More than 20 states now prohibit housing discrimination More than 20 states now prohibit housing discrimination

based on sexual orientation and/or gender identitybased on sexual orientation and/or gender identity» Idaho is not among themIdaho is not among them

• City OrdinancesCity Ordinances-- Several Idaho cities have passed ordinances prohibiting Several Idaho cities have passed ordinances prohibiting

housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identitygender identity

FHA Provides Broad Protection FHA Provides Broad Protection • FHA covers “dwellings”FHA covers “dwellings”

– Any building, structure, or portion of a Any building, structure, or portion of a building that is occupied or intended to be building that is occupied or intended to be occupiedoccupied

– Examples include:Examples include:» Condominiums, houses, townhouses, duplexes, Condominiums, houses, townhouses, duplexes,

apartments (4 or more units), homeless shelters, apartments (4 or more units), homeless shelters, student housing, vacation time shares, shelters student housing, vacation time shares, shelters for domestic violence victims, group homes for for domestic violence victims, group homes for recovering addicts (but not hotels or places of recovering addicts (but not hotels or places of temporary sojourn)temporary sojourn)

FHA Provides Broad ProtectionFHA Provides Broad Protection

• FHA Covers Wide Variety of Activity FHA Covers Wide Variety of Activity Associated with obtaining, maintaining, Associated with obtaining, maintaining, using “dwelling”using “dwelling”– Renting, owning, lending, completing Renting, owning, lending, completing

application, accessibility, entertaining application, accessibility, entertaining guests, placing children for adoption, guests, placing children for adoption, purchasing, terms and conditions of usepurchasing, terms and conditions of use

– DOJ has both civil and criminal DOJ has both civil and criminal enforcement jurisdictionenforcement jurisdiction

Examples of Criminal ViolationsExamples of Criminal Violations

Cross BurningsCross Burnings ArsonsArsons AssaultsAssaults Threats Threats

HomeownersHomeowners Prospective Prospective

purchaserspurchasers RealtorsRealtors VisitorsVisitors

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)(SCRA)

Provides protections for military members as theyProvides protections for military members as theyenter active duty, covering such issues as:enter active duty, covering such issues as:

• Rental agreements, pre-paid rent, security depositsRental agreements, pre-paid rent, security deposits• EvictionEviction• Installment contractsInstallment contracts• Credit card and mortgage interest ratesCredit card and mortgage interest rates• Mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedingsMortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings• Automobile leasesAutomobile leases• Life and health insuranceLife and health insurance• Income tax paymentsIncome tax payments

HOW DOJ Gets Involved in HOW DOJ Gets Involved in Enforcing Fair Housing ActEnforcing Fair Housing Act

• Files “election” cases from HUD; acts on behalf of Files “election” cases from HUD; acts on behalf of complainant (who may intervene in suit)complainant (who may intervene in suit)

• Investigates other HUD referrals for possible Investigates other HUD referrals for possible enforcement actionenforcement action

• Independent authority to initiate lawsuits alleging Independent authority to initiate lawsuits alleging “pattern or practice” of discrimination or denial of “pattern or practice” of discrimination or denial of rights to group of persons that raises issue of rights to group of persons that raises issue of “general public importance”“general public importance”

DOJ Enforcement Activities: DOJ Enforcement Activities: RemediesRemedies

• Injunctive Relief (prevention and correction)Injunctive Relief (prevention and correction)

• Monetary Damages for Aggrieved Persons Monetary Damages for Aggrieved Persons -- includes emotional distress-- includes emotional distress

• Civil PenaltiesCivil Penalties

DOJ Housing Enforcement Since DOJ Housing Enforcement Since April 2014April 2014

• Civil actions/settlementsCivil actions/settlements– Based on disability Based on disability – Based on raceBased on race– Based on familial statusBased on familial status– Based on genderBased on gender– Based on affordable housing moratoriumBased on affordable housing moratorium– Based on SCRABased on SCRA

• Criminal prosecutionsCriminal prosecutions» Typically involve arson or cross-burningsTypically involve arson or cross-burnings

