Understanding Case Law: Key Summaries in Fair Housing and Civil Rights

Navigating the complexities of law often requires a deep understanding of precedent-setting cases. For content creators at internetlawyers.net, staying informed about significant legal summaries is crucial. This article provides an overview of several important case summaries, offering insights into various legal domains, particularly within fair housing and civil rights. Understanding these cases is vital for both legal professionals and individuals seeking to comprehend the nuances of the law.

Fair Housing Act and Accessibility: The Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. Moline Builders, Inc.

This case, heard in the Northern District of Ohio, centered on the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for newly constructed multifamily dwellings. The core question was whether accessibility extended to the front door and walkway of a covered unit. Defendants argued that an accessible route through the garage sufficed. However, the court sided with the plaintiffs and the United States’ Statement of Interest, emphasizing that front doors and walkways are “public use and common use portions” and must be accessible. The court highlighted that denying “unimpeded access” to the front door is discriminatory and violates the FHA, impacting not only residents but also visitors. This case reinforces the FHA’s broad scope in ensuring accessibility beyond just the interior of a dwelling.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA): Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne

The Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. v. Township of Wayne case in the District of New Jersey involved the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The Albanian Associated Fund sought to build a mosque, but the Township initiated eminent domain proceedings against the land while the permit application was pending. The Township argued eminent domain was not covered by RLUIPA. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain proceedings in this context do constitute land use regulation under RLUIPA. This case underscores RLUIPA’s protection against land use regulations that may unduly burden religious institutions, even in situations involving eminent domain.

Punitive Damages and the Fair Housing Act: Alexander v. Riga

Alexander v. Riga, heard in the Third Circuit, addressed the important issue of punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act. While a jury found the defendants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had discriminated against an African American couple by misrepresenting rental unit availability, they awarded no compensatory damages. The judge then prevented the jury from considering punitive damages. The Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing for the judge to allow the jury to consider punitive damages. The appellate court reversed, stating that “in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm,” and ordered a new trial on punitive damages. This case clarifies that harm in FHA cases extends beyond direct financial loss and that punitive damages can be considered even without compensatory awards, emphasizing the gravity of discriminatory actions.

Disparate Impact and the Fair Housing Act: American Insurance Association v. HUD

American Insurance Association v. HUD in the D.D.C. examined the application of disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act. Homeowners insurance trade associations challenged a HUD regulation formalizing disparate impact liability under the FHA, arguing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The initial district court ruling favored the plaintiffs, but the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded it after the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. HUD argued that the regulation aligned with the Supreme Court’s guidance and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Inclusive Communities was flawed. This case highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding disparate impact and its application in housing-related contexts like insurance practices.

Retaliation and the Fair Housing Act: Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n, et al.

Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass’n, et al., in the District of Colorado, addressed retaliation claims under the Fair Housing Act. A condominium owner alleged discrimination and retaliation after his condominium association denied a reasonable accommodation for his tenant’s service dog and then fined him for allowing the dog. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that retaliation claims under the FHA are valid even without an underlying discrimination claim. The court agreed, denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ruling that fines imposed for allowing a tenant to have a service dog could constitute retaliation. This case strengthens protections against retaliation for those assisting or advocating for fair housing rights.

Reasonable Accommodation under the FHA: Avalon Residential Care, Homes, Inc. v. City of Dallas

Avalon Residential Care, Homes, Inc. v. City of Dallas in the N.D. Tex. involved a reasonable accommodation request under the Fair Housing Act. Avalon sought a variance from city zoning requirements to operate a group home for people with disabilities. The City denied the variance based on spacing and occupancy limits. The United States filed an amicus brief opposing the City’s arguments, asserting that the denial of a reasonable accommodation in this instance violated the FHA. This case underscores the importance of reasonable accommodations in ensuring housing access for individuals with disabilities and the FHA’s mandate to adjust standard rules and policies when necessary.

Equitable Remedies and the Fair Housing Act: Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc., in the District of Maryland, dealt with equitable remedies for Fair Housing Act violations related to design and construction. Private plaintiffs claimed a condominium complex failed to be accessible as required by the FHA. The United States filed amicus briefs outlining accessibility standards and appropriate equitable remedies. The court ordered monetary damages and equitable relief, including establishing a $333,000 fund for retrofitting common areas and inaccessible units. This case illustrates the courts’ willingness to mandate affirmative action, including retrofitting and financial incentives, to remedy FHA design and construction violations and ensure accessibility.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and Interest Rate Caps: Bank of America Corporation

The case involving Bank of America Corporation highlights the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The United States executed a Memorandum of Agreement with Bank of America concerning violations of the SCRA. The issue was the bank’s failure to properly lower interest rates on servicemembers’ credit card loans to 6% as mandated by the SCRA. The agreement required Bank of America to compensate affected servicemembers $86,023 and to implement policy changes to prevent future violations. This case emphasizes the SCRA’s protections for servicemembers and the consequences for financial institutions failing to comply with its provisions, particularly regarding interest rate caps.

Post-Acquisition Discrimination and the FHA: Bloch v. Frischholz

Bloch v. Frischholz, heard en banc by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, clarified the application of the Fair Housing Act to post-acquisition discrimination. A Jewish family sued a condominium board for repeatedly removing a mezuzah from their door frame. The original panel ruled against the family, citing the FHA’s limited reach to post-acquisition issues. However, the en banc court reversed in part, holding that the FHA does cover post-acquisition discrimination, particularly concerning § 3617. The court ordered the trial court to reconsider whether the condo board acted with discriminatory intent. This case significantly expands the scope of the FHA to include discriminatory actions occurring after housing acquisition, especially regarding harassment and discriminatory enforcement of rules.

Reasonable Accommodation for Emotional Support Animals: Calvillo, et al. v. Baywood Equities, L.P., et al.

Calvillo, et al. v. Baywood Equities, L.P., et al. involved a settlement agreement resolving a HUD election referral case concerning emotional support animals. The case alleged disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act after Baywood Equities denied a family’s request for a reasonable accommodation for an emotional support animal. The settlement required the respondents to pay $32,500 to the complainants and implement a reasonable accommodation policy. This case reinforces the FHA’s requirement to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities, including allowing emotional support animals, and highlights the financial penalties for non-compliance.

Non-Delegable Duty under ECOA: Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation

Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation in the M.D. Tenn. addressed lender liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Plaintiffs alleged that Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation’s practice of allowing dealers to set finance charges resulted in African Americans paying higher charges. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that lenders have a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA and are liable for discriminatory pricing even when delegated to dealers. The court denied summary judgment for the defendants, supporting the argument that lenders cannot evade ECOA liability by delegating pricing decisions to third parties.

RLUIPA and Equal Terms: Christian Fellowship Centers of NY, Inc. v. Village of Canton, NY

Christian Fellowship Centers of NY, Inc. v. Village of Canton, NY (N.D.N.Y.) concerned the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)’s equal terms provision. Christian Fellowship Centers (CFC), a religious organization, was denied permission to operate in a commercial district where similar secular assemblies were permitted. The Village argued zoning goals like promoting commercial enterprise justified barring churches. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that the Village’s justifications were not valid under RLUIPA’s equal terms provision. The court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of CFC, highlighting that RLUIPA mandates religious assemblies be treated at least as well as comparable secular assemblies.

Substantial Burden under RLUIPA: Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles

Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.) addressed the substantial burden standard under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of the Congregation’s motion for summary judgment, discussing the standard for evaluating substantial burden claims. The court’s order referenced the United States’ brief extensively. This case provides insight into the legal interpretation of “substantial burden” under RLUIPA and the evidentiary standards required to demonstrate such a burden in land use cases.

Redlining and Fair Lending: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. Hudson City Savings Bank, F.S.B.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. Hudson City Savings Bank, F.S.B. (D. N.J.) involved a Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act redlining case. The complaint alleged Hudson City Savings Bank discriminated against majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods by failing to provide equal home mortgage lending services, a practice known as redlining. A consent order required Hudson City to invest $25 million in a loan subsidy fund, $2.25 million in outreach and financial education, open branches in redlined neighborhoods, and pay a $5.5 million civil penalty. This case is a significant example of enforcement against redlining practices and the comprehensive remedies required to address systemic discrimination in lending.

Pattern or Practice of Lending Discrimination: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. National City Bank

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & United States v. National City Bank (W.D. Pa.) was an Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act case resulting from a joint investigation. The complaint alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and national origin in residential mortgage lending. The consent order required PNC Bank, National City Bank’s successor, to pay $35 million to African American and Hispanic victims. This case demonstrates the scale of financial penalties and victim compensation in pattern or practice cases of lending discrimination.

