U.S. Department of Justice Secures $360,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against New Mexico Property Manager & Apartment Complex

The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) has announced that the owners and former property manager of a federally subsidized apartment complex in Albuquerque, New Mexico have agreed to pay $360,000 to resolve a lawsuit alleging that the former property manager sexually harassed female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

The department’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in March 2024, alleges that for over 10 years, property manager Ariel Solis Veleta (Solis) sexually harassed female tenants at St. Anthony Plaza Apartments, a Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance property with 160 units in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The suit alleges that Solis’s conduct included making unwelcome sexual comments to female tenants, touching female tenants without their consent, locking female tenants in his office to demand sex acts, and threatening to evict female tenants who did not give in to his sexual demands.

“A home should be a place of refuge, not fear,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen P. Wolfe of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will hold property managers and landlords accountable when they target and exploit vulnerable tenants with sexual harassment.”

The department’s lawsuit also names as defendants the owners and operators of St. Anthony Plaza Apartments, PacifiCap Properties Group LLC, St. Anthony Limited Partnership, PacifiCap Holdings XXXVIII LLC, and PacifiCap Management, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that these defendants are vicariously liable for the sexual harassment of their agent, Solis. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Inspector General participated in the investigation that uncovered the evidence leading to the lawsuit.

Under the consent decree, which must be approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the defendants must pay $350,000 to tenants harmed by Solis’s harassment and a $10,000 civil penalty to the U.S. The consent decree permanently bars Solis from contacting tenants harmed by his harassment, permanently bars Solis from managing residential rental properties, and mandates training and the adoption of policies and procedures to prevent future discrimination at residential rental properties owned or managed by defendants.

If you are a victim of sexual harassment by another landlord or property manager or have suffered other forms of housing discrimination, call the USDOJ’s Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-800-896-7743, email the Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov, or submit a report online. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at www.justice.gov/crt.

Read the February 13, 2025 USDOJ article.

Missouri GOP Close to Passing Bill Letting Landlords Discriminate Against Section 8 Renters

 

This week, the Missouri Senate passed legislation that if becomes law, the state will prevent municipalities in Missouri from enacting source of income discrimination bans, and will void bans already in place in St. Louis, Webster Groves, Columbia, and Clayton, along with a portion of Kansas City. Kansas City passed a source of income discrimination ban last year, though it was largely paused by the courts in February. Columbia, St. Louis, Webster Groves and Clayton have similar protections on the books. The laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate based solely on the fact of renters’ lawful sources of income, including Section 8, veterans’ benefits and Social Security.

Source of income discrimination bans are designed to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to potential tenants based solely on the kind of income that they have available to them. Many landlords will only consider W-2 wages when evaluating potential tenants, but this helps to prevent many of the poorest from being able to access safe, stable housing. A single mother may have child support payments as her primary source of income, but a landlord is not bound to consider that when she applies for tenancy. A bus driver who has suffered repetitive stress injuries and now receives Social Security Disability Insurance may also struggle to find a landlord who is willing to rent to them. 

The most common form of source of income discrimination is a refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, a federal housing program that has been addressing homelessness in the U.S. since 1974. Despite being chronically underfunded by the federal government, these vouchers have proven to raise people out of poverty, improve mental and physical health outcomes, and decrease homelessness. 75% of HCV holders have extremely low incomes, defined as less than 30% of the federal poverty line (currently $32,150 for a family of four) or less than 30% of the local area median income. The Section 8 program allows these families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the government pays the balance.

The legislation, which has cleared the House and Senate in differing forms, would make it extremely difficult for these low-income renters, the majority of whom have already experienced chronic homelessness, to find housing. A 2018 study showed that over 67% of landlords refused to rent to voucher-holders in cities without source of income anti-discrimination laws. In comparison, less than 31% of landlords refused to rent to voucher holders in cities with source of income discrimination bans in place. This demonstrates that source of income discrimination bans are effective local public policy and should not be preempted by our state government.

This legislation is being framed as a protection for landlords, seeking to prevent them from being “forced” to participate in a federal program. They say that this is government infringement on the property rights of landlords. They say that it’s too hard to comply with government regulations for landlords who participate in the section 8 program. To participate as a landlord, property owners simply have to submit to an annual inspection and ensure that their rental rates are in compliance with federal Fair Market Rent standards, which are typically very generous. Inspection protocols have recently been revised to only consider key health and safety factors rather than cosmetic issues.

