The Fair Housing Act Department of Justice Enforcement

The Fair Housing Act: Department of Justice Enforcement May 2015 -April 2016 H U. S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho April 2016

Fair Housing Act (FHA) Prohibits discrimination on the basis of: Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex, Disability (1988), Family Status (1988) H

Who is NOT protected? • Age • Marital Status • Sexual Orientation • Source of Income (But see ECOA) State or local law may prevent discrimination on these grounds H

Fair Housing Protection for the LGBT community • March 2012 HUD Rule – Bars those who own or operate HUD-funded housing from asking about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity • State Protection – None in Idaho • City Ordinances - Several Idaho cities have passed ordinances prohibiting housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity H

FHA Provides Broad Protection • FHA covers “dwellings” – Any building, structure, or portion of a building that is occupied or intended to be occupied – Examples include: » Condominiums, houses, townhouses, duplexes, apartments (4 or more units), homeless shelters, student housing, vacation time shares, shelters for domestic violence victims, group homes for recovering addicts (but not hotels or places of temporary sojourn)

FHA Provides Broad Protection • FHA Covers Wide Variety of Activity Associated with obtaining, maintaining, using “dwelling” – Renting, owning, lending, completing application, accessibility, entertaining guests, placing children for adoption, purchasing, terms and conditions of use – DOJ has both civil and criminal enforcement jurisdiction

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) Provides protections for military members as they enter active duty, covering such issues as: • • Rental agreements, pre-paid rent, security deposits Eviction Installment contracts Credit card and mortgage interest rates Mortgage foreclosure, civil judicial proceedings Automobile leases Life and health insurance Income tax payments H

HOW DOJ Gets Involved in Enforcing Fair Housing Act • Files “election” cases from HUD; acts on behalf of complainant (who may intervene in suit) • Investigates other HUD referrals for possible enforcement action • Independent authority to initiate lawsuits alleging “pattern or practice” of discrimination or denial of rights to group of persons that raises issue of “general public importance” H

DOJ Enforcement Activities: Remedies • Injunctive Relief (prevention and correction) • Monetary Damages for Aggrieved Persons -- includes emotional distress • Civil Penalties H

DOJ Housing Enforcement Since April 2015 • Civil actions/settlements – 18 major actions – 7 based on disability – 2 based on race – 5 based on familial status – 3 based on gender/sexual harassment – 1 based on race/familial status

DOJ Housing Enforcement Since April 2015 • “Dwellings” involved – – – Mobile homes University housing Apartment complexes Rental homes Retirement communities • Other fair housing related actions – Redlining discrimination in residential lending practices (Hudson City Savings Bank) – SCRA unlawful foreclosures (1, 461 service members) – $2. 3 million domestic violence and housing technical assistance initiative

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Walden, et al. – Filed March 16, 2016, West Virginia – Alleges that female tenants in residential rental properties subjected to egregious sexual harassment and retaliation – Co-owner failed to take appropriate steps when residents complained – Unwelcome and unwanted sex acts with female tenants, offering tangible housing benefits in exchange for performance of sex acts, entering apartments of female tenants without permission or notice to harass them sexually, adverse actions against female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Rappuhn, et al. – Settled March 8, 2016, Alabama – accessibility – Owners and developers of 71 multi-family housing complexes in four states with more than 2, 500 ground floor units agree to pay $350, 000 to settle claims that their apartment complexes were inaccessible ($50, 000 is penalty) – Also agreed to make substantial retrofits – Retrofits include replacing excessively sloped portions of sidewalks, installing properly sloped curb walkways, replacing cabinets in bathrooms to provide sufficient room for wheelchair users, removing accessibility barriers in public and common use areas

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Mere, U. S. v. Southwind Village, LLC, (2 separate actions) – Settled Feb. 29, 2016; December 15, 2015 – Both involve North Fort Myers mobile home and recreational vehicle parks that discriminated against African-Americans – Both involve defendants who falsely told African Americans that no mobile homes, recreational vehicles or lots were immediately available for rent, but told similarly situated white persons that they were available – Both were the result of testing conducted by DOJ’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Kent State University – Settled January 4, 2016 – Kent State agreed to pay $145, 000 to settle lawsuit alleging university maintained a policy of not allowing students with psychological disabilities to keep emotional support animals in university operated student housing. » $100, 000 to two former students » $30, 000 to a fair housing organization that advocated on behalf of students » $15, 000 to U. S. , civil penalty » Adopt a new housing policy – Students worked with Fair Housing Advocates Association in Akron, Ohio, which filed a complaint with HUD

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park – Settled December 2015, Wisconsin – Familial status case – $100, 000 to settle allegations that unlawful excluded families with children from significant portions of 230 -lot mobile home park – Originally filed by single mother with two year old child – $45, 000 in damages and rent credits to two persons, who filed complaints, $45, 000 more to other persons identified through a claims process, $10, 000 in civil penalty

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Parkside East Apts. , et al. – Filed November 2015, Michigan – Familial status case – Alleges owners and managers of apartment complexes with one bedroom apartments unlawfully refused to rent to families with children – Based on evidence collected by the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan, which had testers pose as prospective renters

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Loecher, et al. – Filed November 2015, Colorado – Familial status case – Alleges owners and managers of apartment complex in Lakewood, Colorado, discriminated against families with children by implementing a policy of not allowing them to live in the front building at the Westmoreland Apartments, generally restricting them to apartments in the rear instead – Based on evidence collected by the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center, which had testers pose as prospective renters

DOJ Housing Enforcement • U. S. v. Sedgebrook Retirement Community – Settled October 2015, Illinois – Alleged that facility violated FHA by instituting policies and maintaining practices that discriminated against residents with disabilities at the facilities » Prohibited or limited residents’ ability to dine in communal dining rooms of the independent living wing if they required eating assistance due to a disability – $210, 000 to residents and family members harmed by policies; $45, 000 civil penalty to United States – Implement new dining and events policy – Life Care Services, LLC, the company that manages Sedgebrook, agreed to take steps to implement similar policies at more than 100 independent living and continuing care retirement communities it manages throughout U. S.

How to Reach the USAO Three locations --Boise – 208 -334 -1211 (Jessica Gunder) --CDA – 208 -667 -6568 (Traci Whelan) --Pocatello – 208 -478 -4166 (Jack Haycock)

Questions?