Definition of “Dwelling” under the FHA: Defiore v. City Rescue Mission of New Castle

Defiore v. City Rescue Mission of New Castle (W.D. Pa.) addressed whether a homeless shelter qualifies as a “dwelling” under the Fair Housing Act. The United States Attorney’s Office filed a statement of interest arguing that a homeless shelter is a “dwelling” under the FHA and that the FHA’s religious exemption does not apply to disability discrimination. While the court initially explored the plaintiff’s competence, the United States’ brief laid important groundwork for applying fair housing protections to non-traditional housing situations like homeless shelters.

Discriminatory Effect and Limited Delivery Policies: Dominos’ Pizza LLC (N.C.)

The settlement agreement with Dominos’ Pizza LLC (N.C.) addressed a complaint that their limited delivery service policy had a discriminatory effect on African Americans. Dominos’ policy allowed store managers to limit delivery in areas with safety concerns. The United States investigated a complaint that this policy disproportionately impacted African American neighborhoods. The settlement required Dominos’ to adopt a Limited Delivery Services Policy with specific guidelines, annual reviews, and narrowly defined delivery limitations. This case illustrates how seemingly neutral policies can have discriminatory effects and the importance of carefully crafting and reviewing such policies for potential disparate impact.

Post-Acquisition Claims under FHA: Drayton v. McIntosh County

Drayton v. McIntosh County (S.D. Ga.) involved a lawsuit alleging discrimination against the Gullah Geechee population on Sapelo Island. The complaint included claims under the Fair Housing Act and Title VI, alleging unequal provision of municipal services and discriminatory application of zoning ordinances. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that post-acquisition claims are cognizable under the FHA. This case further reinforces the FHA’s protection against discrimination that occurs after housing acquisition, extending beyond initial sale or rental.

Religious Land Use and RLUIPA: Estes. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission

Estes. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission (Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee) involved community opposition to a mosque construction project in Murfreesboro. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that Islam is plainly a religion, a mosque is a place of worship, and the county acted appropriately under RLUIPA in treating the application as any other religious institution’s. The brief emphasized Islam’s recognized status as a major world religion and the protections it deserves under the First Amendment and RLUIPA, countering arguments that questioned Islam’s religious status.

Statute of Limitations in Design and Construction Cases: Equal Rights Center v. AvalonBay Communities

Equal Rights Center v. AvalonBay Communities (D. Md.) addressed the statute of limitations in Fair Housing Act design and construction cases. AvalonBay argued that relief for properties completed more than two years before the complaint was filed was time-barred. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that the statute of limitations does not bar relief for these properties. The court denied AvalonBay’s motion to dismiss, supporting the view that the statute of limitations in design and construction cases can be interpreted to allow for broader relief.

HUD Guidelines and Prima Facie Case in Design and Construction: Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential

Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential (D. Md.) concerned design and construction standards under the FHA. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that violations of HUD’s Fair Housing Amendments Act Guidelines establish a prima facie case of FHA violation, rebuttable only by showing compliance with a comparable standard. The court’s opinion adopted this argument, ruling that violating HUD Guidelines establishes a prima facie case and rejecting the defendants’ argument for a more subjective accessibility standard. This case clarifies the evidentiary weight of HUD Guidelines in design and construction FHA cases.

Continuing Violations Doctrine in Design and Construction: Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties

Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties (D.D.C.) further explored the statute of limitations and the continuing violations doctrine in design and construction cases. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff encounters and is injured by the accessibility violations and that the continuing violations doctrine allows recovery for properties completed outside the limitations period. This case supports a plaintiff-friendly interpretation of the statute of limitations in design and construction FHA cases, allowing for claims beyond a strict two-year window.

Assistance Animals and Landlord Obligations: Fair Housing of the Dakotas v. Goldmark Property Management Co.

Fair Housing of the Dakotas v. Goldmark Property Management Co. (D. N.D.) addressed landlord obligations regarding assistance animals under the FHA. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that the FHA prohibits landlords from requiring assistance animals to have special training and may require landlords to waive pet fees for assistance animals. The brief also argued against discriminatory fee structures that differentiate between service animals for physical disabilities and emotional support animals for mental disabilities. This case clarifies the scope of reasonable accommodations for assistance animals and the limitations on landlord requirements and fees.

Religious Head Coverings and Discrimination: Settlement Agreement between United States and F & K Management, Inc.

The settlement agreement between the United States and F & K Management, Inc., d/b/a Hard Times Cafes and Santa Fe Cue Clubs, resolved a complaint of national origin discrimination. A Sikh man was told to remove his turban or leave a club in Springfield, Virginia. The Division’s investigation revealed a policy prohibiting head coverings except cowboy hats and baseball caps. The settlement required F & K to rescind the policy, adopt a new dress code, post non-discrimination signs, advertise non-discrimination, and provide employee training by Sikh and Islamic organizations. This case highlights the importance of non-discrimination policies covering religious headwear and the role of advocacy groups in bringing such issues to light.

Race Steering in Real Estate Sales: First Boston Real Estate (Okla.)

The settlement agreement with First Boston Real Estate (Okla.) addressed allegations of race steering in housing sales. The United States alleged a former agent engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination. The settlement required First Boston Real Estate to implement a non-discriminatory policy, display it in offices, distribute it to agents and clients, and implement reporting requirements. The Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma City received compensatory damages. This case underscores the continued relevance of race steering as a form of housing discrimination and the proactive measures real estate companies must take to prevent it.

Criminal Records and Disparate Impact: Fortune Society, Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corp.

Fortune Society, Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Housing Development Fund Corp. (E.D.N.Y.) examined the use of criminal records in housing applications and potential disparate impact under the FHA. Fortune Society challenged the practices of an affordable housing complex considering criminal records. The United States filed a statement of interest explaining that while the FHA doesn’t prohibit considering criminal records, “categorical prohibitions” without considering context or rehabilitation risk disparate impact based on race or national origin. The brief argued housing providers must prove such bans are “necessary” and consider less discriminatory alternatives. This case highlights the need for housing providers to carefully consider criminal record policies to avoid discriminatory effects.

RLUIPA and Land Use Regulation Definition: Garden State Islamic Center v. City of Vineland, NJ

Garden State Islamic Center v. City of Vineland, NJ (D. N.J.) addressed the definition of “land use regulation” under RLUIPA. Garden State Islamic Center (GSIC) challenged the City’s refusal to grant a certificate of occupancy for a mosque due to sewage regulation requirements. The City argued sewage regulations were not “land use regulations” under RLUIPA. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that sewage regulations do fall under RLUIPA’s definition when used to regulate land use. The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, agreeing that sewage regulations in this context constituted land use regulations under RLUIPA. This case clarifies the broad interpretation of “land use regulation” under RLUIPA, encompassing regulations beyond traditional zoning ordinances.

Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact under FHA & ECOA: Gomez v. Quicken Loans

Gomez v. Quicken Loans (C.D. Cal.) involved allegations of discrimination against borrowers with disabilities. The Division filed a statement of interest clarifying that Smith v. City of Jackson did not overrule disparate impact precedent under the FHA, that disparate treatment claims don’t require ill intent, and that ECOA claims don’t require credit denial. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that requiring disabled borrowers to provide a doctor’s letter for SSDI income constituted a disparate treatment claim. This case clarifies the distinctions between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under fair lending laws and the evidentiary requirements for each.

Private Right of Action under SCRA: Gordon v. Pete’s Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc.

Gordon v. Pete’s Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. (4th Cir.) concerned the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and private rights of action. The United States filed an amicus brief supporting a servicemember’s argument that a private right of action exists to enforce SCRA provisions requiring lienholders to obtain a court order before enforcing liens on servicemembers’ property. The court ruled that SCRA amendments providing an express private right of action should apply retroactively to the case. This case confirms the private right of action under the SCRA and its retroactive application, strengthening servicemember protections.

Commerce Clause and Fair Housing Act: Groome and United States v. Jefferson Parrish

Groome and United States v. Jefferson Parrish (E.D. La.) addressed the constitutionality of the Fair Housing Act under the Commerce Clause. Jefferson Parish violated the FHA by denying a group home for adults with Alzheimer’s Disease. The Parish appealed, arguing the FHA protections for persons with disabilities were unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Division intervened, arguing that Congress had the power to pass the FHA under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit upheld the FHA’s constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, joining other circuits in affirming Congress’s power to regulate the housing market.

