HUD announced three charges of discrimination in September 2024. A summary of the charges are below.
- HUD charged a Florida property owner, management company, and property manager with disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with an emotional support animal. That denial led to economic loss, lost housing opportunity, and emotional distress. The Charge of Discrimination also alleges that the Respondents violated the Act when they threatened the Complainant with an eviction because of her reasonable accommodation request. HUD v. Greenbriar Partners, LLC, Jackson Properties and Financial Services, LLC, and Erwin D. Jackson, FHEO No.: 04-23-4240-8.
- HUD charged Georgia property owner, management company, and property manager with disability discrimination against a tenant because of her child’s disability. HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Respondents failed to grant a reasonable accommodation when Complainant requested a ground-floor unit due to her child’s disability. Respondents failed to provide the accommodation even though the disability-related need was obvious, and Complainant provided additional medical documentation to support the request. Complainant was not provided the reasonable accommodation until after Respondents sold the property.
- HUD charged a New Jersey Housing Providers with Discrimination After Selective Application of Eviction Policy and Retaliation. HUD’s charge alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act for discriminating against a Black Hispanic father and his three minor children because of his race, color, national origin, and familial status. HUD also charged the Respondents with retaliating against the tenant for pursuing a fair housing complaint against them.
HUD’s charge alleges that the Respondents barred the Complainant and his three minor children from the property and initiated an eviction immediately after his incarceration, even though his attorney advised the Respondents that the incarceration was likely to be brief and his rent was fully paid during this time. The Respondents claimed their actions were based on a purported rule allowing them to evict for the mere incarceration of a sole household member. HUD’s investigation found that this rule was not similarly enforced against a white non-Hispanic tenant without children who was also incarcerated for pending charges. The Charge further alleges that the Respondents could not provide a non-discriminatory justification for the more aggressive approach they took to enforcing their incarceration policies against the Complainant.
More from this Newsletter Issue: October 2024
Subscribe to the Newsletter