Added: Kermit Hayman - Date: 12.12.2021 08:03 - Views: 23239 - Clicks: 9423
Official websites use. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. The Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. Moline Builders, Inc. On August 10, , the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in Ability Center, et al. Moline Builders, et al.
Defendants argued that their only obligation was to provide an accessible route into the unit, which, they alleged, they had done by providing an accessible route through the garage. Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. Township of Wayne D. Arnal v. Aspen View Condo. Ass'n, et al. Avalon Residential Care, Homes, Inc. City of Dallas N. Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. Rommel Builders, Inc. Calvillo, et al. Baywood Equities, L. Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation M. On July 11, , the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Cason v.
In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants' practice of permitting Nissan dealers to set finance charges at their discretion resulted in African-Americans paying higher finance charges, and that these higher charges could not be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In our amicus brief in support of plaintiffs 'opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, we argue that a lender has a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA, and, thus, is liable under ECOA for discriminatory pricing in loans that it approves and funds.
The United States further argue that plaintiffs do not need to prove that defendant was on notice regarding the alleged discrimination, but that, in any case, plaintiffs have offered evidence that defendant was on notice. The court subsequently denied summary judgment for the defendants, and the case is currently on appeal regarding class certification. Village of Canton, NY N. The Court reasoned that CFC has a likelihood of success to prevail on the merits of its RLUIPA equal terms claim because the ordinance treats religious assemblies less well than secular assemblies and the interests articulated by the Village are not compelling to justify unequal treatment.
Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles C. On January 6, , the court issued an order holding that the City's administrative zoning decisions did not preclude the congregation's RLUIPA claims in federal court. The United States had filed a statement of interest on November 1, In the order, the court quoted the United States' Statement of Interest extensively. Hudson City Savings Bank, F. National City Bank W. Defiore v. On October 18, , the United States' filed an amicus brief in Estes v. The amicus brief argues that Islam is plainly a religion, that a mosque is plainly a place of worship, and that county acted appropriately under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act RLUIPA in treating the application as it would any other application from a religious institution.
The division's brief argues that Islam is a religion entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the U. Constitution, and points out that, "consistent among all three branches of government, the United States has recognized Islam as a major world religion. The residents contend, among other things, that the county erred in treating the mosque as a religious institution without inquiring into whether Islam is an ideology rather than a religion, and without inquiring into whether terrorist and other illegal activities would be undertaken at the site.
Rutherford County, Tenn. The county is opposing the landowners' attempt to stop construction. Equal Rights Center v. AvalonBay Communities D. Equity Residential D. On March 31, , the court entered an opinion and order on the parties' partial summary judgment motions in Equal Rights Center v. On November 13, , the United States filed a s tatement of interest in support of the Equal Rights Center's summary judgment motion. The brief argues that 1 violations of the HUD Fair Housing Amendments Act Guidelines establish a prima facie case that the Act's de and construction provisions have been violated, which may be overcome only by showing compliance with a comparable, objective accessibility standard; and 2 the failure to de and construct accessible multifamily housing is a discrete violation of the Fair Housing Act and does not require that an individual be denied housing based on disability.
The court's opinion adopted the United States' argument that the plaintiff in a de-and-construction case may demonstrate liability by showing that the defendant did not follow the HUD FHA Guidelines, and that the defendant may overcome this showing only by demonstrating compliance with another, comparable accessibility standard.
The court also rejected the defendants' argument that a more subjective standard for accessibility should control. Finally, the court agreed that demonstrating violations of the FHA's accessibility requirements did not require a showing that an actual buyer or renter was denied housing. Fair Housing of the Dakotas v.
Goldmark Property Management Co. The Coalition reported that on September 23, , a young Indian-American Sikh was told by a manager to remove his turban or leave at its Springfield, Virginia club. On June 28, , the United States ed a settlement agreement with a real estate company settling our allegations that one of its former agents violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in the sale of a dwelling.
The settlement agreement obligates the real estate company, First Boston Real Estate, to implement a non-discriminatory policy, which will be displayed in its offices and distributed to any persons who inquire about the availability of any properties, as well as to all agents. Fortune Society, Inc. Garden State Islamic Center v. City of Vineland, NJ D. On April 1, , the Division filed a statement of interest in Gomez v. Quicken Loans C. The statement of interest states that 1 Smith v. City of Jackson did not overrule, explicitly or implicitly, decades of Fair Housing Act disparate impact precedent, 2 disparate treatment claims do not require proof of ill intent, and 3 Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims do not require a denial of credit.
