February 2007 - National Fair Housing Advocate Online

EDITOR’S NOTE
Will we ever move past race?
The recent dustup over a white Congressman
applying for membership in the Congressional
Black Caucus and being rejected,
as well as the myriad of conversations
on whether or not Barack Obama is
“black enough” has got me wondering,
“Will we ever move past race?”
As a civil rights advocate, I have this
vague notion that my colleagues and I are
working toward a society where the color
of one’s skin will no longer matter. You
know, that whole “content of one’s character”
thing that Dr. King talked about.
We don’t really say it. We don’t really
talk about it, but when I’m with other
civil rights professionals, I’m pretty sure
that we all have this feeling somewhere in
our hearts.
As we work to enforce the law and
inform people of their rights, I think we’re
all trying to reach the same goal. But, I’m
starting to have doubts that we’ll ever get
there. Are we as a species that flawed?
More and more, I’m starting to hear
my friends and colleagues give ground on
issues related to civil rights, especially on
issues of racial segregation.
I’ve heard several colleagues in recent
years talk about how segregation, apart
from being caused partially by discrimination,
is also at least partly due to
people choosing to live “with people
who look like them.”
This is the argument that I have been
fighting against for more than a decade
now. When landlords tell me that the reason
Louisville’s West End is 92 percent
black is because “black people want to
live near other black people,” I politely
disagree.
I point to the white flight that the West
End experienced in the 1940s, 1950s, and
1960s. I point to the segregation laws that
prohibited African Americans from building
news houses on “white blocks” in the
city. I point to the fact that Andrew and
Charlotte Wade had crosses burned on their
lawn and ultimately saw their home destroyed
by a bomb in 1954 for daring to
move into an all-white neighborhood.
I don’t buy that notion. Not for a second.
Not when thugs and segregation laws
forced most of Louisville’s black citizens
into one part of town.
You can’t spend 300 years segregating
a community, including years of slavery,
and then, less than two generations
after Jim Crow say, “Black people live in
black neighborhoods, because that’s where
they want to live.”
If every citizen -- rich or poor, regardless
of race -- really had a totally free
choice of where to live, would they choose
to live only near people who look like
themselves? If your answer
is yes, why?
Is it because most white people don’t
generally know a lot of black people and
vice versa? Is it because there’s a history
of racial bigotry and violence in this country?
Is it because black pioneers like the
Wades in Louisville have been chased out
of all-white neighborhoods?
If you could take all those things away and
if we could erase all the history that led us to
this point, would your answer be the same?
Of course, we cannot erase our history,
so we may never know. And that
bothers me.
Each new generation that comes along
in America seems to be more tolerant than
the last. Today’s young people seem to
be more accepting of people who aren’t
their mirror images. I just don’t know
if that’s enough.
Add all this to the notion that there’s
always a new group to hate -- gay people,
Muslims, Mormons, atheists, etc. -- and I
don’t know if a colorblind society will
actually be that different from the one
we live in now.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Ricky Jones
from the University of Louisville, was on
the radio recently talking about race relations,
and he spoke about how he didn’t
feel we could ever move past race. “You
can look at me and see that I am a black
man,” he said. “You cannot ignore that.”
I guess that’s true, but it also hurts my
heart to think that the human race is inca-
pable of moving past color and race. Is
there no way to elevate ourselves above
this? Is there no way that, through extrapolation,
we can take our experiences with
people who don’t look like us and apply
them to all humankind?
If we are prisoners to our senses, to
what our misguided relatives taught us as
children, and to what the media teaches us
about others, what chance do we have?
What are we fighting for, anyway?
I suppose this is a question that can
only be answered by time. I’m hoping the
immortality pills are invented soon.
As to this nonsense about whether
Barack Obama is “black enough,” I must
admit that I just sit here and scratch my
head. Is this what we’ve come to?
As much as I hate to, I will fall back
on Dr. Jones’s position. Do the people
who are asking these questions about
Obama honestly think that when he was
a child, racists who taunted him suddenly
stopped when they found out his
mother was white? Do you think they
bothered to find out?
I went to high school with several biracial
kids in rural Indiana. I can tell you
that the names they were often called was
because the racist namecallers thought they
were black, even though at least one of
their parents was white.
Did anyone ever stop to ask if the first
43 presidents of the United States were
white enough or male enough?
Has anyone ever asked if the luxury
in which both Presidents Bush grew up put
them out of touch with the bottom 98 percent
of the American populace? Does being
the son of incredibly wealthy parents
make you less American somehow?
I don’t know. Maybe. :)
Tony Baize, Editor
tony@kyfhc.org
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 2

Cover: Birmingham Civil Rights Museum
by “The Horror” at www.flickr.com
NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE
Volume E3, Number 2
Feb. 2007
Editor/Publisher Tony Baize (tony@kyfhc.org)
Contributing Editor Tracey McCartney
(tracey@fairhousing.com)
Legal Consultant Paul F. Curry
KENTUCKY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL
The National Fair Housing Advocate is a publication
of the Kentucky Fair Housing Council and is
dedicated to educating the public about fair housing
issues and providing pertinent information to
civil rights advocates, attorneys and real estate professionals.
The ultimate goal of this publication is
to eliminate the need for itself through the eradication
of discrimination in housing.
Tony Baize, Executive Director
Board of Directors
Cecil Blye, Sr., Acting Chair
Stephen Porter, Treasurer
Oliver Barber
William Haliday
Ricky Jones
John R. Williams
Ann Wagner
Richard Miller
Ralph Calvin
Rev. Louis Coleman
CONTENTS
Features
8 Inaccessibility leads to broken hip
A Hawaii man will receive $150,000 after alleging inaccessible
design in a senior apartment complex led to his broken hip.
9 Cross burner sent to prison
A Florida man will spend 14 months in federal prison and three
years on probation for burning a cross in an attempt to keep an
African American family out of his neighborhood.
10 “You’re missing something”
A south Florida condo association and two of its board members
agreed to pay $150,000 for attempting to keep out an African
American widow.
11 Allstate to drop credit score policy
A federal judge has approved a $12 million settlement in a race
and national origin discrimination that alleged the insurance giant
illegally used credit scores to make Latinos and African
Americans pay more.
14 $320,000 in Memphis access case
The Department of Justice has settled a federal lawsuit against the
developers, builders and architects of two Memphis, Tenn.
apartment complexes for a $320,000 accessibility fund and
numerous retrofits.
Departments
Editor’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Case Law Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Brief Articles of Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -15
The National Fair Housing Advocate (ISSN 1932-2216 print, ISSN 1932-2224 online)
is published monthly by the Kentucky Fair Housing Council. Editorial, advertising and
all other inquiries should be sent to P.O. Box 1293, Louisville, KY 40201 E-mail:
advocate@kyfhc.org, voice: (502) 583-3247, fax (805) 357-5959
Subscription rates are $150 per year for online access, $200 per year for online access
and full-color copy via postal mail. Make checks or money orders payable to “Kentucky
Fair Housing Council” and mail to P.O. Box 1293, Louisville, KY 40201. To subscribe
using a credit card, visit www.fairhousing.com/advocate.
Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reprinted
without permission from the publisher, except for fair use purposes.
This publication is reader supported. No public money has been used. The opinions of
commentators are not necessarily those of the Kentucky Fair Housing Council.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 3

KY. GOVERNOR FILLS REAL ESTATE POSTS
Governor Ernie Fletcher has appointed two members to the
Kentucky Real Estate Commission.
F. M. Sponcil, of Mount Sterling, is a retired farmer and
former Montgomery County Commissioner. He and his wife Patsy
are the owners and operators of Regan Ridge Farm. Sponcil has
served as a member of the Montgomery County Board of Elections
and the Montgomery County Board of Health.
Ronald K. Smith, of Louisville, is the principal broker of
Ron Smith Realty in Louisville. Smith is a member of the Louisville
Board of Realtors and the Kentucky Association of Realtors
and has served on the Kentucky Real Estate Commission
since 1999. He is also a member of the National Association of
Real Estate Brokers and served as president of the Louisville
branch from 1995-98.
The Kentucky Real Estate Commission is made up of five
gubernatorial appointees. The commission is charged with the
responsibility of protecting the public interest through regulation,
examination and licensing of Kentucky real estate brokers
and sales associates.
Fletcher has also appointed Garlan E. VanHook, of Stanford,
David E. Heyne, of Louisville, and Jill L. Smith, of Anchorage,
to the Kentucky Board of Architects.