DOJ Housing Discrimination CasesDOJ Housing Discrimination Cases• Disability/accessibility and designDisability/accessibility and design

– U.S. v. Nistler, et al., (D. Mont., October 2014)U.S. v. Nistler, et al., (D. Mont., October 2014)» Montana builder and engineer agreed to pay more than $26,000 and Montana builder and engineer agreed to pay more than $26,000 and

remove accessibility barriers at three apartment buildings in Helenaremove accessibility barriers at three apartment buildings in Helena» Barriers at ground floor units and associated public and common use Barriers at ground floor units and associated public and common use

areas, including inaccessible building entrances, no accessible parking, areas, including inaccessible building entrances, no accessible parking, inaccessible routes into and through units, light switches, electrical inaccessible routes into and through units, light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats in inaccessible locationsoutlets, thermostats in inaccessible locations

» $17,500 to Montana Fair Housing Council and $8,500 in civil penalties $17,500 to Montana Fair Housing Council and $8,500 in civil penalties to the U.S.to the U.S.

» Filed in Sept. 2013Filed in Sept. 2013

DOJ Housing Discrimination CasesDOJ Housing Discrimination Cases

Disability/accessibility and designDisability/accessibility and design–U.S. v. Barber, et al., (W.D. Wa., Nov. 4, 2014)U.S. v. Barber, et al., (W.D. Wa., Nov. 4, 2014)

» Owners and managers of rental homes in and near Kelso and Owners and managers of rental homes in and near Kelso and Longview, WA, agreed to pay $25,000 to resolve claims they Longview, WA, agreed to pay $25,000 to resolve claims they discriminated on the basis of disabilitydiscriminated on the basis of disability

$20,000 to HUD complainant$20,000 to HUD complainant $5,000 to the United States$5,000 to the United States

» Alleged pattern and practice of discrimination by allowing waiver of Alleged pattern and practice of discrimination by allowing waiver of $1,000 pet deposit for service animals with specialized training but not $1,000 pet deposit for service animals with specialized training but not for other assistance animals; also alleges refused tenant’s request for a for other assistance animals; also alleges refused tenant’s request for a reasonable accommodation to waive $1,000 pet deposit for assistance reasonable accommodation to waive $1,000 pet deposit for assistance animalanimal

» Under settlement agreement, defendants must also adopt a Under settlement agreement, defendants must also adopt a reasonable accommodation policy that complies with FHA, receive reasonable accommodation policy that complies with FHA, receive training on FHA requirements and, for 18 months, report on training on FHA requirements and, for 18 months, report on compliance compliance

» Lawsuit filed in July 2013Lawsuit filed in July 2013


– U.S. v. Dawn Properties, Inc., et al.U.S. v. Dawn Properties, Inc., et al., (, (May 2014, S.D. Miss.)May 2014, S.D. Miss.)» Lawsuit filed against Mississippi developer and affiliated companies Lawsuit filed against Mississippi developer and affiliated companies

alleging FHA and ADA violations in design and construction of five or more alleging FHA and ADA violations in design and construction of five or more residential propertiesresidential properties

» Barriers include steps to building entrances, non-existent or excessively Barriers include steps to building entrances, non-existent or excessively sloped pedestrian routes from apartment units to amenities such as sloped pedestrian routes from apartment units to amenities such as playgrounds, insufficient maneuvering space for wheelchairs, inaccessible playgrounds, insufficient maneuvering space for wheelchairs, inaccessible parkingparking

– U.S. v. City of San Jacinto, (June 2014, C.D. CA)U.S. v. City of San Jacinto, (June 2014, C.D. CA)» DOJ settled with city, which agreed to change its laws to comply with FHA DOJ settled with city, which agreed to change its laws to comply with FHA

and ADA, and agreed to pay $746,599 in compensatory damages to and ADA, and agreed to pay $746,599 in compensatory damages to housing providers and former residents with disabilitieshousing providers and former residents with disabilities