A Missouri Independent reporter said that in listening to Missouri legislative committee discussion on this issue over the last two years, it seems like the concerns of landlords are actually centered on a prejudiced belief that poor renters are bad tenants.

Federal data shows that renters using housing vouchers are actually excellent tenants who stay in a unit for an average of 7 to 8 years, despite the fact that landlords are free to evict them for breaking the terms of their rental agreement. This is because of the program’s smooth transitions in employment status of renters, adjusting the amount paid by the government based on fluctuations in the income of the renter. Voucher holders are also typically assigned a case manager that helps renters to understand the terms of their lease and comply with landlord regulations. 

Over 86% of rental units in the country are owned by for-profit entities. If we allow these landlords to opt-out of renting to single parents living on child support, individuals with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time, and seniors and other low-income families utilizing these federal vouchers, where do we envision they will go?

Read the April 26, 2025 Missouri Independent article.

Read the April 24, 2024 KCUR 89.3 article.

Read the April 24, 2025 NPR article.

On Behalf of Equal Rights Center, Relman Colfax PLLC Alleges Washington, DC-Based UDR Tenant Screening Policies are Discriminatory

On April 25, 2025, Relman Colfax filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court on behalf of the Equal Rights Center against UDR, Inc. and the owners of The MO apartment building (in northeast D.C.) alleging that The MO’s tenant screening policies discriminate against housing voucher holders and housing applicants with criminal legal histories in violation of the Washington, D.C. Human Rights Act and the D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act of 2016.

The complaint alleges that the defendants openly discriminate based on applicants’ source of income and criminal legal history, even posting some of their illegal policies on The MO’s website. ERC claims that these policies erect yet another barrier to housing for populations for which stable housing is particularly important.

The ERC conducted an investigation using fair housing testers to ascertain whether Defendants were engaging in unlawful discrimination against individuals attempting to rent units at The MO. Through its investigation, the ERC found that Defendants and their agents have a policy or practice of making statements and/or imposing conditions that exclude voucher holders based on illegal criteria, as well as renters with criminal histories from access to rental units at The MO. 

“ERC’s lawsuit employs consumer protection law in a pioneering effort to secure safe and affordable housing for D.C. residents,” stated Mirela Missova, Supervising Counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “Discriminatory policies significantly hinder the ability to safeguard low-income tenants.”

Through its complaint, ERC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that The MO comes into compliance with District requirements for equitable tenant screening policies. This lawsuit represents a critical step toward making equitable housing opportunities a reality in the District. The Relman Colfax litigation team consisted of Zoila Hinson, with paralegal assistance from Miriam Farah. The co-counsel is Mirela Missova of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Unfortunately, discrimination against tenants by rental housing providers for such illegal screening as housing discrimination are too frequent of late. For instance, a complaint was filed in November, 2024 regarding alleged discrimination against two private equity landlords in Indianapolis, Indiana.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Read the April 23, 2025 RC article.

Read the November 21, 2024 NBC TV10 Philadelphia article.

Federal Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order to Temporarily Stop HUD/DOGE’s Termination of FHIP Grants to Fight Housing Discrimination

 

After Relman Colfax PLLC and four members of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), On March 26th, Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the termination of 78 FHIP grants. 

The original legal action followed HUD’s sudden and alleged unlawful termination of grants disbursed under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). The termination of those grants jeopardizes over $30 million in critical, congressionally authorized funding for fair housing groups to fight housing discrimination and enforce fair housing laws throughout the U.S. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts, was brought on behalf of a proposed class of over 60 fair housing groups whose grants were abruptly terminated by HUD and DOGE on February 27, 2025. 

Fair housing groups, funded by FHIP, have long served as the backbone of efforts to combat housing discrimination, enforcing the Fair Housing Act (FHA). These groups investigate housing discrimination complaints, enforce fair housing laws, assist individuals facing discrimination, educate communities about their rights, and collaborate with local governments to expand fair and affordable housing opportunities. FHIP grants–which originated from Congress’s recognition of the central role of fair housing organizations in combatting housing discrimination–are a primary source of funding for fair housing groups.

On February 27th, a letter informed grantees that the terminations were effective that same day. 78 FHIP grants were terminated altogether, representing a primary source of funding for fair housing organizations in 33 states. The FHIP grants were halted at the direction of the DOGE, claiming the grants “no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities,” despite grantees performing activities aligned with Congressionally authorized aims. The filing argued that DOGE lacked the authority to direct HUD to cancel grants, and HUD cannot follow such directives.