VanHook is an architect and general manager of facilities
for the Administrative Office of the Courts. He received a
bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Kentucky.
VanHook is a member of the American Institute of Architects,
the Kentucky Music Hall of Fame Board of Directors and
the Capitol Planning and Advisory Board.
Heyne is senior architect and assistant vice president of Qk4
in Louisville. He received a bachelor of architecture from Kansas
State University. Heyne is a member of the American Institute
of Architects, the Construction Specifications Institute and
the American Solar Energy Society. He has been a member of
the Kentucky Board of Architects since 2003.
Smith is an architect and owner of Jill Lewis Smith Architect,
Inc. She received a bachelor’s degree in architecture from
Tulane University. Smith is a member of the American Institute
of Architects and the National Council of Architecture Registration.
She is serving consecutive terms on the board.
The Kentucky Board of Architects is made up of eight members,
seven of whom are appointed by the governor. The board is
in charge of regulating licenses of architects and overseeing that
all licensed architects in Kentucky practice within the state’s code
of conduct. (Source: Commonwealth News Center)
NFHA FILES SUIT IN DETROIT
On Jan. 25th, the National Fair Housing Alliance held a news
conference to announce a lawsuit in federal district court against
Century 21 Town & Country, the largest and top-producing real
estate company in metropolitan Detroit. The lawsuit alleges racial
discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
The Alliance is joined in the lawsuit by an African American
family, the Hollowells, who were victims of housing dis-
KENTUCKY GIVES $50,000 TO FAMILY PLACE
The commonwealth of Kentucky has awarded $50,000 to
Family Place to enhance its visitation center, where families dealing
with divorce, domestic violence or custody issues can meet.
The dedicated room for supervised visitation for Department
for Community Based Services children in out-of-home care is
an in-kind contribution from Family Place. The additional funding
will be available to hire staff to supervise visitations.
For 30 years, Family Place has assisted Louisville families
in moving beyond issues of abuse through education and treatment
programs. Its visitation center opened in 1999, and cabinet
staff will use it as a safe, supervised meeting place for children in
state foster care and their birth parents. (Source: Commonwealth
News Center)
GUIDEONE INSURANCE HIT WITH HUD FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company, based in Des Moines,
Iowa has been accused of religious discrimination in the marketing
and selling of its “FaithGuard” homeowners insurance policies,
which claims to offer “special discounts and services” to
“churchgoers” and “persons of faith.”
An Indiana atheist, a Kentucky agnostic, and three fair housing
groups have filed complaints against the company, alleging
that the “FaithGuard” policies violate the Fair Housing Act by
discriminating on the basis of religion.
Among other things, FaithGuard homeowners insurance offers
to double coverage for homeowners who experience churchrelated
losses at their homes, and to pay tithes to customers’
churches if they become disabled and unable to work.
The complaints have been referred to HUD’s Systemic Investigations
Unit in Fort Worth, Texas. (Source: Fair Housing
Advocates Association)
BORDER FAIR HOUSING CENTER OPENS THIRD OFFICE
The Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center has
opened its third office in McAllen, Texas. The Center asserts
that this third office will allow them to offer fair housing services
to all of the cities and towns along the U.S.-Mexico border in
Texas and New Mexico.
The Center has just launched a new round of testing on sales
agents, developers and other real estate professionals to ensure
equal housing opportunity to the residents of border towns
throughout the American southwest.
This month, six AmeriCorps Vista members will join the Center
for a year of service in the Center’s fair housing programs.
(Source: NCRC’s Reinvestment Works)
D.C. COUNCIL MOVES TO PROTECT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
Last December, in a unanimous vote, the District of Columbia
Council passed the Protection from Discriminatory Eviction
for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendments Act of 2006.
The ordinance prohibits landlords from evicting victims of
domestic violence from being evicted based on events surrounding
the crimes of their attackers. According to a 2004 ACLU
report, as many as 34 percent of homeless persons cite domestic
violence as a contributing factor to their homelessness.
Under the new ordinance, victims of domestic violence will be
able to fight evictions based on the violent behavior of their attackers
or to break leases if moving will protect them.
For more information about the new law, contact Naomi Stern
at the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty at (202)
638-2535, ext. 208 or nstern@nlchp.org. (Source: Poverty & Race)
crimination. (Source: NFHA) continued on next page
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 4

ADC SUES WESTCHESTER, N.Y. FOR FAIR HOUSING FAILURES
A New York City-based anti-discrimination group is charging,
in a new lawsuit, that Westchester has failed to meet its federal
obligations to promote fair housing opportunities.
The group - the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New
York - accused the county government of turning a blind eye to
overly restrictive zoning laws in local municipalities that hinder
the construction of affordable housing and prevent minorities
from moving in.
“There are a lot of Westchester communities that remain
unbelievably segregated,” said Craig Gurian, executive director
of the center.
County officials reject the group's lawsuit as “absurd.”
(Source: The Journal News)
SARATOGA COUNTY, N.Y. LANDLORD ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATION
Jodi Hocking, a white woman with two biracial children, has
filed a federal lawsuit against a landlord who allegedly would not
let her rent an apartment because her two children are biracial.
Hocking has asserted that landlord John Petta was very supportive
of her renting a large apartment from him until he saw
that her children were not white.
Last August, Hocking was looking for an apartment in southern
Saratoga County for her son, her daughter and herself. She
looked at Petta’s three-bedroom apartment on her own at first
and then brought her children to see the apartment, as well.
According to a statement from the Fair Housing Justice Center,
“Petta, a white man, met one of Ms. Hocking’s children (and)
asked if the child was ‘black.’ (He then) told Ms. Hocking that
she should have told him the race of her children ahead of time.”
Petta told reporters that he was surprised when he saw her
children but said it would not have affected his decision on renting
the recently-renovated apartment.
“This is disgusting,” Petta said about the lawsuit. “She
looked at the apartment and never even filled out an application
to live there. I would never let something like a person’s
race influence how I rent out my property. It has been months
since she even looked at the place. It seems to me that she is
just trying to make some money out of the lawsuit.” (Source:
The Troy Record)
VERMONT’S PRISONS SUBJECT TO STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
Vermont’s prisons are subject to the state’s public accommodations
law and must respond to a Vermont Human Rights
Commission subpoena brought on behalf of a disabled prisoner,
the state Supreme Court ruled late last year.
The Corrections Department had argued that it was not a
“place of public accommodation” under state law and did not
come within the state Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction.
In a 3-2 decision, the court upheld a 2004 Superior Court
ruling that the law -- and the commission's jurisdiction -- do apply
to the state’s prisons.
The court found that “irrespective of whether the physical
structures of government buildings, including prisons, are open
to the public, state prisons are essentially public places open to
any member of the general public unfortunate enough to meet
the criteria for obtaining their services.”
The ruling opens up Vermont’s prison system to a broad
range of civil rights complaints by inmates protected by antidiscrimination
law, Barbara Prine told the Boston Globe. Prine
is a Vermont Legal Aid lawyer who represented inmate John
Boldosser before the commission. Boldosser has a developmental
disability. (Source: Boston Globe)
MENTALLY DISABLED PLAINTIFFS DON’T DO WELL IN ADA CASES
Sixteen years after Congress enacted the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), people with psychiatric disabilities are
faring worse in court cases against employers for discrimination
than are people with physical disabilities, researchers have found
in a national study.
“People with psychiatric disabilities were less likely to receive
a monetary award or job-related benefit, more likely to
feel as though they were not treated fairly during the legal proceedings
and more likely to believe they received less respect in
court,” said Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D., a study investigator and an
associate professor of psychiatry at Duke University Medical
Center.
“When people with disabilities sue their employers for discriminating
against them, they are hoping to achieve a tangible
result, such as getting their job back or receiving some monetary
compensation,” Swanson said. “But that's not the only thing that
matters. They want to be heard and treated fairly. Sometimes
that alone can signal victory for a plaintiff, but if that doesn't
happen, it can add insult to injury.”
The findings appear in the January issue (Volume 66, Issue
1) of the Maryland Law Review. The research was funded by the
National Institute of Mental Health. (Source: Medicine Today)
LINCOLN, NEB. COMM. ON HUMAN RIGHTS DOUBLES COMPLAINTS
The number of discrimination complaints made to the Lincoln
Commission on Human Rights in 2006 were nearly double
that of the previous year, according to the commission's annual
report. A total of 112 complaints were filed last year, up from 65
in 2005.