» Includes $10,000 in civil penalties to U.S.Includes $10,000 in civil penalties to U.S.» Complaint alleged city violated FHA and ADA through ordinance intended Complaint alleged city violated FHA and ADA through ordinance intended

to exclude unlicensed and licensed homes for persons with disabilities to exclude unlicensed and licensed homes for persons with disabilities from the city and through targeting homes for persons with disabilities for from the city and through targeting homes for persons with disabilities for enforcement of the ordinance and other local lawsenforcement of the ordinance and other local laws


– U.S. v. Pauley, et al., (Sept. 2014, S.D. W.Va.)U.S. v. Pauley, et al., (Sept. 2014, S.D. W.Va.)» Developer and affiliated entities agreed to pay $110,000 and make $1.7 Developer and affiliated entities agreed to pay $110,000 and make $1.7

million in retrofits required to remove accessibility barriers at 30 million in retrofits required to remove accessibility barriers at 30 apartment complexes involving more than 750 unitsapartment complexes involving more than 750 units

» Retrofits include replacing excessively sloped portions of sidewalks, Retrofits include replacing excessively sloped portions of sidewalks, installing properly sloped curb ramps, replacing cabinets in bathrooms installing properly sloped curb ramps, replacing cabinets in bathrooms and kitchens to provide sufficient room for wheelchair usersand kitchens to provide sufficient room for wheelchair users

» $100,000 fund for compensating individuals with disabilities who were $100,000 fund for compensating individuals with disabilities who were affected; $10,000 in civil penalty to U.S.affected; $10,000 in civil penalty to U.S.

– U.S. v. Biafora, (Sept. 2014, N.D. W.Va.)U.S. v. Biafora, (Sept. 2014, N.D. W.Va.)» Lawsuit against developer and affiliated company for FHA and ADA Lawsuit against developer and affiliated company for FHA and ADA

violations in design and construction of 23 residential propertiesviolations in design and construction of 23 residential properties» Barriers include steps leading to building entrances, non-existent or Barriers include steps leading to building entrances, non-existent or

excessively sloped pedestrian routes from apartment units to site excessively sloped pedestrian routes from apartment units to site amenities, insufficient maneuvering space, high light switches and amenities, insufficient maneuvering space, high light switches and temperature controls, inaccessible parkingtemperature controls, inaccessible parking


• Race/Familial Status DiscriminationRace/Familial Status Discrimination– U.S. v. Ruth, et al. (N.D. Ohio, August 25, 2014)U.S. v. Ruth, et al. (N.D. Ohio, August 25, 2014)

» Defendants, landlords at three Massillon, Ohio, apartment complexes, Defendants, landlords at three Massillon, Ohio, apartment complexes, agreed to pay $850,000 to settle lawsuits alleging that they agreed to pay $850,000 to settle lawsuits alleging that they discriminated against African-Americans and familiesdiscriminated against African-Americans and families

» Under terms of settlement, defendants will pay $650,000 in damages Under terms of settlement, defendants will pay $650,000 in damages and attorneys fees to plaintiffs in related civil suitsand attorneys fees to plaintiffs in related civil suits

» $175,000 in damages to 11 additional former residents and employees $175,000 in damages to 11 additional former residents and employees identified by the United States who had been harmed by the identified by the United States who had been harmed by the defendants’ discriminationdefendants’ discrimination

» $25,000 in a civil penalty to the United States$25,000 in a civil penalty to the United States


• U.S. v. Town of Oyster Bay, et al., (April 2014, EDNY)U.S. v. Town of Oyster Bay, et al., (April 2014, EDNY)– U.S. sues town; complaint alleges that two housing U.S. sues town; complaint alleges that two housing

programs designed to develop below-market rate housing programs designed to develop below-market rate housing for first-time homeowners and senior citizens discriminate for first-time homeowners and senior citizens discriminate against African-Americans because the programs give against African-Americans because the programs give preference to residents of the town, who are predominantly preference to residents of the town, who are predominantly whitewhite

– DOJ reached settlement with Long Island Housing DOJ reached settlement with Long Island Housing Partnership, which administered the programPartnership, which administered the program

» LIHP agreed to injunctive relief that requires LIHP to ensure that the LIHP agreed to injunctive relief that requires LIHP to ensure that the residency preferences it administers are analyzed so they don’t violate residency preferences it administers are analyzed so they don’t violate the lawthe law