Familial Status Discrimination and Unit Restrictions: Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association

Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association (E.D. Mich.) involved familial status discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendants’ policy of restricting families with children to first-floor units violated the FHA. The United States had previously reached a settlement agreement with the defendants to rescind this policy. This case highlights discriminatory housing practices targeting families with children and the FHA’s prohibition against such restrictions.

Moratoriums and Familial Status Discrimination: Hand in Hand/Mano en Mano v. Town of Milbridge, Maine

Hand in Hand/Mano en Mano v. Town of Milbridge, Maine (D. Me.) concerned a town moratorium halting a proposed farmworker housing project. The plaintiff alleged the moratorium was based on discriminatory opposition to the national origin and familial status of prospective residents. The United States filed an amicus curiae brief setting out applicable legal principles regarding familial status discrimination and discriminatory intent in land use decisions. This case illustrates how land use moratoriums can be used to mask discriminatory housing practices and the FHA’s application to such actions.

Reverse Redlining and Predatory Lending: Hargraves v. Capitol City Mortgage Corp.

Hargraves v. Capitol City Mortgage Corp. (D.D.C.) addressed “reverse redlining,” targeting minorities for predatory loans. Plaintiffs claimed Capital City Mortgage Corp. targeted African American communities for loans designed to fail. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that predatory lending practices targeting minorities violate fair lending laws, even if loans are made in minority areas. This case underscores that fair lending laws prohibit not only denial of credit but also discriminatory and predatory lending practices specifically targeting minority communities.

Waiver of Prepayment Penalties under SCRA: Homecomings Financial, LLC

The resolution with Homecomings Financial, LLC, highlighted Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) protections against prepayment penalties. Homecomings Financial initially denied a servicemember’s request to waive a prepayment penalty when she sold her home due to a permanent change of station. Following a Justice Department investigation, Homecomings refunded the penalty and agreed to waive prepayment penalties for servicemembers involuntarily transferred more than 30 miles. This case emphasizes SCRA protections against financial penalties for servicemembers relocating due to military orders.

RLUIPA and Equal Terms with Secular Assemblies: Hope Lutheran Church v. City of St. Ignace

Hope Lutheran Church v. City of St. Ignace (W.D. Mich.) involved RLUIPA’s equal terms provision. Hope Lutheran Church was denied permission to operate in a General Business District (GBD), even though secular assembly uses were permitted. The City argued zoning criteria like tax generation justified barring churches. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that these justifications were invalid under RLUIPA. The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the City likely violated RLUIPA by treating religious assemblies less favorably than secular ones. This case reinforces RLUIPA’s mandate for equal treatment of religious and secular assemblies in land use regulations.

Substantial Burden and RLUIPA: Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness, Inc. v. Howard County, Maryland

Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness, Inc. v. Howard County, Maryland (D. Md.) addressed the substantial burden provision under RLUIPA. Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness (JOGA) alleged Howard County violated RLUIPA by denying a land use application to construct a temple. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that JOGA had sufficiently alleged a substantial burden claim. The brief emphasized the lack of a Jagannath temple in the area, the temple’s permitted use status, and the County’s unconditional denial, suggesting a substantial burden on religious exercise existed. This case provides further insight into factors considered when evaluating substantial burden claims under RLUIPA.

National Origin Discrimination in Housing: J & R Associates (D. Mass.)

The settlement agreement with J & R Associates (D. Mass.) addressed national origin discrimination. J & R Associates, owner of Royal Park Apartments, was alleged to have discriminated against tenants of South Asian descent. The settlement established a $70,000 fund to compensate victims and required training and Fair Housing Act compliance. This case highlights the FHA’s prohibition against national origin discrimination in housing and the remedies available for victims.

Design and Construction Violations and Retrofitting: Jubilee Apartments

The settlement agreement with Jubilee Apartments addressed design and construction violations of the FHA. The case, referred by HUD, involved allegations that Palermo Apartments (formerly Jubilee Apartments) were not designed and constructed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The settlement required retrofitting public and common areas, posting non-discrimination policies, staff training, and periodic reporting. This case demonstrates the enforcement of FHA design and construction requirements and the remedies of retrofitting and injunctive relief.

Punitive Damages and Compensatory Damages under FHA: Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc

Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) concerned punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act in the absence of compensatory damages. A jury found Danny LeBlanc liable for race discrimination but awarded no compensatory damages, only $10,000 in punitive damages. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that punitive damages under the FHA require an award of compensatory or nominal damages. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. This case established a stricter standard for punitive damages in the Fifth Circuit compared to some other circuits, requiring compensatory or nominal damages as a prerequisite.

Disparate Impact Claims under Section 804(a) of the FHA: Magner v. Gallagher

Magner v. Gallagher (No. 10-1032) before the U.S. Supreme Court, involved disparate impact claims under Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that disparate impact claims are cognizable under Section 804(a), based on the text, history, HUD’s consistent interpretation, and a burden-shifting framework for analysis. While the Court did not directly rule on disparate impact in this case, the United States’ brief articulated its position on this critical aspect of FHA enforcement.

Shelters as “Dwellings” under the FHA: Hunter v. The District of Columbia

Hunter v. The District of Columbia (D.D.C.) addressed whether homeless shelters are “dwellings” under the Fair Housing Act. A family in the D.C. homeless shelter system alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing against dismissal. The court ruled favorably, holding that shelters are covered “dwellings” under the FHA, though Section 804(f)(1) may not apply to those not “buyers or renters.” However, Section 804(f)(2), prohibiting discrimination in “terms or conditions of a rental,” does protect shelter residents even without direct payment. This case expands FHA protections to individuals residing in homeless shelters.

Criminal Convictions and Blanket Bans in Housing: Loveless v. Euramex Management Group, LLC (Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC)

Loveless v. Euramex Management Group, LLC (Wesley Apartment Homes, LLC) involved a settlement agreement resolving a Fair Housing Act election referral concerning blanket felony bans in housing. HUD charged the owner and manager of an Atlanta apartment complex with race and color discrimination for refusing to rent to anyone with any felony conviction, regardless of time or nature. The settlement required adopting non-discriminatory screening procedures and Fair Housing Act training. This case demonstrates the discriminatory potential of overly broad criminal background checks in housing and the need for individualized assessment.

Post-9/11 Discrimination and Places of Public Accommodation: Marriott International Settlement

The Marriott International Settlement addressed post-9/11 discrimination against Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. Marriott revoked an offer to host the Midwest Federation of American Syrian-Lebanese Clubs’ convention after September 11, 2001. The settlement, under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, required Marriott to pay $100,000 to a scholarship fund, sponsor the Federation’s 2002 convention, and issue a formal apology. This case represents early enforcement against post-9/11 discrimination targeting specific ethnic and religious communities in places of public accommodation.

Retrofitting and Community Retrofit Funds: Memphis Center for Independent Living and the United States v. Milton and Richard Grant Co.

Memphis Center for Independent Living and the United States v. Milton and Richard Grant Co. (W.D. Tenn.) involved design and construction violations under the FHA. The consent decree required the defendants to retrofit apartments and common areas in two complexes and establish a $320,000 Community Retrofit Fund administered by the Memphis Center for Independent Living. This fund would enable individuals in Shelby County, Tennessee, to modify their own residences for accessibility. This case illustrates the use of Community Retrofit Funds as a remedy to increase accessibility beyond the specific properties in violation.

Admissibility of Testing Evidence in Fair Housing Cases: Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council v. Gundacker Real Estate, Co.

Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council v. Gundacker Real Estate, Co. (E.D. Mo.) addressed the admissibility of testing evidence in fair housing cases. The defendants challenged the methodology and scientific validity of fair housing testing evidence. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that testing results are factual evidence, not expert testimony, and should be admitted without special evidentiary review. This case is important for establishing the admissibility and evidentiary value of fair housing testing, a critical tool in detecting discrimination.

Post-Acquisition Sexual Harassment under the FHA: Mouton v. Augustine

Mouton v. Augustine (W.D. La.) addressed post-acquisition sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiff alleged sexual harassment by her apartment manager throughout her tenancy. Defendants moved to dismiss claims related to post-acquisition conduct, arguing it was not covered by the FHA. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that post-acquisition conduct is covered. Shortly after, the defendants withdrew their motion on this point. This case reinforces the FHA’s protection against sexual harassment throughout the duration of a tenancy, not just during acquisition.