“It’s hard to determine whether discrimination is occurring
more often in our community, but I do believe more people are
aware of fair housing laws and the role of (the commission),”
said commission director Larry Williams.
The report showed that complaints of housing and employment
discrimination were about twice the number filed in 2005,
contributing to the increase. There were 32 housing complaints
in 2006, up from 13, and 72 employment complaints, up from 47
last year.
The commission obtained more than $20,000 in settlements,
according to the report. (Source: Associated Press)
ECHO HOUSING CONDUCTS FAMILIAL STATUS AUDIT
Families with children face more discrimination when searching
for housing than childless couples, according to a recent study
of seven northern California cities.
Overall, 21 percent of
families with children reported
facing discrimination
from those showing
them apartments.
That's a big improvement
over the group's study
in 1990, when 55 percent
of the properties tested showed evidence of discrimination against
families with children. However, in 1999 only 17 percent of families
with children faced discrimination.
Housing discrimination has decreased in recent years as more
landlords have become aware of fair housing laws, said Angie
Watson-Hajjem, an ECHO fair housing counselor.
Tim May, president of the Rental Housing Owners Association
of Southern Alameda County, said this year's results
showed property owners still need training. (Source: The Argus)
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 5
photo by bohphoto

Human Rts. Ctr. v. Snow
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94472, CA, January 3, 2007. Decision
includes Court’s list of conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment for violations of the Fair Housing
Act based on familial status discrimination. The Court
grants Plaintiff’s motion finding that Defendant did unlawfully refuse
to rent to families with children and did unlawfully evict families
with children. The Court further found that Defendant’s occupancy
limitations of no more than two person per a one bedroom unit
were overly restrictive and had the effect of excluding families with
children. NFHAO Case ID 3103
Stable v. Kelly Towers Assocs.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1975, S.D. NY, January 9, 2007. Pro se
plaintiff commenced this action asserting violations of the Fair
Housing Act. Defendants are moving to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a cognizable claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed no opposition to these motions. The Court
found that Plaintiff’s allegations, regarding incidences that occurred
during the litigation of an action against him for nonpayment
of rent, do not give rise to a FHA claim, and that lodging a
complaint with HUD objecting to rent increases does not constitute
a “protected activity” as it unrelated to a FHA discriminatory
housing proceeding. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint was
dismissed. NFHAO Case ID 3104
Bailey v. Lawler-Wood Housing, LLC
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1683,E.D. LA, January 9, 2007. This
case arises out of the allegedly unlawful closure of the
Tivoli Place apartments in which Plaintiffs resided prior to
Hurricane Katrina. In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs
allege wrongful eviction under Louisiana law and a violation
of the Fair Housing Act. It is uncontested in this case
that Tivoli Place was closed to one hundred percent of all
tenants, regardless of disability, race, color, religion, sex, familial
status, or national origin. Therefore, all tenants were
equally affected by the practice which plaintiffs contend
constitutes a discriminatory effect under Section 3604.
Though plaintiffs allege that, in absolute numbers, more
disabled and African-Americans were affected because
they purportedly constitute the majority of lessees at Tivoli
Place, that fact simply does not establish a “significantly
greater discriminatory impact on members of a protected
class.” This alleged statistical imbalance alone is insufficient.
While the Court is certainly not unsympathetic to
the difficulties faced by plaintiffs in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina, as a matter of law and based on uncontested
facts, plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case under
the Fair Housing Act. NFHAO Case ID 3087
Lynn v. Village of Pomona
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 610, 2 nd Cir., January 9, 2007. Plaintiffs
appeal from an award of summary judgment in favor of Defendants
on Plaintiff’s claims of racial discrimination and retaliation
in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Finding that the Plaintiff
failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish even a prima
facie case, the Court affirms the judgment of the district court.
NFHAO Case ID 3096
Kukui Gardens Assoc. v. Jackson
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2308, D.HI, January 11, 2007. Two organizations
filed this action to stop the sale of Kukui Gardens,
an affordable housing project, to Carmel Partners, a for-profit
company. The organizations sued Alphonso Jackson, in his capacity
as Secretary of the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”), claiming that HUD has committed
various violations of the National Housing Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act in connection with the proposed
sale. The Complaint alleges that prepayment of the Kukui Gardens’
mortgage threatens the loss of 857 affordable units and
will have a disproportional effect on nonwhite renters. Plaintiffs
say that HUD’s approval of the prepayment of the mortgage
under the Notice will violate the antidiscrimination provisions
of 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Finding that Plaintiff’s claim is
not ripe, the Court dismisses it. NFHAO Case ID 3092
Miles v. Century 21 Real Estate, LLC
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2334, E.D. AR, January 11, 2007. Plaintiffs
brought this action alleging violations of federal and state
anti-discrimination laws based on race, naming the real estate
agency as a Defendant. In its Motion for Summary Judgment,
Defendant Century 21 argues that there is no actual or apparent
agency relationship between Century 21 and any of the other
Defendants to support Plaintiff’s vicarious liability theory. The
Court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Century
21 represented or held out Century 21 Cabot and that the Miles’
justifiably relied upon the representation, which led to their injury.
More specifically, a reasonable jury could conclude that
Century 21 acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person
to conclude that Century 21 Cabot and Ms. Ward were agents
of Century 21; (2) that the plaintiffs actually believed that Century
21 Cabot and Ms. Ward were agents or servants of Century
21; and (3) that the plaintiffs thereby relied to their detriment
upon the care and skill of Century 21 Cabot and Ms. Ward. Therefore,
summary judgment is denied as to the issue of apparent
agency. NFHAO Case ID 3100
Lanier v. Ass’n of Apt. Owners
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2791, D. HI, January 12, 2007. On June
5 and 6, 2006, the Site Manager observed Plaintiff having work
done at her condominium to install an A/C system, including a
hole cut into the exterior wall. The Site Manager told Plaintiff
that she was required to wait to receive installation drawings
from the architect and have the Board’s approval. When asked
to delay the installation until she had Board approval, Plaintiff
responded that she has health issues, that she was within her rights
to install the A/C system, and that she was going ahead with the
installation. On June 6, 2006, the Board sent Plaintiff a letter
requesting that she halt the A/C installation in her unit. The Board
quoted the relevant section of the By-Laws and meeting minutes
informing Plaintiff of what was required in order to proceed with
installation of A/C. The Board stated that all owners are allowed
to install A/C units provided that: “1) the unit is installed by a
professional 2) the unit is installed in a like manner to those installed
by the Developer and 3) the request is submitted in writing
to the Board accompanied by drawings of the installation
continued on next page
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 6

and assurances of items 1 and 2.” On June
8, 2006, Plaintiff emailed the Board, requesting
permission to install the A/C in an expedited
manner since she has a breathing problem
and the A/C unit will help her. Plaintiff
suffers from asthma and her doctor has recommended
that she install A/C. Plaintiff’s
doctor believes that “delay in installation of
an AC unit may result in an asthma exacerbation
that could cause serious harm including
need for emergency hospitalization.” Defendants
responded by requesting that Plaintiff
focus her energy on complying with the
application procedures that are required of
all homeowners who desire to install A/C.
Plaintiff responded by providing the documents
used to obtain the permit and again
claimed that Defendants must accommodate
her under the Fair Housing Act. Defendants
again informed Plaintiff that her submission
was insufficient and asked her to provide information
regarding the relationship between
the person who pulled the permit and the
work done so far, to confirm whether the installation
of the A/C will be in a like manner
as the units installed by the developer, and
informed her that the documents used to obtain
the permit did not constitute the required
architectural drawings. Plaintiff argues that
pursuant to their own By-laws, which cite
the Fair Housing Act, Defendants should accommodate
Plaintiff’s alleged handicap by
waiving the requirement of Board approval
for installation of A/C, since the A/C is necessary
for her asthma. The Court found that
the Plaintiff may be able to establish a claim
that the Board should reasonably accommodate
her by waiving the $ 300 fee for
the architectural drawings. Further, Plaintiff
has established the possibility of irreparable
harm, serious questions going to the
merits, and that the balance of the hardships
tips decidedly in her favor. Accordingly,
the Court orders Defendants to waive
Plaintiffs pro-rated portion of the fee
for architectural drawings, promptly
obtain architectural drawings, and allow
Plaintiff to move forward with installing
her A/C as long as she has complied
with the Board’s requirements.