» LIHP also will provide education and training to localities, banks and LIHP also will provide education and training to localities, banks and individuals on fair housing laws requirementsindividuals on fair housing laws requirements


• Familial StatusFamilial Status– U.S. v. Zaremba Management Company, Inc., (N.D. Ohio, U.S. v. Zaremba Management Company, Inc., (N.D. Ohio,

August 14, 2014)August 14, 2014)» Department of Justice settled lawsuit filed against manager and owner Department of Justice settled lawsuit filed against manager and owner

of Cleveland apartment complex for refusing to rent apartments to of Cleveland apartment complex for refusing to rent apartments to families with childrenfamilies with children

» Lawsuit also alleged that defendants had a policy of evicting tenants or Lawsuit also alleged that defendants had a policy of evicting tenants or asking tenants to relocate if they have children while living at Linden asking tenants to relocate if they have children while living at Linden House ApartmentsHouse Apartments

» Linden House did not meet requirements for exemption to limit housing Linden House did not meet requirements for exemption to limit housing to 55 and olderto 55 and older

» Manager and owner agreed to pay $100,000 -- $90,000 to victims and Manager and owner agreed to pay $100,000 -- $90,000 to victims and $10,000 to U.S. in civil penalties$10,000 to U.S. in civil penalties

» Lawsuit was filed in September 2013Lawsuit was filed in September 2013


• Familial StatusFamilial Status– U.S. v. Gutzmer, et al., (Oct. 2014 W.D. Wis.)U.S. v. Gutzmer, et al., (Oct. 2014 W.D. Wis.)

» Lawsuit against owners and operators of a Whitewater mobile home Lawsuit against owners and operators of a Whitewater mobile home park for its refusal to allow families with children to live in certain areas park for its refusal to allow families with children to live in certain areas of the parkof the park

» Families excluded from approximately 60 of 230 lots in parkFamilies excluded from approximately 60 of 230 lots in park

– U.S. v. Woodland Garden Apts., et al., (July 2014, N.D. Cal.)U.S. v. Woodland Garden Apts., et al., (July 2014, N.D. Cal.)» DOJ settles with owners and operators of apartment complex in DOJ settles with owners and operators of apartment complex in

Fremont, CA, which prohibited children from playing outside in the Fremont, CA, which prohibited children from playing outside in the common grassy areas of the complex and provided that families would common grassy areas of the complex and provided that families would be evicted if they violated the rulebe evicted if they violated the rule

» Defendants to pay $77,500 to the victims and $2,500 to government as Defendants to pay $77,500 to the victims and $2,500 to government as civil penaltycivil penalty

» Lawsuit arose out of HUD referral. Five families and fair housing Lawsuit arose out of HUD referral. Five families and fair housing organization Project Sentinel had filed complaintsorganization Project Sentinel had filed complaints


• Sexual harassment/gender discriminationSexual harassment/gender discrimination– U.S. v. Southeastern Community and Family Services, Inc., U.S. v. Southeastern Community and Family Services, Inc.,

et al., (Dec. 2014, M.D.N.C.)et al., (Dec. 2014, M.D.N.C.)» DOJ files lawsuit against public housing agency that administers the DOJ files lawsuit against public housing agency that administers the

Section 8 voucher program and against two of its employees, alleging Section 8 voucher program and against two of its employees, alleging that they sexually harassed female voucher program participants and that they sexually harassed female voucher program participants and applicantsapplicants

» Alleges that defendants submitted participants and applicants to Alleges that defendants submitted participants and applicants to unwanted sexual comments, sexual touching and other sexual acts, unwanted sexual comments, sexual touching and other sexual acts, conditioned or offered Section 8 benefits in exchange for sexual acts conditioned or offered Section 8 benefits in exchange for sexual acts and took adverse housing actions against those who rebuffed their and took adverse housing actions against those who rebuffed their sexual advancessexual advances


• Sexual Harassment/Gender discriminationSexual Harassment/Gender discrimination• U.S. v. Encore Management Co Inc., et al (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 1, U.S. v. Encore Management Co Inc., et al (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 1,