Disparate Impact Liability and the FHA: Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al. v. Township of Mount Holly

Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al. v. Township of Mount Holly (3rd Cir.) involved a challenge to disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing against reviewing petitioners’ claim that disparate impact is not cognizable under the FHA, noting consistent circuit court precedent and HUD’s regulation formalizing disparate impact liability. The brief argued the case was not an appropriate vehicle to resolve the question presented. This case reflects the ongoing legal debate surrounding disparate impact, even with established precedent and regulatory support.

Facebook Ad Targeting and FHA Violations: National Fair Housing Alliance v. Facebook, Inc.

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Facebook, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) raised novel FHA issues concerning online advertising platforms. The complaint alleged Facebook’s ad targeting tools allowed housing providers to limit audiences based on sex, religion, familial status, and national origin, violating the FHA. Facebook moved to dismiss, citing the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that the CDA does not immunize Facebook from FHA lawsuits based on its ad targeting practices. This case is groundbreaking in applying fair housing law to digital advertising platforms and their role in facilitating discriminatory housing practices.

Ripeness and Design and Construction Cases: National Fair Housing Alliance v. Hunt Investments, LLC

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Hunt Investments, LLC (E.D. Va.) addressed ripeness in FHA design and construction cases. The complaint alleged accessibility barriers in a Virginia apartment complex’s design and construction. The United States filed a statement of interest regarding when such claims are ripe for judicial review. This case clarifies the timing for bringing design and construction FHA claims and the point at which such claims become justiciable.

Continuing Violations Doctrine in Design and Construction (Ninth Circuit): National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Spanos

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. Spanos (N.D. Cal.) further addressed the continuing violations doctrine in design and construction cases, specifically within the Ninth Circuit. The district court agreed with the United States’ amicus brief, ruling that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Garcia v. Brockway did not eliminate the continuing violations doctrine in all design and construction cases. The court reaffirmed applying Havens v. Coleman Realty when a continuing pattern or practice of violations is alleged. This case clarifies the Ninth Circuit’s stance on the continuing violations doctrine in design and construction FHA cases and its application to ongoing patterns of inaccessible design and construction.

HUD Regulations and Accessibility Guidelines: Nelson v. HUD

Nelson v. HUD (9th Cir.) involved a challenge to HUD’s interpretation of its own regulations regarding Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. The United States filed a brief as respondent, asserting HUD correctly interpreted its regulations to require demonstrating compliance with an objective accessibility standard when HUD Guidelines are not met. The brief also affirmed Montana Fair Housing’s standing and HUD’s interpretation that front entrances must be accessible. This case upholds HUD’s authority in interpreting and enforcing its accessibility guidelines and emphasizes the importance of objective accessibility standards.

Unequal Terms and RLUIPA: Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs

Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs (5th Circuit) involved RLUIPA’s equal terms provision. Opulent Life Church was denied a permit to renovate space in a central business district. Churches in Holly Springs faced stricter standards than other uses, including requiring mayoral and neighborhood approval. The United States filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that this disparate treatment violated RLUIPA Section 2(b)(2), which prohibits treating religious assemblies on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies. This case further reinforces RLUIPA’s equal terms protection and the impermissibility of imposing stricter standards on religious assemblies compared to secular counterparts.

Data Collection, Ad Tools and Segregation on Facebook: Onuoha v. Facebook

Onuoha v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.) raised concerns about Facebook’s data collection and advertising tools potentially facilitating housing segregation. Plaintiffs alleged Facebook’s tools allowed property owners to exclude users based on race and national origin from seeing housing ads, violating the FHA. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts for an FHA claim and that Facebook lacked statutory immunity under the Communications Decency Act for its data and ad tools. This case further explores the application of fair housing law to online platforms and data-driven advertising practices that may perpetuate discrimination.

Mortgage Loan Pricing Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin: Pacific Mercantile Bank

The settlement agreement with Pacific Mercantile Bank resolved claims of race and national origin discrimination in mortgage loan pricing. The United States alleged the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, resulting in a $1 million settlement providing relief to borrowers harmed by discriminatory pricing. This case demonstrates ongoing enforcement efforts against racial and national origin discrimination in mortgage lending and the significant financial remedies obtained for affected borrowers.

Standing and Ripeness in APA Challenges to HUD Regulations: Property Casualty Insurers Association of America v. Donovan

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America v. Donovan (N.D. Ill.) involved an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to HUD’s regulation formalizing disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiff, a homeowners insurance trade association, alleged HUD violated the APA. The court partly granted HUD’s motion to dismiss, addressing standing, ripeness, and APA compliance. This case demonstrates the procedural hurdles and legal standards involved in challenging federal regulations under the APA, even in the context of fair housing enforcement.

Retrofitting and Owner Notification in Design and Construction Settlements: Pulte Home Corporation

The modification agreement with Pulte Home Corporation supplemented a prior settlement agreement concerning design and construction FHA violations. The modification agreement covered additional properties in Las Vegas and required Pulte to annually notify current owners of their option to have Pulte retrofit their units at no cost to them for FHA compliance. This case highlights the long-term obligations and owner notification requirements often included in design and construction settlements to ensure ongoing remediation and accessibility.

RLUIPA and Substantial Burden Claims: Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. v. Township of Mahwah

Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. v. Township of Mahwah (D. N.J.) concerned RLUIPA substantial burden and equal treatment claims. The Ramapough Mountain Indians alleged Mahwah Township violated RLUIPA by barring their worship practices and treating them differently from secular groups. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that the tribe sufficiently alleged substantial burden and unequal treatment claims under RLUIPA, and that these claims were ripe for judicial review. This case further clarifies the pleading standards for RLUIPA claims, particularly concerning substantial burden and unequal treatment allegations.

Accessible Housing Units in Public Housing and Assistance Animal Policies: Reading Housing Authority

The settlement agreement with Reading Housing Authority (RHA) addressed multiple fair housing and civil rights issues. RHA agreed to set aside capital funding for accessible housing units, renovate kitchens for accessibility upon request, maintain a list of accessible Section 8 units, and implement a new Assistance Animal Policy. This case demonstrates a comprehensive approach to resolving fair housing violations in public housing, addressing both accessibility barriers in housing stock and discriminatory policies related to assistance animals.

First Amendment Rights and Religious Worship in Civic Centers: Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach

Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach (D. S.C.) involved a First Amendment challenge to a town’s ban on religious worship services in its Civic Center. The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting the church’s claim that the ban violated its First Amendment rights. The Town voluntarily rescinded the ban. The court dismissed the preliminary injunction request as moot but kept the damages and declaratory relief claims. This case reinforces the principle that governments cannot discriminate against religious worship in public forums and must allow equal access for religious groups.

Punitive Damages and Family Member Claims in Sexual Harassment Cases: Reed, et al. v. Penasquitos Casablanca Owner’s Association

Reed, et al. v. Penasquitos Casablanca Owner’s Association (9th Cir.) concerned punitive damages and family member claims in a Fair Housing Act sexual harassment case. A jury found a condominium security guard had sexually harassed the plaintiff but declined to award compensatory damages and the judge prevented consideration of punitive damages. The United States filed an amicus brief arguing that claims of the plaintiff’s children should have gone to the jury and punitive damages should have been considered. This case advocates for a broader interpretation of harm and standing in FHA sexual harassment cases, including family members affected by the harassment and the availability of punitive damages.

Group Homes for Recovering Addicts and Fair Housing Act: Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown

Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown (S.D.N.Y.) involved the City’s denial of permission to operate a residential facility for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. The United States intervened in the case, alleging Fair Housing Act violations. The Second Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the City, agreeing that the district court applied the wrong legal standard. This case underscores the FHA’s protection against discrimination based on disability, including addiction recovery, and the importance of applying the correct legal standards in such cases.

RLUIPA and Substantial Burden Standard (Tenth Circuit): The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas v. The City of Mission Woods, Kansas

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas v. The City of Mission Woods, Kansas (D. Kan.) addressed RLUIPA’s substantial burden standard within the Tenth Circuit. The United States filed a statement of interest supporting the Archdiocese’s motion for summary judgment, discussing the standard for evaluating substantial burden claims. The court denied summary judgment for both parties, closely following the United States’ analysis in setting the case for trial. This case provides insight into the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation of “substantial burden” and the factors considered in its application under RLUIPA.