NFHAO Case ID 3093
KB2’s Inc. v. City of San Diego
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3673 , S.D. CA,
January 17, 2007. The Court found that summary
judgment for Defendant was warranted
because Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing,
which is necessary for federal court jurisdiction.
NFHAO Case ID 3091
Hopkins v. Villa Rose Apts.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3566, C.D.IL, January
18, 2007. This action arises out circum-
stances surrounding the Plaintiffs’ having to
vacate their apartment at MacArthur Park
allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing
Act and the Consumer Fraud and Unfair and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. Defendant
was found to be in default on June 22,
2006. The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary
hearing to establish the amount of
damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
Plaintiffs’ disagreement is with respect to an
award of statutory damages. The Court finds
that the Plaintiffs have offered nothing more
than bald summarizations of the statutory
damages provisions of the various statutes
without making any attempt to apply the requirements
of the statutes to the facts of the
case. Nor have they otherwise attempted to
establish that there were actionable violations
of the statutes, which is a necessary
prerequisite to seeking an award of statutory
damages. On the record before the
Court, Plaintiffs have demonstrated no
error of law or fact in the findings set forth
in the Report & Recommendation. The
losses proven by the Plaintiffs are fully
and fairly compensated by the recommended
damages award, and reconsideration
of the claim for statutory damages is
not warranted. NFHAO Case ID 3090
Massie v. HUD
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3978, W.D. PA,
January 19, 2007. This matter is before the
Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) asserting
that this Court lacks jurisdiction, and
Rule 12(b)(6) asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims
lack merit. Finding injury in fact and the
possibility of a remedy, Defendant 12(h)(3)
motion is denied. Finding that Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden of persuading the
Court that it has jurisdiction over the case,
excepting Plaintiffs’ claim for a violation of
109 P.L. 115 § 311, Defendant’s 12(b)(1)
claim is granted. Finally, the Court agrees
with Defendants that § 311 does not apply
because HUD did not own or hold the property
at issue. Accordingly, Defendants’
12(b)(6) motion is granted. NFHAO Case
ID 3099
Preferred Props. v. Indian River Estates Inc.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 1550, 6 th Cir., January
22, 2007. This court affirmed the district
court’s denial of defendant’s motions
for judgment as a matter of law and a new
trial on the ground that the defendants did
violate the Fair Housing Act. The case was
then remanded to the district court to deal
with issues regarding discovery. Defendants
now seek review of the district court’s order
granting Plaintiff attorney fees for expenses
incurred in the first appeal before this court
and in enforcing the judgment. The Fair
Housing Act provides that “the court, in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing party . .
. a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs.”
Abuse of discretion is the standard for reviewing
an award of attorney fees under the
Fair Housing Act. In the present case, the
district court, “[having reviewed the hourly
rates charged by attorneys, paralegals and
others and the expenses,” awarded Preferred
Properties $ 82,489.98. The district court
calculated that that amount would reimburse
Preferred Properties for $ 25,000 in legal
fees plus expenses of $ 1,983.35 related to
defending the judgment on appeal, in addition
to $ 50,000 in legal fees and $ 5,506.63
in expenses related to enforcing the judgment.
The district court did not abuse its discretion
in doing so. Accordingly, this Court
affirms the district court’s order regarding
fees. NFHAO Case ID 3102
Vaughn v. Consumer Home Mortg. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4381, E.D. NY, January
22, 2007. The plaintiffs move, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, for reconsideration of
this court’s prior order granting the motion
of defendant HUD to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, granting the motion
of defendant Silver for summary judgment
as to all of the claims remaining against him,
and denying the plaintiff’s motion to file a
Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs initiated
suit against FNNY and other defendants
affiliated with that company, the attorneys
who represented the plaintiffs during
closing proceedings, alleging that they made
false representations with the intent to deceive
them into purchasing properties at inflated
prices. As a component of the alleged
scheme, FNNY steered the plaintiffs toward
defendant Consumer Home Mortgage, a
lender that the plaintiffs allege it consistently
used to further the predatory lending scheme,
in part by submitting fraudulent appraisal reports
to HUD in order to obtain mortgage
insurance available to qualifying low-income
applicants under the Fair Housing Act.
NFHAO Case ID 3107
Wadley v. Park at Landmark, LP
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5029, E.D. VA, January
24, 2007. This action arises under the
Fair Housing Act and Section 1982 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 for alleged discrimination
regarding the non-renewal of
Plaintiff’s lease at Defendants’ property.
Plaintiff has presented no credible evidence
demonstrating discriminatory intent in Defendants’
enactment of the Section 8 nonrenewal
policy or termination of Plaintiff’s
Section 8 lease. Further, Plaintiff has made
continued on page 15
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 7

Hawaiian man wins $150,000 for
injury due to inaccessible design
The Justice Department has reported
that they have reached a partial settlement
with the city and county of Honolulu,
Hawaii and the developers and managers
of West Loch Village apartments. Additionally,
the Justice Department reported
that an intervening plaintiff,
Chester Kobylanski, will receive
$150,000 to settle
claims that he broke his hip
due to the inaccessible design
and construction of the apartments.
The Justice Department
settlement includes several
hundred thousand dollars
worth of retrofits at West
Loch Village and a $75,000
fund to compensate victims
who are identified at a later
date. The list of retrofits
agreed to by the defendants is
more than 12 pages long.
The specifics of this case are apparently
still developing. The Justice
Department’s web site has indicated
Kobylanski’s claims have been settled,
although the consent decree filed with
the U.S. District Court in Hawaii indicates
that Kobylanski’s claims are
headed to trial.
Calls and e-mails to Kobylanksi’s
attorneys, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
Hawaii, and the Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs were not returned.
West Loch Village was built in 1992
as senior housing and is owned by the
city and county of Honolulu. Hawaii
Affordable Properties manages the
apartment building for the city. The
builders and designers of West Loch included
Mecon Hawaii Ltd.; Yamasoto,
Fujiwara, Aoki & Associates; and the
R.M. Towill Corporation.
According to the DOJ web site, the
case was referred to the Justice Department
by HUD, after it investigated
Kobylanki’s complaint and issued a
charge of discrimination. However, in
Kobylanski’s intervening complaint, no
HUD complaint is ever mentioned, and
Kobylanski’s injuries occurred in 1998,
more than seven years before his intervening
complaint was filed.
In February 2006, the city/county
government and Hawaii Affordable Properties
filed a third-party complaint against
Edward Kubo, Jr. is the
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Hawaii.
Chaney Brooks Management, alleging
that their agreement with Chaney Brooks
agreed to indemnify the government from
any claims arising from injuries at the
West Loch property. According to the
third-party complaint, the city and county
asserted this in the answer to the Justice
Department lawsuit, but that
Chaney Brooks had refused to
defend the city and county.
The third-party complaint
does not mention
whether Honolulu’s agreement
with Chaney Brooks
was in place at the time of
West Loch’s construction or
why Hawaii Affordable Properties
might have standing to
be a third-party plaintiff.
Although details are
still quite sketchy, it appears
that the complaints about the
design and construction at
West Loch began in May 1998, when
Kobylanski tripped and fell over a curb
on his way to a trash dumpster at the
property. Kobylanski is disabled and
used a walker for mobility.
INJURY BLAMED ON LACK OF CURB CUT
According to Kobylanski’s complaint,
had the curb been properly constructed
with curb cuts as required by
the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, he would not have
tripped and broken his hip.
Kobylanski’s injury was so severe, according
to the complaint, that he had to
undergo a complete left hip replacement
after his fall.
In additions to the retrofits and
settlement funds obtained by the Justice
Department, the defendants have agreed
to undergo fair housing training, conduct
an education program to inform
tenants about their rights under the Fair
Housing Act and develop a nondiscrimination
policy. The partial consent order
settling the DOJ claims shall remain
in effect for three years.
Additional details about the status
of this case will be published in future
issues of the Advocate as they become
available. To see the extremely lengthy
Department of Justice consent decree,
visit http://xrl.us/westloch.
--- Tony Baize
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 8

Hastings, Fla. cross burner sentenced to 14 months in
federal prison and three years supervised release
Neal Chapman Coombs, a 50-year-old
resident of Hastings, Fla., was sentenced
last month to 14 months in
prison, to be followed by three years of supervised
release, the Justice Department
announced. Coombs pleaded guilty on August
16, 2006 to a racially motivated civil
rights crime involving a cross burning.