2014)2014)– Lawsuit against management company and three former employees of an Lawsuit against management company and three former employees of an

apartment complex in Cross Lanes, West Virginia, alleging that female apartment complex in Cross Lanes, West Virginia, alleging that female tenants were subjected to sexual harassment and retaliationtenants were subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation

– Alleges that district manager and maintenance worker sexually harassed Alleges that district manager and maintenance worker sexually harassed female tenants and site manager failed to take appropriate steps when female tenants and site manager failed to take appropriate steps when residents complainedresidents complained

– Sexual harassment included entering residences of female tenants without Sexual harassment included entering residences of female tenants without permission or notice, conditioning housing or housing benefits on female permission or notice, conditioning housing or housing benefits on female tenants’ agreement to engage in sexual acts, taking adverse actions against tenants’ agreement to engage in sexual acts, taking adverse actions against female residents when they refused sexual advances or reported female residents when they refused sexual advances or reported unwelcome conductunwelcome conduct


• U.S. v. VanderVennen, et al., (Aug. 2014, W.D. MI)U.S. v. VanderVennen, et al., (Aug. 2014, W.D. MI)– Grand Rapids landlord agrees to pay $550,000 in damages Grand Rapids landlord agrees to pay $550,000 in damages

and terminate manager’s responsibilities and terminate manager’s responsibilities – Lawsuit alleged manager sexually harassed female tenants Lawsuit alleged manager sexually harassed female tenants

at Alger Meadow Apartments, made unwelcome sexual at Alger Meadow Apartments, made unwelcome sexual comments and advances, entered female tenants units comments and advances, entered female tenants units without notice or permission, conditioned housing benefits without notice or permission, conditioned housing benefits on tenants engaging in sexual acts and took adverse action on tenants engaging in sexual acts and took adverse action against those who refused his advancesagainst those who refused his advances

– Fair Housing Center of Greater Grand Rapids brought case Fair Housing Center of Greater Grand Rapids brought case to DOJ’s attentionto DOJ’s attention

– $510,000 to 13 victims; $40,000 to United States$510,000 to 13 victims; $40,000 to United States

DOJ Lending Discrimination CasesDOJ Lending Discrimination Cases

• DOJ – Civil Rights Division, Fair Lending Unit of the Housing DOJ – Civil Rights Division, Fair Lending Unit of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section has recovered more than $1 and Civil Enforcement Section has recovered more than $1 billion for impacted communities and individual borrowers since billion for impacted communities and individual borrowers since it was established in February 2010it was established in February 2010

• U.S. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company, (Aug. 7, 2014, M.D. Ga.)U.S. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company, (Aug. 7, 2014, M.D. Ga.)– Settlement of lawsuit alleging pattern or practice of discrimination on the Settlement of lawsuit alleging pattern or practice of discrimination on the

basis of disability and receipt of public assistance in violation of FHA and basis of disability and receipt of public assistance in violation of FHA and Equal Credit Opportunity ActEqual Credit Opportunity Act

– $1.5 million settlement$1.5 million settlement– Funds go to eligible mortgage loan applicants who were asked to provide a Funds go to eligible mortgage loan applicants who were asked to provide a

letter from their doctor to document the income they received from SSDI.letter from their doctor to document the income they received from SSDI.– Under settlement, Fifth Third will also conduct training of its underwriters Under settlement, Fifth Third will also conduct training of its underwriters

and loan officers and will monitor loan applications to ensure practice does and loan officers and will monitor loan applications to ensure practice does not recurnot recur

DOJ Affordable Housing LawsuitsDOJ Affordable Housing Lawsuits

• U.S. v. Louisiana State Bond Commission, (July 31, U.S. v. Louisiana State Bond Commission, (July 31, 2014, E.D. La.)2014, E.D. La.)– Settlement of lawsuit alleging that the Commission violated Settlement of lawsuit alleging that the Commission violated

the FHA and the ADA by adopting a moratorium on the FHA and the ADA by adopting a moratorium on affordable housing financing in 2009affordable housing financing in 2009