The court dismissed the complaint and Mr. Gomez filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Division filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals on January 16, The Ninth Circuit ruled on November 2, , holding that plaintiff pled a disparate treatment claim by alleging that "disabled individuals like Gomez were subject to the presumption that their SSDI award letters were insufficient evidence of income and [were] asked to meet a higher standard of proof [of income] than other applicants.
Gordon v. Pete's Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. On February 14, , the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion holding that the SCRA amendments providing an express private right of action for damages should apply to this case. On October 27, , the Division participated in oral argument as amicus in Gordon v. The court ordered supplemental briefing on whether amendments made to the SCRA on October 13, , adding an explicit private right of action, are retroactive. On November 29, , the Division filed a supplemental amicus arguing that the amendment providing an express private right of action for damages should apply retroactively in this case.
Groome and United States v. Jefferson Parrish E. The Parish zoning ordinance required the group home provider to seek an accommodation to house five persons instead of the permitted four. The court held that the Parish broke the law when it failed to act on the request because of opposition from neighborhood residents and a member of the Parish Board. The Parish appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Fair Housing Act protections for persons with disabilities are unconstitutional.
The Civil Rights Division intervened and filed a brief arguing that Congress had power to pass the legislation under both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The United States also filed an amicus brief in the district court. On November 20, , a unanimous three-judge panel ed three other Courts of Appeal holding that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the housing market. Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominiums Association E.
Town of Milbridge, Maine D. On March 16, , the case settled before the court ruled on the issue raised in the United States amicus brief. Town of Milbridge, Maine C. In this case, defendant Town of Milbridge adopted a moratorium that halted development of plaintiff's proposed housing project of farmworkers and their families.
The plaintiff alleges that the moratorium was adopted because of resident opposition based on the national origin and familial status of the prospective residents. Our amicus brief was submitted in connection with plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. We did not take a position on the merits, but set out our view as to the applicable legal principles.
Hargraves v. Capitol City Mortgage Corp. In this lawsuit against Capital City Mortgage Corp. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Capital City's lending practices violated several federal laws, including the Fair Housing and the Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by engaging in a pattern or practice of targeting African American communities, a practice known as "reverse redlining," for abusive or predatory lending practices.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that reverse redlining does not violate either law because they have provided credit to African Americans, and on the same terms that they would provide to whites. On March 23, , the United States filed an amicus brief , which supported the view that lending practices deed to induce minorities into loans destined to fail could violate the fair lending laws. The brief argues that by targeting minorities for predatory loans, a lender discriminates in the terms and conditions of home financing, even if it makes all or most of its loans in minority areas.
The fact that a lender does business only in minority neighborhoods does not shield its business from scrutiny under federal fair lending laws. In addition, racially targeted loans that are deed to fail make housing unavailable because of race since the borrowers are likely to lose their homes through foreclosure. The matter was settled and dismissed on March 27, The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate action charging the same defendants with violating a of federal consumer protection laws. FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp. The matter was settled on March 14, When she sold her home to move closer to the new base, Homecomings denied MSgt Gomez's request to waive the prepayment penalty on her residential mortgage loan.
Hope Lutheran Church v. City of St. Ignace W. Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness, Inc. Howard County, Maryland D. LeBlanc 5th Cir. In consolidated cases brought by the United States and Louisiana ACORN Fair Housing and Gene Lewis, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the owner and operator of an apartment complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana, intentionally discriminated on the basis of race against Gene Lewis when he refused to rent him a studio apartment. LeBlanc appealed the judgment, arguing that Lewis' punitive damages award should be vacated because the jury awarded him neither compensatory nor nominal damage.
On June 10, , the Division filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit arguing that the Fair Housing Act permits an award of punitive damages in the absence of compensatory or nominal damages, and that the district court had properly entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict awarding punitive damages to Gene Lewis. On May 15, , the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated the jury's punitive damages award to Gene Lewis, holding that a plaintiff suing under the Fair Housing Act may not receive punitive damages absent an award of compensatory or nominal damages.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 5,Thurs Rockwood Tennessee granny sex personal club
email: [email protected] - phone:(902) 644-8255 x 9287
Housing Cases Summary