In August 2006, Coombs was
charged with knowingly and willfully
intimidating an African American family
that was negotiating for the purchase
of a house in Hastings, Fla., by threat
of force and the use of fire.
Specifically, it was alleged that
Coombs’ actions were motivated by the
family’s race and that he burned a cross
on property adjacent to the house.
“Cross burning remains a vicious
symbol of hatred and intolerance,” said
Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general
for the Civil Rights Division. “Our welcoming
society encourages people to live
where they choose, undisturbed by such
racist threats. This prosecution sends a
clear message that we will not tolerate
such deplorable criminal conduct.”
“This display of racial hatred is
alarming. Victims of this crime can be
assured that our office will vigorously
investigate and prosecute those who
would choose this form of ugly criminal
conduct,” said Paul I. Perez, U.S.
Attorney for the Middle District of
Florida.
According to the plea agreement,
on the afternoon of Jan. 15, 2006, an
African-American family
of four was looking at a
house for sale in St. Johns
County. The family was
accompanied by their real
estate agent and his wife.
The parents were in the
process of negotiating to
purchase the house.
The plea agreement
notes that while the parents
were inside the house
with the real estate agent,
their son and daughter,
who were 15 and 12 years
old at the time, were outside
the house, where they
overheard the defendant,
who was in front yard,
speaking loudly, apparently to a man on
the street. Coombs, who is Caucasian,
made a remark about having a “housewarming,”
and also made derogatory remarks
about the visiting family.
In Coombs’ front yard was a set of
wooden beams in the shape of a cross.
The cross, which was approximately six
feet tall, faced the house the family was
considering purchasing. Coombs
Paul I. Perez, U.S. Attorney for
the Middle District of Florida
squirted a flammable liquid from a
bottle onto the cross, and lit the cross
on fire.
Coombs then looked at the boy and
stated, “I don’t want to see
you around here again, boy.”
The family was
alarmed and frightened by
the defendant’s actions
and words, causing feelings
of intimidation and
disinterest in living in the
house.
Prosecuting the perpetrators
of bias-motivated
crimes is a top priority of
the Justice Department.
Since 2001, the Civil
Rights Division has
charged 163 defendants in
bias-motivated crimes.
The case was investigated
by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. The case was
prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney
Scot Morris and Andrew J. Kline of the
Department of Justice’s Civil Rights
Division.
The Middle District of Florida includes
35 of the 67 counties in the State
of Florida and extends from the Florida-
Georgia border near Jacksonville to the
southern most boundary of Naples.
Five Latino Los Angeles gang members accused of
murdering hate crime witness and dumping body
In Los Angeles, five Latino gang members
have been charged with murdering
an acquaintance they believed witnessed
the racially motivated shooting death of a
14-year-old black girl, prosecutors said earlier
this month.
The five men – one of whom is charged
in Cheryl Green’s killing – were charged on
Feb. 21 with murdering Christopher Ash, 25,
on Dec. 28. His body was found on a street
in Carson, Calif. with multiple stab wounds
and his throat was cut, authorities said.
Charged in Ash’s slaying were Jose
Covarrubias, 20; Robert Gonzalez, 29; Raul
Silva, 31; Daniel Aguilar, 19; and Jonathan
Fajardo, 18, who also is suspected of killing
Green. Prosecutors identified the five as active
participants in a street gang.
The defendants also face charges of
“intentional murder of a witness to a
crime” and “committing murder to further
gang activities.”
The criminal complaint alleged that
Covarrubias and Gonzales used a knife to
commit the murder.
Prosecutors have not yet decided
whether to seek the death penalty, according
to various media reports.
Fajardo and another gang member, 20year-old
Ernesto Alcarez, face murder and
hate crime charges for opening fire on Green
and a group of her friends on Dec. 15, 2006
in Los Angeles.
Police spokespersons said the men were
bent on killing African Americans as part of
an ongoing campaign against black residents
by Latino gangs in Los Angeles. Fajardo and
Alcarez are scheduled to be arraigned March
8 in Long Beach Superior Court.
The September 2006 issue of the
National Fair Housing Advocate featured
an article about the racially motivated
murders of Anthony Prudhomme
and Christopher Bowser by the Latino
Avenues gang in Los Angeles. Those
gang members were sentenced to life in
prison last November.
Last month, the authorities reported that
crimes in the city motivated by racial, religious
or sexual orientation discrimination
had increased 34 percent in 2005 over the
previous year. Statistics for 2006 have not
yet been compiled, according to the New
York Times.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 9

South Florida condo association and officers agree
to pay $150,000 in racial discrimination case
Elois Thomas was simply looking to
downsize to a condo, after her husband
passed away in 2005. What she
found, however, was that racial discrimination
is still a fact of life in the United States,
and that even a cash offer on a home does
not guarantee one’s choice of housing.
Recently, a federal court in Florida denied
a motion to throw out Thomas’s case
against the High Point Section I Condominium
Association, association president
Charles Jordan and association president
Herbert Keller. Faced with the possibility
of a costly trial, the defendants agreed to
settle and pay Thomas $150,000.
In 2005, Thomas began a search for a
smaller home following the death of her husband
and her recovery from a long illness.
She engaged the services of a real estate
agent, Rhonda Boles, to sell her existing
home and find a new, smaller home in a senior
community.
Boles managed to sell Thomas’s home
relatively quickly and took her to see a condominium
for sale at High Point Condominiums
in Delray Beach, Fla. According to Thomas,
she fell in love with the home, which
had been put on the market by John
Mendozza. Using the proceeds of her home
sale, Thomas made a $127,000 full cash offer
to Mendozza, which he had accepted.
Mendozza’s real estate
agent, Dunia Keldani, assisted
Thomas in filling at the residency
application packet for
High Point, which included a
copy of her driver’s license
and the sales contract for
Mendozza’s unit. Keldani
then delivered the packet to association
president Charles
Jordan. Jordan promised to deliver the
packet to the member of the association who
processes residency applications.
According to Pat Wojcik, the person
responsible for reviewing the applications,
Jordan never delivered Thomas’s application
packet to her.
Two weeks after the submission of the
application packet, Jordan telephoned
Keldana and asked her to come to his office
to discuss Thomas’s application. Keldana
met with Jordan the next day.
According to Keldana, Jordan handed
her Thomas’s application packet and asked
her to check it for errors. Keldana looked
over the packet and told Jordan that she did
not see any errors.
High Point Condos in Delray
Beach, Fla.
According to Keldana, Jordan looked at
her and said, “You’re missing something.”
Jordan then pointed to Thomas’s picture
on her driver’s license and allegedly said,
“She’s black, and I will not accept this application
because we will not have any black
people moving here.”
Jordan then allegedly went on to express
his blanket opinion of prospective African
American residents to Keldana, stating that
black people usually run day-care centers
from their homes and that
he did not want that to
happen at High Point. Jordan
also allegedly questioned
where Plaintiff
Thomas would get
$127,000.
Finally, according to
Keldana, Jordan informed
her that he was quite proud
that there were only a few
Vince Larkins
Jewish families living at High Point, and that
they had moved in before he had become association
president. Jordan allegedly
claimed that if he had been in charge when
the Jewish residents applied to live at High
Point, he would have rejected them as well.
Jordan then allegedly went on to instruct
Keldana to lie about why Thomas’s application
had not been approved. Jordan told
Keldana that the association
would need to see proof that
Thomas had income of between
$1,200 and $1,500,
despite the fact that monthly
maintenance fees at High
Point were only $176.
Jordan then allegedly told
Keldana that even if Thomas
could meet the income requirements,
he would continue to stall
Thomas’s application process until she became
“discouraged enough to move on.”
Meanwhile, association vice president
Keller allegedly told Mendozza, the unit
owner, that Thomas’s application was going
to be denied because she had “lied” on it.
Keldana informed Boles, Thomas’s
agent, about the conversation with Jordan.
Boles, who did not want to reveal the discrimination
to Thomas for fear of upsetting
her, made numerous written and verbal appeals
to Jordan and association attorney
Larry Shendell.
Keldana called the Florida Office of the
Condominium Ombudsman about the discrimination
being perpetuated at High Point.
The state office referred the case to the Fair
Housing Center of the Greater Palm
Beaches. The Center contacted Keldana and
launched an investigation.