» Moratorium blocked financing for a proposed 40-unit affordable housing Moratorium blocked financing for a proposed 40-unit affordable housing project known as the “Esplanade”project known as the “Esplanade”

» Twenty “Esplanade” units would provide permanent supportive housing Twenty “Esplanade” units would provide permanent supportive housing to persons with disabilitiesto persons with disabilities

– As part of the settlement, the Commission agreed to refrain As part of the settlement, the Commission agreed to refrain from further obstructing or delaying financing for the from further obstructing or delaying financing for the Esplanade and from adopting any future policy that would Esplanade and from adopting any future policy that would prevent consideration of affordable housing in New Orleans, prevent consideration of affordable housing in New Orleans, including affordable housing for persons with disabilitiesincluding affordable housing for persons with disabilities

DOJ Service Members Civil Relief DOJ Service Members Civil Relief Act SettlementAct Settlement

• U.S. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Citi Residential Lending Inc., Citibank and Citi Residential Lending Inc., Citibank and CitiMortgage, GMAC Mortgage, and BAC Home CitiMortgage, GMAC Mortgage, and BAC Home Loans Servicing (formerly known as Countrywide Loans Servicing (formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing), February 2015Home Loans Servicing), February 2015– DOJ settles with five of nation’s largest mortgage servicersDOJ settles with five of nation’s largest mortgage servicers– 952 service members and their co-borrowers are eligible to 952 service members and their co-borrowers are eligible to

receive over $123 million for non-judicial foreclosures that receive over $123 million for non-judicial foreclosures that violated SCRAviolated SCRA

– The non-judicial foreclosures took place between Jan. 1, The non-judicial foreclosures took place between Jan. 1, 2006, and April 4, 20122006, and April 4, 2012

DOJ Religious Land Use CasesDOJ Religious Land Use Cases

• U.S. v. St. Anthony Village, MN, (Dec. 2014, D. Minn.)U.S. v. St. Anthony Village, MN, (Dec. 2014, D. Minn.)– Complaint alleged that city of St. Anthony Village violated the Religious Complaint alleged that city of St. Anthony Village violated the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 by treating an Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 by treating an application for a conditional use permit to assemble in the St. Anthony application for a conditional use permit to assemble in the St. Anthony Business Center filed by Abu Huraira Islamic Center on less than equal Business Center filed by Abu Huraira Islamic Center on less than equal terms as other, non-religious, conditional use permits for assemblyterms as other, non-religious, conditional use permits for assembly

– Sought injunctive relief requiring the city of St. Anthony Village to maintain a Sought injunctive relief requiring the city of St. Anthony Village to maintain a worship space in the basement of the St. Anthony Business Center for Abu worship space in the basement of the St. Anthony Business Center for Abu HurairaHuraira

– Abu Huraira entered into purchase agreement for St. Anthony Business Abu Huraira entered into purchase agreement for St. Anthony Business Center after a three-year search for adequate prayer space; the business Center after a three-year search for adequate prayer space; the business center is in the “light industrial” zone of St. Anthony, conditional uses for center is in the “light industrial” zone of St. Anthony, conditional uses for which included “assemblies, meeting lodges and convention halls”which included “assemblies, meeting lodges and convention halls”

– City Council voted to deny the permit despite the planning staff and City Council voted to deny the permit despite the planning staff and planning commission recommending the permit be approvedplanning commission recommending the permit be approved

– Resolved in December 2014 with City agreeing to grant permit, to distribute Resolved in December 2014 with City agreeing to grant permit, to distribute RLUIPA information and to have certain officials undergo trainingRLUIPA information and to have certain officials undergo training

DOJ Criminal Fair Housing CasesDOJ Criminal Fair Housing Cases

• U.S. v. Flanagan, (Feb. 13, 2015, M.D. Tenn.)U.S. v. Flanagan, (Feb. 13, 2015, M.D. Tenn.)– Defendant sentenced to federal prison and fined for his role Defendant sentenced to federal prison and fined for his role

in April 2012 cross burning in front of an interracial family’s in April 2012 cross burning in front of an interracial family’s home in Minor Hill, Tenn.home in Minor Hill, Tenn.