Standing in RLUIPA Cases: Sailak, LLC v. Forsyth County, Georgia

Sailak, LLC and Sumaltha Satoor v. Forsyth County (N.D. Ga.) involved standing to bring RLUIPA claims. Sailak, LLC, sought to build a Hindu temple, but Forsyth County denied a conditional use permit. The County argued the Plaintiffs lacked standing due to private land restrictions. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that Plaintiffs do have standing because the court can remedy the alleged harm by ordering the County to issue the permit. The court agreed, denying the County’s motion for summary judgment and affirming Plaintiffs’ standing to bring RLUIPA claims. This case clarifies standing requirements in RLUIPA cases and the ability of courts to provide effective remedies.

Discriminatory Code Enforcement and National Origin Discrimination: Sherman Avenue Tenants’ Association v. District of Columbia

Sherman Avenue Tenants’ Association v. District of Columbia (D.D.C.) concerned discriminatory code enforcement under the Fair Housing Act. Tenant associations alleged selective and discriminatory code enforcement in areas with high Latino and Vietnamese populations. The United States filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the District’s actions made housing unavailable based on national origin, violating the FHA. The brief also argued for tenant associations’ standing to bring claims on behalf of members. This case expands the application of the FHA to discriminatory municipal practices beyond direct housing provision, including code enforcement.

Group Homes for Unaccompanied Children as “Dwellings”: Southwest Key Programs, Inc. v. City of Escondido

Southwest Key Programs, Inc. v. City of Escondido (S.D. Cal.) addressed whether group homes for unaccompanied children are “dwellings” under the Fair Housing Act. Southwest Key Programs sought to operate a group home for unaccompanied children in federal custody, but the City denied a permit, alleging race and national origin discrimination. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that the proposed group home is a “dwelling” under the FHA. The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues regarding whether the group home constitutes a dwelling. This case expands the definition of “dwelling” to include group homes for vulnerable populations like unaccompanied children.

Assistance Animals and Deposit Waivers: Syringa Property Management, Inc.

The settlement agreement with Syringa Property Management, Inc., addressed deposits for assistance animals under the FHA. Syringa Property Management was alleged to have illegally required disabled tenants to pay deposits for service or support animals. The settlement required Syringa to cease charging deposits or fees for assistance animals and resolved allegations of violating the Fair Housing Act. This case reinforces the FHA’s requirement to waive pet deposits as a reasonable accommodation for assistance animals.

Disparate Impact Claims and Chevron Deference: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (S. Ct.) definitively addressed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of disparate impact claims, consistent with the United States’ amicus brief. The brief argued for deference to HUD’s interpretation of the FHA to include disparate impact liability under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, based on text, history, and HUD’s consistent interpretation. This landmark Supreme Court decision affirmed the validity of disparate impact claims under the FHA, a crucial tool for addressing systemic housing discrimination.

Retrofitting and Homeowner Retrofit Funds in Design and Construction Settlements: Settlement Agreement U.S. and Tiberti-Blood, Inc., et al.

The settlement agreement with Tiberti-Blood, Inc., et al., addressed design and construction violations at Spanish Gardens Condominiums. The settlement required retrofitting common areas and creating an $11,000 fund for homeowners to retrofit their unit interiors. The agreement also mandated annual owner notification of the retrofit opportunity. This case illustrates the use of homeowner retrofit funds within design and construction settlements to address accessibility barriers within individual units.

Ripeness and Standing under Article III: Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission

Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (9th Cir.) concerned standing and ripeness in a Free Exercise Clause challenge. Landlords challenged Alaska and Anchorage laws prohibiting marital status discrimination in housing, arguing it violated their religious beliefs. The Ninth Circuit en banc court held the landlords’ claim was not ripe and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. This case highlights the ripeness doctrine and standing requirements under Article III of the U.S. Constitution in challenges to anti-discrimination laws.

Reasonable Accommodation and Caregiver Parking: Tony Roque v. Seattle Housing Authority

Tony Roque v. Seattle Housing Authority (W.D. Wash.) addressed reasonable accommodations for caregiver parking. The United States filed a statement of interest arguing that a parking space for a caregiver can be a reasonable accommodation under certain circumstances. This case clarifies that reasonable accommodations under the FHA can extend to parking needs for caregivers, recognizing the crucial role of caregivers in enabling independent living for people with disabilities.

Donations to Disability Housing Organizations in Design and Construction Settlements: Trop Edmond, L.P. (Nev.)

The settlement agreement with Trop-Edmond, L.P.; Trail Properties, Inc.; and Danielian Associates (respondents), resolved design and construction FHA violations at West Trop Condominiums. While corrective actions were already underway, the settlement required the respondents to donate $5,000 to a Nevada organization serving housing needs of persons with disabilities. This case demonstrates the use of donations to disability-focused organizations as part of settlement agreements to further fair housing goals beyond direct remediation.

Wheelchair Access to Front Doors and Public Accommodations: Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association

Trujillo v. Board of Directors of Triumvera Tower Condominium Association (N.D. Ill.) involved disability discrimination related to front door access. The condominium association established a policy prohibiting wheelchair users from using the front door. The United States’ complaint alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination. The consent order required $70,000 in damages to complainants, an apology, a $10,000 payment to a wheelchair user’s widow, a civil penalty, board member resignation, new bylaws, and fair housing training. This case highlights the importance of accessible front door access and the significant consequences for discriminatory policies limiting such access for wheelchair users.

Reasonable Accommodation and Occupancy Limits in Recovery Housing: Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano

Turning Point Foundation v. DeStefano (D. Conn.) involved reasonable accommodation requests for recovery houses for people with addictions. The owners alleged the city failed to reasonably accommodate by allowing more than eight to ten residents per house. The United States filed an amicus curiae brief addressing legal issues without taking a position on the merits. The court denied summary judgment, finding material fact issues in dispute. This case highlights the complexity of reasonable accommodation requests in the context of group homes and the fact-specific nature of such determinations.

Discriminatory Effects and English-Only Rules: Veles v. Lindow

Veles v. Lindow (9th Cir.) addressed discriminatory effects and English-only rules under the FHA. The United States filed an amicus brief asserting that the FHA prohibits actions with discriminatory effects based on national origin and that English-only rules imposed by landlords may violate the FHA. This case underscores that seemingly neutral rules can have discriminatory effects and that English-only rules must be carefully scrutinized under fair housing law.

Emotional Support Animals and Cooperative Housing: United States v. 118 East 60th Owners, Inc.

United States v. 118 East 60th Owners, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) concerned emotional support animals in cooperative housing. The complaint alleged a housing cooperative violated the FHA by refusing to allow a tenant with OCD to keep an emotional support beagle. A consent decree required allowing the animal, dismissing holdover proceedings, training, and adopting a reasonable accommodations policy. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for emotional support animals in cooperative housing settings.

Design and Construction Violations in Rental Apartment Complexes: United States v. 2 Gold, LLC

United States v. 2 Gold, LLC (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at a rental apartment complex in Manhattan. Consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect defendants. The decrees provided for injunctive relief, retrofits, review of future designs, civil penalties, and funds to compensate aggrieved persons. This case showcases comprehensive remedies in design and construction cases, addressing both immediate remediation and future compliance.

Accessible Parking as a Reasonable Accommodation: United States v. 4 Anchorage Lane Owners, Inc.

United States v. 4 Anchorage Lane Owners, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) addressed accessible parking as a reasonable accommodation. The complaint alleged a housing cooperative discriminated against a resident with mobility impairments by refusing to provide an accessible parking space close to his unit. The settlement required designating a specific accessible space for the complainant’s exclusive use. This case reinforces the importance of accessible parking as a reasonable accommodation and the obligation of housing providers to provide such accommodations when necessary.

Race-Based Housing Discrimination in Rental Practices: United States v. 61 Main Street Corp.

United States v. 61 Main Street Corp. (S.D.N.Y.) involved race-based discrimination in rental practices. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to inform African-American prospective tenants about available apartments while telling Caucasian tenants apartments were available, failed to show apartments or provide applications to African Americans, and offered higher rents and less favorable security deposit terms to African Americans. The consent decree required non-discrimination, a non-discrimination policy, a $60,000 victim compensation fund, and a $32,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates enforcement against overt race discrimination in rental practices and the remedies of victim compensation and policy reform.

Assistance Animals in Cooperative Housing: United States v. 75 Main Ave. Owners Corp.