On September 10, 2005, Thomas resubmitted
her occupancy application. Several
days later, Thomas received a letter from
Shendell explaining that her application had
been rejected, because she had not provided
verification of her income.
The Fair Housing Center joined with
Thomas in filing a federal lawsuit against
the Association, Jordan and Keller. They
were represented by attorney Jene P. Williams,
a partner in the law firm of Liggio,
Benrubi and Williams.
In a motion for summary judgment, the
defendants argues that even if Jordan had
made racially discriminatory comments, he
was not the ultimate decision maker at High
Point. Therefore, argued the defendants, the
plaintiffs could not prove that discrimination
had occurred. The defendants also attempted
to argue that Thomas was not financially
qualified to purchase the home.
U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley
rejected both arguments and denied the motion
to throw out the case. Judge Hurley
noted that while the defendants had claimed
to have erected a “firewall” between Jordan
and the rest of the association board, he was
not convinced that such a firewall existed,
since Jordan had regular communications
with other board members and their attorney
about Thomas’s allegations.
Judge Hurley also noted that Jordan was
ultimately one of the board members who
got to vote on Thomas’s application.
Soon after their motion for summary
judgment was denied, the defendants agreed
to settle.
“This case serves as a wake-up call to
all residents in Condo and Homeowners
Associations throughout the state of Florida
that failure to police your condo officers and
discriminating with the consent of legal
counsel can result in paying big fees for not
complying with the Fair Housing Act. We
commend the seller’s Realtor and the Condo
Ombudsman’s office for stepping forward
to make sure that fairness would prevail,”
said Vince Larkins, president and CEO of
the Fair Housing Center.
Larkins told the Advocate that Thomas
moved into a different section at High Point
and that the publicity surrounding this case
has his phone “ringing off the hook” with
tales describing similar discrimination.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 10

Allstate agrees to pay nearly $12 million to settle race
and national origin case based on credit score policy
Earlier this month, a federal judge
in Texas gave final approval to a
class-action settlement in a lawsuit
accusing Allstate Insurance of discriminating
against black and Latino
policyholders by using credit reports to
set rates.
U.S. District Judge
Fred Biery approved
the settlement, writing
in his order that the
agreement calling for
Allstate to change its
rate-setting formula is
“fair, reasonable and
adequate.”
Jose DeHoyos, the
San Antonio man who
served as the lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in 2001, had
his premium jump 31 percent in one
year even though he and his wife had
made only one claim during 20 years as
Allstate customers.
A
consent decree was filed last month
settling a case alleging retaliation
against an individual for filing a
complaint with a local fair housing center,
according to Stephen J. Murphy, United
States Attorney. The decree calls for the
owners and managers of Fairway Trails
Apartments to pay $50,000 to Harry Tyus, a
disabled man who had asked to move his rent
payment date to later in the month to coincide
with the receipt of his Social Security
Disability Income payments.
The case was brought under the federal
Fair Housing Act against Fairway Trails Limited,
L.P., Benchmark Management Corporation,
Benchmark Michigan Properties,
Inc., and Nicole Morbach, who owned, operated
and managed Fairway Trails Apartments
in Ypsilanti, Mich. The consent decree
has been submitted to Judge John
Corbett O’Meara of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
for approval.
LETTER DREW EVICTION THREAT
The government’s complaint alleged
that the defendants retaliated against Tyus
after the executive director of the Fair Hous-
“We’re very proud” of the settlement,
DeHoyos said in a statement released
to the press by his attorney.
“We’re very happy to be part of something
that will really make a difference,
not only for ourselves, but for so many
others in the same situation.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys
were awarded
$11.7 million in legal
fees and expenses, and
the six named plaintiffs
were given
$5,000 each.
Minority customers
who paid higher
premiums under the
old Allstate formula
can seek $50 to $150
in refunds under the settlement.
The class action lawsuit challenged
Allstate’s use of credit scoring to determine
rates set for policyholders, arguing the formula
had a discriminatory impact on minori-
ing Center of Southeastern Michigan sent a
letter to Fairway Trails Apartments stating that
Tyus was an individual with a disability and
asking that he be granted a reasonable accommodation
under the Fair
Housing Act. Shortly thereafter,
defendants attempted
to evict Tyus, and when they
were unsuccessful, they announced
that he would not be
permitted to renew his lease.
The case was initiated
when Tyus filed a fair housing
complaint with the U.S.
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
(HUD). After investigating
the matter, HUD issued a
charge of discrimination,
and the matter was referred to the United
States Attorney’s Office, which filed the federal
lawsuit on May 8, 2006. The case was
handled jointly with attorneys from the
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of
the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department
of Justice in Washington, D.C.
“Our country’s civil rights laws require
not only freedom from discrimination but
ties and forced Latino and African American
customers to pay more.
The settlement, which had been tentatively
reached last June, calls for
Allstate to change its formula to include
strictly financial factors like the number
of late bill payments or how often
items were purchased on installment
plans.
Allstate continues to deny that it
discriminated against customers or that
the credit data was invalid. In addition
to the policy changes and monetary
settlements, the company will increase
its marketing to minority customers, offer
a credit education program for minorities
and provide a process for appealing
high rates.
“Allstate is pleased that the settlement
has met with the court’s approval
and the settlement which benefits many
people is moving forward,” Allstate
spokesman Raleigh Floyd said in a written
statement released to the press.
Mich. owners & managers agree to pay $50,000 in DOJ
reasonable accommodation and retaliation case
U.S. Attorney Stephen J.
Murphy, Eastern District of
Michigan
also freedom from retaliation for those who
seek to exercise their civil rights. Today’s
settlement helps to ensure that those who
wish to assert their rights under the Fair
Housing act can do so without
fear of reprisal.” U.S. Attorney
Murphy said. “We appreciate the
cooperation of the defendants in
resolving this case without protracted
litigation.”
The settlement resolves the
government’s case as well as the
related claim filed by Tyus who
intervened in the government’s
lawsuit. Under the settlement, the
Defendants have agreed to pay
$50,000 in damages and attorney
fees to Harry Tyus, to post a nondiscriminatory
rental policy, to
undergo training on the requirements of the
Fair Housing Act; and to submit periodic reports
to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal
to deny reasonable accommodation requests
from disabled tenants and also bars
retaliation and intimidation against persons
who file fair housing complaints or who assist
others in doing so.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 11
012

Florida management company and housing authority
pay $50,000 for denying reasonable accommodations
On January 10, 2007, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of
Florida entered a consent decree resolving
United States v. Gainesville Housing
Authority, et al.
The complaint, filed on November 28,
2005, alleged that the defendants violated
the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability
by refusing to grant the reasonable accommodation
requests of a husband and
wife, both of whom are disabled.
The complaint alleged that, for nearly
two years, the defendants refused the complainants’
requests to move from a secondfloor
unit to a first-floor unit at Madison
Cove Apartments to accommodate their disabilities.
The complaint further alleged that
defendants retaliated against the complainants
by threatening to evict them and to terminate
their section 8 eligibility.
The Consent Decree will remain in effect
for three years, requires the defendants
to pay the complainants $50,000 in compensatory
damages, and provides for other injunctive
relief, including training and the
drafting of a new reasonable accommodation
policy.
The case was referred to the Justice
Department after the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) received a complaint, conducted
an investigation,
and issued a
charge of discrimination.
The United States
Department of Justice
filed the complaint on
behalf of Sheila and
Charles O’Steen. Both
have disabilities that Madison Cove Apts.
substantially limit their
mobility, coordination, muscular power
(strength) and ability to walk up stairs. Specifically,
the United States asserted that
Charles O’Steen has arthritis, cardiovascular
disease, and a pacemaker, and that Sheila
O’Steen has cardiomyopathy, congestive
heart failure and coronary artery disease, and
is required to carry and use an oxygen tank.
On or about May 21, 2001, the O’Steens
completed an application for an apartment
at Madison Cove and submitted it to Madison
Cove’s manager. At this time, the
O’Steens had recently had their Section 8
file transferred from the Alachua County
Housing Authority to the Gainesville Hous-
ing Authority. The file contained documentation
verifying that Mr. and Ms. O’Steen
were physically disabled. In addition, with
their application they submitted a Social Security
Supplemental Security
Income Benefits Verification
form listing both
of them as disabled.