» Flanagan is a former member of the Church of the National Knights, a Flanagan is a former member of the Church of the National Knights, a KKK affiliateKKK affiliate

– Two additional defendants will be sentenced in March 2015Two additional defendants will be sentenced in March 2015

Idaho Criminal Fair Housing CasesIdaho Criminal Fair Housing Cases U.S. v. Bybee, December 1997U.S. v. Bybee, December 1997

– Defendant threatened to kill Defendant threatened to kill African-American male and assault African-American male and assault Native American femaleNative American female

– Defendant didn’t like mixed race Defendant didn’t like mixed race couple visiting a friend’s home in couple visiting a friend’s home in LapwaiLapwai

– Right to occupy dwelling free from Right to occupy dwelling free from interference based on race includes interference based on race includes right to entertain individuals of right to entertain individuals of other races in your homeother races in your home

U.S. v. Mauer, et al., May 1998U.S. v. Mauer, et al., May 1998– Six defendants, ages 16 to 19, Six defendants, ages 16 to 19,

conspired to violate rights, conspired to violate rights, including housing rights, of including housing rights, of Hispanic residents in NampaHispanic residents in Nampa

– Number of assaults, acts of Number of assaults, acts of intimidationintimidation

United States v. Keith GilbertUnited States v. Keith Gilbert

• Gilbert I, 1987Gilbert I, 1987– In December of 1980, Keith Gilbert, an avowed white supremacist, sent In December of 1980, Keith Gilbert, an avowed white supremacist, sent

racially derogatory and “threatening” correspondence to Susan Smith, a racially derogatory and “threatening” correspondence to Susan Smith, a white woman who operated an adoption agency that was trying to place white woman who operated an adoption agency that was trying to place minority childrenminority children

– Defendant charged in a one-count information with violating the criminal Defendant charged in a one-count information with violating the criminal component of the Fair Housing Act (there were other felony charges not component of the Fair Housing Act (there were other felony charges not relevant to the FHA)relevant to the FHA)

– Idaho district court dismissed the charge, finding that the connection Idaho district court dismissed the charge, finding that the connection between the activities of an adoption agency and occupancy of a dwelling between the activities of an adoption agency and occupancy of a dwelling was too remotewas too remote

– The Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that the Fair Housing Act is to be The Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that the Fair Housing Act is to be interpreted broadly, and held that “the placement of minority children by the interpreted broadly, and held that “the placement of minority children by the director of an adoption agency is a protected activity . . . Since the director director of an adoption agency is a protected activity . . . Since the director is ‘aiding or encouraging’ minorities in the occupancy of dwellings.”is ‘aiding or encouraging’ minorities in the occupancy of dwellings.”

United States v. Keith GilbertUnited States v. Keith Gilbert

• Gilbert II, 1989Gilbert II, 1989– After remand, Gilbert was convicted at trialAfter remand, Gilbert was convicted at trial– On appeal after trial, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to On appeal after trial, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to

prove a threat of force, a required element of the criminal provision of the prove a threat of force, a required element of the criminal provision of the fair housing act, because no single piece of correspondence threatened Ms. fair housing act, because no single piece of correspondence threatened Ms. SmithSmith

– The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that threats should be The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that threats should be considered in light of the entire factual context and the court may look at considered in light of the entire factual context and the court may look at surrounding events as well as the reaction of listeners; accordingly the surrounding events as well as the reaction of listeners; accordingly the district court was correct in looking at the mailings as a wholedistrict court was correct in looking at the mailings as a whole

How to Reach the USAOHow to Reach the USAOThree locationsThree locations

--Boise – 208-334-1211--Boise – 208-334-1211

(Amy Howe)(Amy Howe)

--CDA – 208-667-6568--CDA – 208-667-6568

(Traci Whelan)(Traci Whelan)

--Pocatello – 208-478-4166--Pocatello – 208-478-4166

(Jack Haycock)(Jack Haycock)

Questions?Questions?

The Fair Housing Act: Department of Justice Enforcement May 2014-April 2015 U.S. Attorney’s...

Documents

Transcript of The Fair Housing Act: Department of Justice Enforcement May 2014-April 2015 U.S. Attorney’s...