United States v. 75 Main Ave. Owners Corp. (E.D.N.Y.) addressed assistance animals in cooperative apartment buildings. The complaint alleged a cooperative apartment building refused to allow a 90-year-old woman with depression to keep a small assistance dog. The settlement enjoined future discrimination, required a reasonable accommodation procedure, and mandated withdrawing a state court action against the complainant. This case further reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for assistance animals in cooperative housing.

Assistance Animals and Reasonable Accommodation in Apartments: United States v. 111 East 88th Partners

United States v. 111 East 88th Partners (S.D.N.Y.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal in an apartment complex. The complaint alleged the owner and operator refused to allow a person with a disability to keep an assistance dog. The consent order required allowing the dog, dismissing eviction proceedings, training, and adopting a reasonable accommodations policy. This case exemplifies typical FHA enforcement actions concerning assistance animals and the remedies of accommodation, policy changes, and training.

Design and Construction Violations in a New York City Apartment Building: United States v. 475 Ninth Avenue Associates, LLC

United States v. 475 Ninth Avenue Associates, LLC (S.D.N.Y.) concerned design and construction violations at Hudson Crossing, a 259-unit apartment building in New York City. The consent decree required retrofits of noncompliant features in common areas and dwellings, established a $115,000 fund to compensate aggrieved persons, and imposed a $20,000 civil penalty. This case is another example of FHA design and construction enforcement and the remedies of retrofitting, victim compensation, and civil penalties.

Special Needs Trusts and Housing Purchases: United States v. 505 Central Avenue Corp.

United States v. 505 Central Ave. (S.D.N.Y.) involved a Fair Housing Act pattern-or-practice/election case concerning a housing cooperative and management company that discriminated against an individual with disabilities by refusing a reasonable accommodation to purchase a coop unit using a special needs trust. The settlement agreement required $125,000 in total payments, including damages, attorney’s fees, and civil penalties, and mandated adoption of reasonable accommodation policies and annual training. This case clarifies that housing providers must consider special needs trusts as legitimate funding sources and accommodate individuals with disabilities using such trusts.

Racial Steering and Rental Discrimination: United States v. Acme Investments, Inc.

United States v. Acme Investments, Inc. (E.D. Mich.) involved racial discrimination in apartment rentals. The complaint alleged a pattern or practice of racial discrimination at Ivanhoe House Apartments in Ann Arbor, Michigan, including discrimination in rental and inspection of apartments against African Americans. The settlement required $35,000 in damages to victims, a $7,500 civil penalty, and $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan. The settlement also mandated fair housing training and self-testing. This case illustrates enforcement against racial steering and the use of testing evidence to uncover discriminatory practices.

Familial Status Discrimination and Apartment Policies: United States v. Adams

United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.) involved familial status discrimination at Phoenix Village Apartments. The complaint alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination and denial of rights based on familial status. The consent order required up to $165,000 to compensate victims, a $20,000 civil penalty, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination policies. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory policies targeting families with children.

Reasonable Accommodation for Emotional Support Dogs: United States v. ADI Management, Inc.

United States v. ADI Management, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) concerned reasonable accommodation for emotional support dogs. The complaint alleged ADI Management failed to accommodate a tenant with cancer by allowing her to keep an emotional support dog, issuing eviction notices instead. The consent decree required $11,000 in damages to the complainant’s estate, enjoined future disability discrimination, mandated reasonable accommodation guidelines, and required fair housing training. This case highlights the importance of reasonable accommodations for emotional support animals, especially for tenants with serious illnesses.

Predatory Mortgage Modification Schemes Targeting Hispanics: United States v. Advocate Law Groups of Florida, P.A.

United States v. Advocate Law Groups of Florida, P.A. (M.D. Fla.) involved a predatory mortgage modification and foreclosure rescue scheme targeting Hispanic homeowners. The amended complaint alleged national origin discrimination under the FHA, with defendants charging Hispanic homeowners thousands of dollars for ineffective services, leading to foreclosures. This case demonstrates enforcement against financial schemes that exploit vulnerable minority communities and violate fair housing rights.

Assistance Animals and “No Pets” Policies: United States v. Aero Owners, Inc.

United States v. Aero Owners, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal. The complaint alleged Aero Owners discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to accommodate their “no pets policy” for a complainant’s dog. The consent order required $7,000 to the complainant, $1,000 to the United States, allowing the dog, training, and non-discrimination policies. This case is another example of FHA enforcement concerning assistance animals and “no pets” rules.

Wholesale Lending Discrimination Based on Race: United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, Inc.

United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, Inc. (D. Del.) involved race-based discrimination in wholesale lending. The complaint alleged AIG subsidiaries charged higher fees on wholesale loans to African American borrowers nationwide. The consent order required up to $6.1 million for African American customers, $1 million for financial education, and prohibited future race-based discrimination in wholesale lending. This case illustrates enforcement against discriminatory pricing in wholesale lending markets and the substantial financial remedies obtained for victims.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability: United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides: United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) involved a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides for individuals with disabilities.

Reasonable Accommodation for Extra Bedrooms for Medical Equipment: United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (D. Alaska) involved a reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for medical equipment. The complaint alleged the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) discriminated on the basis of disability by denying a request for an extra bedroom to house exercise equipment for rehabilitation. The consent decree required AHFC to allow the complainant to rent a unit with an extra bedroom as a reasonable accommodation. This case underscores the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements extending to space needed for medical equipment.

Redlining and Mortgage Loan Applications: United States v. Albank

United States v. Albank (N.D.N.Y.) was a redlining case under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The complaint alleged Albank refused to take mortgage loan applications from minority areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. The consent order required $55 million in below-market-rate loans in those areas and a non-discriminatory lending policy. This case is a classic example of redlining enforcement and the large-scale financial remedies required to address discriminatory lending practices.

Retrofitting and Accessible Units in Apartment Complexes: United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builder, Inc.

United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc. (E.D.N.C.) involved design and construction FHA violations at a 226-unit apartment complex. The consent decree required the builder and developer to retrofit common areas, ensure accessible units remained vacant for prospective tenants, give notice of accessible units, compensate aggrieved persons, and include enhanced accessibility features in future projects. The architect was also required to pay a civil penalty, provide technical assistance to non-profits serving people with disabilities, and contribute to victim compensation. This case demonstrates comprehensive remedies in design and construction cases, involving retrofitting, victim compensation, and preventive measures for future construction.

Assistance Animals and “No Pets” Policies (HUD Election Case): United States v. Allegro

United States v. Allegro Apartments (E.D. Wis.) was a HUD election case concerning assistance animals and “no pets” policies. The complaint alleged the owners of a 96-unit residential rental property discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to rent to a woman with an assistance dog. The consent decree required a new assistance animal policy, fair housing training, and $8,500 in compensation to the complainants. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory “no pets” policies when they conflict with FHA reasonable accommodation requirements for assistance animals.

Dealer Markups and Auto Loan Discrimination: United States v. Ally Financial Inc.

United States v. Ally Financial Inc. (E.D. Mich.) involved Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) violations in auto lending. The complaint alleged Ally discriminated against African-American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers by charging higher dealer interest rate markups. The consent order required an $80 million settlement fund for victims, borrower remuneration for future disparities, and improved compliance management. This case is a landmark example of enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending and the significant financial remedies obtained for a large class of victims.

Familial Status Discrimination and Advertising: United States v. Altman

United States v. Altman (D. S.C.) involved familial status discrimination and discriminatory advertising. The complaint alleged Altman, owner of a 16-unit apartment complex, published discriminatory advertisements, made discriminatory statements to testers, and maintained a policy discouraging families with children. The consent order required $15,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, a $10,000 civil penalty, non-discrimination policies, and training. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory advertising and policies targeting families with children.

Religious and National Origin Harassment by Landlords: United States v. Altmayer

United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.) involved religion and national origin harassment by a landlord. The complaint alleged Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his Jewish and Israeli/Mexican neighbors. The consent decree required $15,000 to the complainants, enjoined future discrimination, prohibited contact with complainants, and mandated fair housing training. This case highlights enforcement against hate-motivated harassment in housing based on religion and national origin.

Racial Discrimination in Eviction Practices: United States v. Altoona Housing Authority

United States v. Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Pa.) involved racial discrimination in eviction practices. The complaint alleged the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by evicting an African-American tenant with less due process than white tenants. The consent order required non-discrimination policies, complaint procedures, record-keeping, training, and $35,000 compensation to the HUD complainant. This case demonstrates enforcement against racially disparate treatment in housing authority eviction procedures.