Prior to submitting
their application, the
O’Steens explained to
managers that they needed
a first floor unit because of
their disabilities. At the
time, they were informed
that there were no first
floor two-bedroom units
available at Madison
Cove, and they accepted a
second floor unit at Madi-
son Cove.
On or about June 1,
2001, Mr. and Ms.
O’Steen executed a one-year lease at Madison
Cove for Unit L-203, a second floor,
two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment.
After moving into Madison Cove in July
2001, Mr. O’Steen asked management to
transfer him and his wife to a first floor apartment
because of their disabilities. The resident
manager stated that she would move
them to a first floor unit
once such a unit became
available.
COUPLE MADE REPEATED
UNANSWERED REQUESTS
FOR ACCOMMODATIONS
During the O’Steens’ first
lease year at the subject
property, Mr. and Ms.
O’Steen made repeated
verbal requests to managers to be moved to
a first floor unit because of their disabilities.
These requests were unanswered or denied.
During the O’Steens’ first lease year at
the subject property, managers never informed
the O’Steens that Davis Property
Management (DPM) had specific forms for
residents to make reasonable accommodations
requests.
On or about September 4, 2002, Mr.
O’Steen called the Gainesville Housing Authority
Section 8 office to request a move to
a first floor unit because of his and his wife’s
disabilities. The O’Steens Section 8 coun-
Gregory Miller, U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Florida
selor informed the O’Steens that they needed
to complete reasonable accommodation
forms. Mr. O’Steen retrieved a form from
the resident manager at Madison Cove and
submitted a written reasonable
accommodation
request to move to a first
floor two-bedroom unit.
This request was supported
by medical documentation.
On or about September
12, 2002, the
O’Steens submitted a second
written request for a
transfer, also supported by
medical documentation.
On or about September
26, 2002, the
O’Steens submitted a
third such request, along
with an application to
transfer to a first floor
two-bedroom apartment.
When Mr. O’Steen attempted to submit
the new application, he was advised by the
resident manager that he had to pay a $60.00
application fee. Mr. O’Steen was not informed
that he could request a waiver of the
application fee as an accommodation. Under
the rules governing tax credit properties
like Madison Cove, DPM had no authority
to impose this requirement.
On or about February 4, 2003, the
O’Steens submitted a fourth reasonable accommodation
request supported by medical
documentation, which was again unanswered.
The O’Steens’ Section 8 counselor, Sarah
Mozell, was informed by the resident
managers about each of the O’Steens’ reasonable
accommodation requests.
MORE THAN 20 FIRST FLOOR UNITS WERE
AVAILABLE DURING THE REQUEST PERIOD
From June 2001 through May 2003,
more than 20 first floor two-bedroom units
became available, none of which were offered
to the O’Steens.
On or about February 14, 2003, and
again on or about March 10, 2003, the resident
manager and the O’Steens contacted the
Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA) about
the O’Steens’ reasonable accommodation
request. Their Section 8 counselor told the
O’Steens they could not transfer until their
lease expired.
(continued on next page)
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 12

(continued from page 12)
On or about April 14, 2003, the
O’Steens filed a timely complaint with HUD
pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, alleging
discrimination on the basis of disability and
retaliation or intimidation.
After the O’Steens filed their complaint
with HUD, DPM offered to transfer the
O’Steens to a first floor two-bedroom unit,
and the O’Steens accepted this offer. The
O’Steens moved to a first floor unit at Madison
Cove on May 1, 2003.
On May 6, 2003, after the O’Steens met
with Section 8 counselor Sarah Mozell at the
GHA for their annual recertification, the
O’Steens advised Mozell that DPM had
granted their request for a transfer to a first
floor two-bedroom unit.
HOUSING AUTHORITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
THREATENED TO TERMINATE SECTION 8
Mozell made the O’Steens wait in the
GHA lobby and returned with the deputy
executive director of the GHA, Bernadette
Woody. Woody told the O’Steens that they
had violated terms for receipt of Section 8
benefits and that they were going to be
evicted. She also threatened to serve them
with a notice of termination before they
could return to their apartment, asserting that
the O’Steens knew they could not move without
advising the housing authority in advance.
Despite these threats, Woody did not serve the
O’Steens with an eviction notice or terminate
them from the Section 8 program.
The O’Steens were intimidated and felt
threatened by Woody’s comments believing
they would be evicted and would lose their
Section 8 benefits.
In responding to the O’Steens numerous
accommodation requests, the GHA did
not comply with its own reasonable accommodation
policy to provide written decisions
to the person requesting an accommodation
within 30 days, nor did the GHA inform the
O’Steens of its grievance procedure.
Under the terms of the consent decree,
DPM and GHA will share the cost
of the monetary settlement. For more information
about the settlement, see http:/
/xrl.us/osteen.
The United States Attorney’s Office
for the Northern District of Florida
handled this case in conjunction with
the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
of the Civil Rights Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
USA V. GAINESVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:05CV193 (N.D.
FLA.)
Anaheim complex to pay $15,000 for
anti-children rules and restrictions
The owners and managers of an Anaheim,
Calif. apartment building have
agreed to pay $15,000 to settle a housing
discrimination complaint alleging that
they imposed rules that kept children from
playing outdoors. The Fair Housing Council
of Orange County assisted a mother with
three children who challenged the illegally
discriminatory rules.
The case involved the Palais
Apartments and Paolo’s
Property Management.
Eva Rico, the complainant,
informed the
Council in May 2005
that management rules
prevented her children
from playing outside
and from being outside
their units.
Rico also asserted that
the onsite manager of the complex
harassed her children, insisted
that there be no playing, balls or yelling outside,
and turned on the sprinklers to prevent
children from playing on the grass.
TESTERS CONFIRM ALLEGATIONS
Fair Housing Council investigators posing
as potential tenants were told that children
were not allowed to play outside, run
in the hallways or play ball in the complex.
The testers with children were also questioned
by the onsite manager about the number
of children in their family.
The Fair Housing Council completed
the investigation and found there was sufficient
evidence of housing discrimination to
file complaints with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) as well
as the federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Because owners are responsible for the
actions of their employees under fair housing
laws, the charges named E. Gerald Sellers,
the owner of the complex, in addition to
Paolo’s Property Management and its onsite
manager Rufino Madera (also known as
Johnny Madera).
DFEH conducted its own investigation
and facilitated settlement discussions
which culminated in Paolo’s Property
Management and its owner agreeing, with
no admission of liability or wrongdoing,
to pay a total of $15,000 in damages,
abide by all fair housing laws, and bring
its rules and policies into compliance with
state and federal fair housing laws.
SETTLEMENT REQUIRES TRAINING, PAMPHLETS
Under the terms of the settlement,
Paolo’s Property Management and all employees
who have contact with tenants at the
property must, for the next five years, attend
fair housing training conducted by the Fair
Housing Council. In addition, Paolo’s
Property Management will
provide fair housing
pamphlets to current and
prospective residents,
and post fair housing
signs in the leasing office.
“We have seen a rise
in housing discrimination
cases where manag-
ers are enforcing unlawful,
photo by Michael Dunn
overly restrictive rules and
regulations that are specifically geared
toward children and families with children
that violate fair housing laws,” said
Elizabeth Pierson, president and CEO
of the Fair Housing Council of Orange
County.
“Rules that are directed only at children
must be directly related to health and safety
and they must be the least restrictive means
of addressing the health and safety concern,”
Pierson added. “We recommend all managers
and leasing agents attend fair housing
training to learn how to properly implement
rules that comply with fair housing laws.”
“This case again demonstrates the value
of the DFEH’s partnership with local fair
housing councils. The DFEH commends the
work of the Fair Housing Council of Orange
County in referring the victims to the DFEH
and assisting in resolving this case,” commented
DFEH Director Suzanne M.
Ambrose.
“California housing providers must take
care to adopt rules and regulations that do
not have the effect of denying equal terms,
conditions and privileges of housing to families
with children, thereby violating the Fair
Employment and Housing Act and subjecting
them to liability,” Ambrose added.
For more information about the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County, visit
http://www.fairhousingoc.org. For more information
about DFEH, visit http://
dfeh.ca.gov.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 13

DOJ settles Memphis, Tenn. design and construction
case for retrofits and $320,000 accessibility fund
The developers, builders, architects and
engineers involved in the design and
construction of several Memphis,
Tenn. apartment complexes have agreed to
make retrofits at several properties and establish
a $320,000 “accessibility fund” for
disabled persons in Shelby County, Tenn.