Familial Status and Race Discrimination in Rental Refusal: United States v. Ambroselli

United States v. Ambroselli (E.D. Wis.) was a Fair Housing Act election case alleging race and familial status discrimination. The complaint alleged the owners and property manager of a 10-unit apartment complex refused to rent a two-bedroom unit to a married couple with three children. A partial consent decree required training, $50,000 in damages to complainants, and non-discrimination policies. This case exemplifies enforcement against combined familial status and race discrimination in rental housing.

Racial Discrimination in Homeowners Insurance: United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance

United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance (E.D. Wis.) was the Department’s first challenge to racial discrimination in homeowner’s insurance. The complaint alleged American Family Mutual Insurance used race as a factor in issuing homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The consent decree required $14.5 million in damages, including community-based relief, and policy changes to prevent future discrimination. This case is a landmark example of addressing systemic racial discrimination within the homeowners insurance industry.

Dealer Markup Discrimination in Auto Lending: United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation

United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.) involved dealer markup discrimination in auto lending. The complaint alleged discrimination by permitting dealers to charge higher interest rates based on race and national origin. The consent order required policies and procedures to ensure non-discriminatory dealer markups, a $24 million fund for victims, and a $1 million consumer financial education fund. This case underscores continued enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Section 8 Voucher Discrimination and Rehabilitation Equipment: United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (D. Alaska) involved Section 8 voucher discrimination and reasonable accommodation for rehabilitation equipment. The complaint alleged the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) discriminated on the basis of disability by denying a request for an extra bedroom to house exercise equipment for rehabilitation. The consent decree required AHFC to allow the complainant to rent a unit with an extra bedroom as a reasonable accommodation. This case underscores the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements extending to space needed for medical equipment in subsidized housing programs.

Redlining and Mortgage Loan Applications: United States v. Albank

United States v. Albank (N.D.N.Y.) was a redlining case under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The complaint alleged Albank refused to take mortgage loan applications from minority areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. The consent order required $55 million in below-market-rate loans in those areas and a non-discriminatory lending policy. This case is a classic example of redlining enforcement and the large-scale financial remedies required to address discriminatory lending practices.

Retrofitting and Accessible Units in Apartment Complexes: United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builder, Inc.

United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc. (E.D.N.C.) involved design and construction FHA violations at a 226-unit apartment complex. The consent decree required the builder and developer to retrofit common areas, ensure accessible units remained vacant for prospective tenants, give notice of accessible units, compensate aggrieved persons, and include enhanced accessibility features in future projects. The architect was also required to pay a civil penalty, provide technical assistance to non-profits serving people with disabilities, and contribute to victim compensation. This case demonstrates comprehensive remedies in design and construction cases, involving retrofitting, victim compensation, and preventive measures for future construction.

Assistance Animals and “No Pets” Policies (HUD Election Case): United States v. Allegro

United States v. Allegro Apartments (E.D. Wis.) was a HUD election case concerning assistance animals and “no pets” policies. The complaint alleged the owners of a 96-unit residential rental property discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to rent to a woman with an assistance dog. The consent decree required a new assistance animal policy, fair housing training, and $8,500 in compensation to the complainants. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory “no pets” policies when they conflict with FHA reasonable accommodation requirements for assistance animals.

Dealer Markups and Auto Loan Discrimination: United States v. Ally Financial Inc.

United States v. Ally Financial Inc. (E.D. Mich.) involved Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) violations in auto lending. The complaint alleged Ally discriminated against African-American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers by charging higher dealer interest rate markups. The consent order required an $80 million settlement fund for victims, borrower remuneration for future disparities, and improved compliance management. This case is a landmark example of enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending and the significant financial remedies obtained for a large class of victims.

Familial Status Discrimination and Advertising: United States v. Altman

United States v. Altman (D. S.C.) involved familial status discrimination and discriminatory advertising. The complaint alleged Altman, owner of a 16-unit apartment complex, published discriminatory advertisements, made discriminatory statements to testers, and maintained a policy discouraging families with children. The consent order required $15,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, a $10,000 civil penalty, non-discrimination policies, and training. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory advertising and policies targeting families with children.

Religious and National Origin Harassment by Landlords: United States v. Altmayer

United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.) involved religion and national origin harassment by a landlord. The complaint alleged Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his Jewish and Israeli/Mexican neighbors. The consent decree required $15,000 to the complainants, enjoined future discrimination, prohibited contact with complainants, and mandated fair housing training. This case highlights enforcement against hate-motivated harassment in housing based on religion and national origin.

Racial Discrimination in Eviction Practices: United States v. Altoona Housing Authority

United States v. Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Pa.) involved racial discrimination in eviction practices. The complaint alleged the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by evicting an African-American tenant with less due process than white tenants. The consent order required non-discrimination policies, complaint procedures, record-keeping, training, and $35,000 compensation to the HUD complainant. This case demonstrates enforcement against racially disparate treatment in housing authority eviction procedures.

Familial Status and Race Discrimination in Rental Refusal: United States v. Ambroselli

United States v. Ambroselli (E.D. Wis.) was a Fair Housing Act election case alleging race and familial status discrimination. The complaint alleged the owners and property manager of a 10-unit apartment complex refused to rent a two-bedroom unit to a married couple with three children. A partial consent decree required training, $50,000 in damages to complainants, and non-discrimination policies. This case exemplifies enforcement against combined familial status and race discrimination in rental housing.

Racial Discrimination in Homeowners Insurance: United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance

United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance (E.D. Wis.) was the Department’s first challenge to racial discrimination in homeowner’s insurance. The complaint alleged American Family Mutual Insurance used race as a factor in issuing homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The consent decree required $14.5 million in damages, including community-based relief, and policy changes to prevent future discrimination. This case is a landmark example of addressing systemic racial discrimination within the homeowners insurance industry.

Dealer Markup Discrimination in Auto Lending: United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation

United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.) involved dealer markup discrimination in auto lending. The complaint alleged discrimination by permitting dealers to charge higher interest rates based on race and national origin. The consent order required policies and procedures to ensure non-discriminatory dealer markups, a $24 million fund for victims, and a $1 million consumer financial education fund. This case underscores continued enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for Extra Bedrooms for Medical Equipment: United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

United States v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (D. Alaska) involved a reasonable accommodation request for an extra bedroom for medical equipment. The complaint alleged the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) discriminated on the basis of disability by denying a request for an extra bedroom to house exercise equipment for rehabilitation. The consent decree required AHFC to allow the complainant to rent a unit with an extra bedroom as a reasonable accommodation. This case underscores the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements extending to space needed for medical equipment.

Redlining and Mortgage Loan Applications: United States v. Albank

United States v. Albank (N.D.N.Y.) was a redlining case under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The complaint alleged Albank refused to take mortgage loan applications from minority areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. The consent order required $55 million in below-market-rate loans in those areas and a non-discriminatory lending policy. This case is a classic example of redlining enforcement and the large-scale financial remedies required to address discriminatory lending practices.

Retrofitting and Accessible Units in Apartment Complexes: United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builder, Inc.

United States v. Aldridge & Southerland Builders, Inc. (E.D.N.C.) involved design and construction FHA violations at a 226-unit apartment complex. The consent decree required the builder and developer to retrofit common areas, ensure accessible units remained vacant for prospective tenants, give notice of accessible units, compensate aggrieved persons, and include enhanced accessibility features in future projects. The architect was also required to pay a civil penalty, provide technical assistance to non-profits serving people with disabilities, and contribute to victim compensation. This case demonstrates comprehensive remedies in design and construction cases, involving retrofitting, victim compensation, and preventive measures for future construction.

Assistance Animals and “No Pets” Policies (HUD Election Case): United States v. Allegro

United States v. Allegro Apartments (E.D. Wis.) was a HUD election case concerning assistance animals and “no pets” policies. The complaint alleged the owners of a 96-unit residential rental property discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to rent to a woman with an assistance dog. The consent decree required a new assistance animal policy, fair housing training, and $8,500 in compensation to the complainants. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory “no pets” policies when they conflict with FHA reasonable accommodation requirements for assistance animals.

Dealer Markups and Auto Loan Discrimination: United States v. Ally Financial Inc.

United States v. Ally Financial Inc. (E.D. Mich.) involved Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) violations in auto lending. The complaint alleged Ally discriminated against African-American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers by charging higher dealer interest rate markups. The consent order required an $80 million settlement fund for victims, borrower remuneration for future disparities, and improved compliance management. This case is a landmark example of enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending and the significant financial remedies obtained for a large class of victims.