The agreement settles a federal lawsuit filed
by the U.S. Department of Justice and litigated
by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Western District of Tennessee.
United States Attorney David Kustoff
announced the settlement earlier this month.
The complaint, filed against J. Richard
Grant, Milton Grant, John R.
Gillentine, Henry Hart Engineering, P.C.
and Parker, Estes & Associates, Inc., alleged
that the Wyndham Apartments and
Camden Grove Apartments violated the
Fair Housing Act by failing to include features
designed to make ground floor apartments
and the common areas of the apartment
complexes accessible to persons
with disabilities. The consent decree resolves
a complaint initiated by the Memphis
Center for Independent Living.
Kustoff noted that the consent decree
requires the defendants to make many improvements
designed to ensure that the
apartment communities are accessible to
persons with disabilities. These improve-
ments include widening interior doorways,
widening the passageway in some
kitchens, lowering thermostat controls, providing
levered door opening hardware, installing
new walkways and ramps, removing
excessive slopes at exterior door entrances,
beveling thresholds at exterior entrances,
and adding accessible parking
spaces.
In addition to the barrier removal improvements
to these two apartment com-
The Memphis Center for
Independent Living
initiated the complaints
against the Wyndham
Apartments and Camden
Grove Apartments that led
to the DOJ lawsuit.
plexes, Kustoff emphasized that the settlement
requires the defendants to establish
a fund in the amount of $320,000.00 to
help individuals living in Shelby County
make accessibility improvements to their
individual homes.
The fund will be administered by the
Memphis Center for Independent Living
which will be providing information to the
public about the availability of the fund
and the process for making an application
to obtain funds in the near future.
In 2004 U.S. District Judge Bernice B.
Donald ruled that the defendants violated the
Fair Housing Act by failing to design and build
accessible pedestrian walkways from ground
floor units to public streets and onsite amenities
at the apartment complexes.
The Court also found a number of
other violations, including the defendants’
failure to provide accessible clubhouses;
accessible parking at complex amenities;
thresholds at breezeways without steps;
bathroom, bedroom, and walk-in closet
doors wide enough for wheelchair passage;
thermostats within reach of persons
using wheelchairs; reinforcements in bathroom
walls to support the installation of
grab bars, and adequate clearance space
for wheelchair passage into the kitchen.
Since the Court’s ruling the parties have
worked to reach the agreement contained
in the consent order announced today.
Fighting illegal housing discrimination
is a top priority of the Justice Department.
“Those who design and construct
housing units may not ignore their obligation
to make them accessible to persons
with disabilities,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division. “The Justice Department
will continue its vigorous enforcement of
all the fair housing laws.”
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturns HUD
administrative law judge decision in statement case
For the first time since the passage of
the Fair Housing Act, according to attorneys,
a complainant has successfully
challenged HUD’s administrative dismissal
of her claims after a hearing on the
merits by an administrative law judge.
In White v. HUD (case no. 05-1252),
the Seventh Circuit reversed HUD ALJ
Robert A. Andretta’s finding that Sheila
White was not discriminated against in her
housing search.
In August of 1998, White responded to
a Chicago-area landlord’s newspaper advertisement
for an apartment in Harvey, Ill. After
asking about her family composition, respondent
Gertie Wooten refused to show
White the unit, because she was “unmarried
and [had] children.”
Wooten owned and managed only three
units and was thus otherwise-exempt under
Section 803(b) of the Fair Housing Act.
White, however, filed a complaint with HUD
alleging that Wooten’s statements were illegal
under the advertising provisions of the
Fair Housing Act.
In 2001, HUD charged the case under
Section 804(c), which makes it unlawful to
“make, print, publish” or otherwise convey
a “preference or limitation against any person
due to their protected-class status.”
Neither party elected the case to federal
Court, and an initial administrative hearing
was held on September 25, 2001, which
Wooten failed to attend. Her counsel then
asserted that Wooten was incompetent. The
hearing was postponed pending state court
proceedings and HUD’s hearing was reconvened
on February 4, 2004.
Notwithstanding that Ms. Wooten and
her representatives defaulted, ALJ Andretta
ruled that Seventh Circuit precedent required
an evidentiary hearing on liability.
After a full hearing on liability and
damages, the judge ruled that the government
and complainant-intervenor
failed to prove either that Wooten was
the maker of the statement or that it was
facially discriminatory.
HUD’s Office of General Counsel declined
to appeal the ALJ’s decision to Secretary
Alphonso Jackson, but on appeal by
White, the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding
that statements discriminating against
single parents constitute familial status discrimination,
not marital status discrimination
and thereby violate the FHA.
White’s counsel is working closely with
HUD to bring this case to its long-overdue
conclusion and obtain her much-needed relief.
For further details about this case, contact
Sheila White’s attorney, Leslie Matlaw at (312)
804-3527. Matlaw can also be reached via email
at send_2_leslie@hotmail.com.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 14

continued from page 7
no showing that Defendants’ policy to phase out Section 8
leases had a different effect on disabled or African-American
tenants than other tenants. Accordingly, Defendants’
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fair Housing
Act claims will be granted. As to Plaintiff’s 1982 claims,
Plaintiff’s cause of action fails on the third prima facie element
(that race was a factor in Defendant’s decision to enact
a Section 8 non-renewal program or to terminate his
lease). Accordingly, summary judgment is also appropriate
on the 1982 claim. NFHAO Case ID 3108
Seirotowicz v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 1781, 2 nd Cir., January 25, 2007. Plaintiffs
appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing
their amended complaint. The district court found that
Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a discrimination claim under
12(b)(6) because “there were no factual allegations in the
record which can support such a claim.” Although lengthy
and confusing, the complaint in this case provides notice to
defendants that they are charged with discriminating against
the plaintiffs on account of their familial status, gender, and
disability. Accordingly, the complaint does adequately plead
a violation of the pertinent anti-discrimination laws, and the
district court’s dismissal of the discrimination claims is hereby
vacated. NFHAO Case ID 3097
What’s that NFHAO Case ID?
Subscribers to the National Fair Housing Advocate Online
Case Database at http://www.fairhousing.com can now simply
enter the case ID number on the search page to go directly
to the full text of these cases.
What’s the NFHAO Case Database?
The NFHAO Case Database is the most comprehensive and
affordable fair housing case database on the Internet, and it
is far more economical that major online legal resources
like Lexis and Westlaw.
I don’t have a subscription to the NFHAO Case Database,
and I want one!
Yes, you do want one! Our very low annual rates are $100
per year for a solo practitioner, $150 per year for two to
five users and $300 per year for six to ten users. Please
note that the case database subscription is separate from the
subscription to the National Fair Housing Advocate monthly
publication.
How do I sign up for the NFHAO Case Database?
Just go to www.fairhousing.com/casedatabase and follow
the instructions.
-- The case law update and the NFHAO Case Database are
provided by and administered by the Tennessee Fair Housing
Council, 107 Music City Circle, Suite 318, Nashville,
TN 37214, phone; (615) 874-2344, fax: (615) 874-1636.
To contact them via e-mail, visit
www.tennfairhousing.org/contact.shtml.
SUBSCRIBE UBSCRIBE TOD OD ODAY! OD
If you are a real estate professional, a fair housing advocate, or
anyone who supports civil rights, then you need the National
Fair Housing Advocate. For more than a decade, the Advocate has
brought you the latest in fair housing news, legal updates, and victories
in the struggle for equal housing opportunities for all. Now,
we’re expanding our services and our coverage to bring you the
most comprehensive national fair housing publication ever produced.
For $150 per year, you will get the latest updates on fair
housing law, feature articles about the key figures in the fair housing
movement, and the analysis of fair housing cases that have been
the staple of the National Fair Housing Advocate since 1989.
SUBSCRIBE NOW! (Makes a great gift!)
Name _______________________________________
Company ____________________________________
Address _____________________________________
City, State, ZIP _______________________________
Phone (____)_________________________________
e-mail address ________________________________
__ Online only - $150 per year (12 issues)
__ Online + paper copy - $200 per year (12 issues)
Make check or money order payable to “Kentucky Fair Housing Council”
and mail to P.O. Box 1293, Louisville, KY 40201. To subscribe
online via credit card, visit www.fairhousing.com/advocate. To download
and view sample issues, visit www.kyfhc.org/advocate.
February 2007 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 15