Familial Status Discrimination and Advertising: United States v. Altman

United States v. Altman (D. S.C.) involved familial status discrimination and discriminatory advertising. The complaint alleged Altman, owner of a 16-unit apartment complex, published discriminatory advertisements, made discriminatory statements to testers, and maintained a policy discouraging families with children. The consent order required $15,000 in damages to aggrieved persons, a $10,000 civil penalty, non-discrimination policies, and training. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory advertising and policies targeting families with children.

Religious and National Origin Harassment by Landlords: United States v. Altmayer

United States & Bitton v. Altmayer (N.D. Ill.) involved religion and national origin harassment by a landlord. The complaint alleged Peter Altmayer intimidated and harassed his Jewish and Israeli/Mexican neighbors. The consent decree required $15,000 to the complainants, enjoined future discrimination, prohibited contact with complainants, and mandated fair housing training. This case highlights enforcement against hate-motivated harassment in housing based on religion and national origin.

Racial Discrimination in Eviction Practices: United States v. Altoona Housing Authority

United States v. Altoona Housing Authority (W.D. Pa.) involved racial discrimination in eviction practices. The complaint alleged the Housing Authority discriminated on the basis of race by evicting an African-American tenant with less due process than white tenants. The consent order required non-discrimination policies, complaint procedures, record-keeping, training, and $35,000 compensation to the HUD complainant. This case demonstrates enforcement against racially disparate treatment in housing authority eviction procedures.

Familial Status and Race Discrimination in Rental Refusal: United States v. Ambroselli

United States v. Ambroselli (E.D. Wis.) was a Fair Housing Act election case alleging race and familial status discrimination. The complaint alleged the owners and property manager of a 10-unit apartment complex refused to rent a two-bedroom unit to a married couple with three children. A partial consent decree required training, $50,000 in damages to complainants, and non-discrimination policies. This case exemplifies enforcement against combined familial status and race discrimination in rental housing.

Racial Discrimination in Homeowners Insurance: United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance

United States v. American Family Mutual Insurance (E.D. Wis.) was the Department’s first challenge to racial discrimination in homeowner’s insurance. The complaint alleged American Family Mutual Insurance used race as a factor in issuing homeowner insurance policies in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The consent decree required $14.5 million in damages, including community-based relief, and policy changes to prevent future discrimination. This case is a landmark example of addressing systemic racial discrimination within the homeowners insurance industry.

Dealer Markup Discrimination in Auto Lending: United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation

United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.) involved dealer markup discrimination in auto lending. The complaint alleged discrimination by permitting dealers to charge higher interest rates based on race and national origin. The consent order required policies and procedures to ensure non-discriminatory dealer markups, a $24 million fund for victims, and a $1 million consumer financial education fund. This case underscores continued enforcement against discriminatory dealer markup practices in auto lending.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.

Design and Construction Violations and Architect Liability (Verdesian): United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc.

United States v. Albanese Organization, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) involved design and construction violations at The Verdesian apartment building in New York City. Partial consent decrees were entered with both the developers and the architect, SLCE Architects, LLP. The decree against the architect provided for injunctive relief, victim compensation, and a civil penalty. This case highlights architect liability in design and construction FHA cases and the multi-party nature of such litigation.

Reasonable Accommodation for Assistance Animals and Live-In Aides (HUD Election Case): United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.)

United States v. Anderson (D. N.M.) was a HUD election case concerning reasonable accommodation for assistance animals and live-in aides. The complaint alleged disability discrimination under the FHA when the defendant denied a reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal and a live-in aide. The consent decree required injunctive relief, training, a reasonable accommodation policy, and $6,000 in monetary damages to the complainant. This case reinforces the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements for both assistance animals and live-in aides in housing.

Reasonable Accommodation for a Playhouse for a Child with Cerebral Palsy: United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.) involved a reasonable accommodation request for a specially designed playhouse for a child with cerebral palsy. The complaint alleged a homeowners association and management company unlawfully denied the request. This case demonstrates the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements can extend to modifications for therapeutic needs, even for external structures like playhouses.

Design and Construction Violations under FHA and ADA: United States v. Andrian-Zeminides Architects, Ltd.

United States v. Andrian-Zeminides, Ltd. (N.D. Ill.) concerned design and construction violations under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged the defendant architects failed to design River’s Edge condominiums in Chicago in compliance with accessibility requirements. The consent decree required a $37,500 contribution to a victim compensation fund and $10,000 damages to Access Living. This case highlights joint FHA and ADA enforcement in design and construction and the remedies of victim compensation and fund contributions.

Race and Familial Status Steering by Housing Referral Agencies: United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc.

United States v. Apartment and Home Hunters, Inc. (E.D. La.) involved a housing referral agency in New Orleans that allegedly honored discriminatory requests from housing complexes to screen out prospective tenants based on race and familial status. The consent decree provided for mandatory training, self-testing, targeted advertising, and a ban on restrictive occupancy standards. It also included $180,000 in damages, including a victim compensation fund and payments to victims and a fair housing organization. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory practices by housing referral agencies and the comprehensive remedies including training, testing, and victim compensation.

Familial Status Discrimination and “Adult” Buildings: United States v. Appleby

United States v. Appleby (W.D. Wash.) involved familial status discrimination and “adult building” designations. The complaint alleged the property manager and owners of rental properties in Edmonds, Washington, denied apartments to families with children and advertised “adult” buildings. The settlement provided $35,000 for complainants, $35,000 for additional aggrieved persons, and a $25,000 civil money penalty, along with injunctive relief. This case highlights enforcement against explicit familial status discrimination and the use of “adult building” designations to exclude families.

Disability Discrimination and Lease Non-Renewal: United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains

United States v. Applewood of Cross Plains (W.D. Wis.) involved disability discrimination and lease non-renewal. The complaint alleged the owners and managers of an apartment complex in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, refused to renew a tenant’s lease due to her and her daughter’s disabilities, failed to stop harassment, and demanded a “plan” to manage the daughter’s disability-related behavior. The consent decree required $40,000 in damages to complainants, non-discrimination policies, equal opportunity advertising, and fair housing training. This case exemplifies enforcement against discriminatory lease non-renewal and disability-related harassment in housing.

Familial Status Discrimination in Seasonal Worker Housing: United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc.

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) involved familial status discrimination in seasonal worker housing. The complaint alleged Arlington Park Racecourse excluded families with children from housing provided to seasonal workers. The consent decree required constructing new family-friendly housing units with private bathrooms and air conditioning, retrofitting existing units, and paying a $10,000 civil penalty. This case demonstrates FHA enforcement against familial status discrimination in employer-provided housing.

SCRA Violations and Vehicle Auctions without Court Orders: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company

United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) involved Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations by a towing company. The complaint alleged ASAP Towing auctioned off vehicles owned by 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. The consent order required $99,500 in compensation to servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and policy changes to prevent future violations. This case highlights SCRA protections against vehicle repossession without court orders and the financial remedies obtained for servicemember victims.

Unlawful Eviction Based on Disability: United States v. Ashford County Housing Authority

United States v. Ashford Housing Authority (M.D. Ala.) involved unlawful eviction based on disability. The complaint alleged the Ashford Housing Authority unlawfully evicted a physically and mentally disabled tenant. The consent decree required $45,000 in compensation to aggrieved persons, injunctive relief, training, and non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation policies. This case demonstrates enforcement against discriminatory eviction practices targeting tenants with disabilities.

Credit Card Discrimination Based on National Origin: United States v. Associates National Bank

United States v. Associates National Bank (D. Del.) involved credit card discrimination based on national origin. The complaint alleged Associates National Bank discriminated against Hispanic applicants using Spanish-language applications by using stricter credit scoring and offering less favorable terms. The settlement required a $1.5 million Compensation Fund for affected Hispanic applicants and policy changes. This case is a landmark example of fair lending enforcement in the credit card industry and addressing discrimination in credit terms and conditions.

SCRA Violations and Rent Repayment Refusal: United States v. Akhavan

United States v. Akhavan (E.D. Va.) concerned Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) violations related to rent repayment. The complaint alleged a landlord violated the SCRA by refusing to return prepaid rent and a security deposit to an Air Force Colonel who terminated his lease due to military orders. The consent order required $5,650 in damages to the servicemember and enjoined future SCRA violations. This case underscores SCRA protections for servicemembers terminating leases due to military orders and the penalties for landlords failing to comply.