Fair housing organizations, particularly the four named plaintiffs in the TRO filing, are already feeling the harm and devastating effects of this funding termination. The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Fair Housing Council of South Texas – San Antonio Fair Housing Council, and Housing Research and Advocacy Center – Fair Housing Center for Rights and Research are among the plaintiffs who have long fought to dismantle discriminatory housing practices in their respective regions and beyond.

Fair housing is a legal right, and FHIP grants were a promise to the American people that cannot be revoked at DOGE’s direction without any explanation. Relman Colfax and these organizations are resolute in fighting for the organizations, families, individuals, and communities that FHIP grants safeguard.

A copy of the filing can be found here.

Read the March 13, 2025 NFHA article.

Economic Action MD Fund Fair Housing discussion on April 30th at the Northpoint Library

Everyone deserves a safe and affordable home. Yet, despite more than 40 years of civil rights work and laws, many Maryland residents still face discrimination when they seek an apartment or a mortgage. 

What kinds of fair housing issues happen most in Maryland? Where can individuals get help if they believe they’ve experienced housing discrimination? How does housing discrimination affect our community? Answers to these questions and many more will be topics at the April 30th Fair Housing discussion:

    April 30th, 6 - 7:30 p.m.

    Northpoint Library, 1716 Merritt Boulevard, Dundalk MD 21222

    Click Here to Register!

Our knowledgeable fair housing panelists include:

• Ahmna Khan, Director of Housing, Maryland Inclusive Housing.
• Susan McClanahan, Fair Housing Director, Equal Rights Center.
• Albert Turner, Attorney, Right to Housing Project, Public Justice Center.
• Moderated by: LaToya McKay, Fair Housing Specialist, Economic Action MD Fund.

We will also have resources on fair housing and other critical basic needs from nonprofits and state agencies including: the Family Crisis Center, Community Relations Commission, Community Assistance Network, Office of Attorney General Civil Rights, Fulton Bank, Economic Action Maryland Fund, Equal Rights Center, and Maryland Inclusive Housing.

Join us for this important discussion. Enjoy light food and refreshments and connect with groups that serve our community.  

We look forward to seeing you there!

Supreme Court of Maryland to Hear Source-of-Income Discrimination Case Addressing Landlords’ Use a Minimum Income Requirement in Violation of the HOME Act.

Brown, Goldstein & Levy, along with the Ray Legal Group, have petitioned the  Supreme Court of Maryland to bypass the Appellate Court to hear a case involving Maryland’s HOME Act. In applying for an apartment owned by David S. Brown Enterprises, the tenant’s application for an apartment was denied because she did not satisfy a policy requiring applicants demonstrate an income equivalent to 2.5 times the full monthly market rent even though she would only be responsible for a small proportion of it after her voucher was applied. This policy would exclude the majority of voucher holders in the State.

In 2020, the State of Maryland passed a law forbidding landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on their source of income. Although the HOME Act requires landlords to accept housing vouchers, landlords are using minimum income criteria divorced from voucher holders’ share of the rent in a way that harms tenants with rental subsidies. These policies are effectively a loophole that defeats the remedial intent of the HOME Act, which bans housing discrimination based on source of income in order to decrease segregation and provide more opportunities for economic mobility.

The Circuit Court of Baltimore County granted summary judgment to the landlord, reasoning that the policy did not violate the HOME Act because it was applied in a neutral way. The Supreme Court of Maryland will review the Circuit Court of Baltimore County’s decision. The Attorney General of Maryland submitted an amicus brief in support of the bypass petition. 

In addition to the amicus brief filed by the Attorney General, eight local and national organizations collectively joined as amici in the case, including The Public Justice Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Housing Law Project, Equal Rights Center, National Fair Housing Alliance, Homeless Persons Representation Project, Fair Housing Justice Center, and Disability Rights Maryland.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments during the May session.

Read the February 13. 2025 Brownstein & Levy article.

LDF Reaches Settlement on Behalf of Housing Opportunities Made Equal (New York), Requiring Improved Training and New Practices to Prevent Housing Discrimination

 

Read a PDF of the Legal Defense Fund's statement here.

The Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has reached a settlement in Housing Opportunities Made Equal Inc. (HOME) v. Avant Realty – a lawsuit born out of HOME’s investigation into the company’s real estate practices. The lawsuit and settlement come after HOME alleged Avant Realty limited housing opportunities for Black residents of Buffalo, New York through racial steering, a discriminatory practice where real estate agents or brokers direct people seeking homes into specific neighborhoods based on their race. While investigating real estate agents in the Buffalo area, HOME found that Avant Realty treated Black people seeking homes differently than their white counterparts. LDF and HOME alleged Avant Realty’s practices violated the Fair Housing Act and New York State Human Rights Law.

As a result of the settlement, HOME will provide additional training to Avant Realty’s staff on fair housing laws and best practices to avoid racial steering. Avant Realty will also adopt a non-discrimination policy and has agreed to ongoing monitoring of its real estate practices by HOME.

“Housing Opportunities Made Equal (New York) is satisfied by the amicable resolution of this matter and looks forward to working with Avant Realty and other real estate firms to ensure compliance with fair housing laws,” said Daniel Corbitt, Associate Director of HOME. “In Western New York and throughout our state, homeownership offers an unparalleled opportunity to attain security, stability, and intergenerational wealth. However, significant racial disparities in homeownership persist. We all have a responsibility to eliminate racially discriminatory policies and practices in the residential real estate market, thereby creating a more vibrant and just community for everyone.”

“We are pleased to have reached a settlement with Avant Realty,” said Morenike Fajana, Senior Counsel at LDF. “At LDF, we know that where you live matters and impacts every aspect of your life – from access to good jobs and high-performing schools, to safe streets and access to quality health care. We are grateful to HOME for their years of service dedicated to fair housing, especially the work done to root out differential treatment that forces Black people into under-resourced neighborhoods and blocks them from economic opportunity. Today is a win for the Black residents of Buffalo.”

“While segregation remains an entrenched problem in the Buffalo region, today’s settlement is a step in the right direction,” said Elizabeth Caldwell, Assistant Counsel at LDF. “We are thankful to HOME for their commitment to fighting housing discrimination and their work to uncover and combat racial steering. LDF will continue to work alongside HOME and others to help families find suitable housing, free from discrimination.”

The LDF is the country’s first and foremost civil and human rights law firm. It was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, who subsequently became the first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Read the April 4, 2025 LDF article.

Ballot Measure Seeks to End Discrimination Based on Source of Rental Income in Lincoln, Nebraska

In Lincoln, Nebraska, housing advocates and national civic engagement organizations hope that a ballot measure in a May 6th special election can end the practice and allow tenants to tap into vital rent affordability assistance such as the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. In 2022, more than 2 million families nationwide used housing vouchers, rental assistance that subsidizes households’ rent. “Source of income discrimination is when someone is turned away from housing because of the way that they would pay for that housing,” said Kasey Ogle, a senior staff attorney at Appleseed Nebraska, an organization that advocates for just causes. “It is a common and pervasive practice to turn tenants away because of Section 8 housing vouchers.”

In the absence of federal protection for voucher holders, source of income discrimination has frequently served as a proxy for race, disability, and gender discrimination. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), some 66% of federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients are Black or Latino; 26% of households with an HCV have at least one family member living with a disability; and 77% of HCV households are female headed. In St. Louis, Missouri, for example, 94% of HCV recipients identify as Black or African American: “A refusal to accept [HCVs] means African-Americans are disproportionately turned away from these housing providers” (Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council, Locked Out/Locked In: Section 8 Discrimination in St. Louis City, 2019). 

To codify source-of-income discrimination protections, Ogle and other advocates are working with national groups such as the Fairness Project, a nonprofit with a track record of effecting change through ballot measure initiatives. After the coalition crafted a persuasive message and outreach plan, it gathered more than 15,300 signatures to get source-of-income discrimination protections on the ballot. Lincoln’s City Council unanimously voted in early March to have the ballot proposition ready for voters.

Ogle said that the proposition amends the city’s ordinances on antidiscrimination laws to include lawful sources of income as a protected class in housing matters. The amendment also empowers the local equal employment opportunity commission investigative unit, the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, to investigate and prosecute complaints of discrimination based on the source of income.

“About a third of people who get a housing choice voucher from the local housing authority have to return that voucher because they’re unable to find someplace that will rent to them using that voucher,” Ogle said. If tenants are unable to find a suitable home, the vouchers must be returned to the housing authority. Because Section 8 vouchers are annually renewed, the risk of not being able to remain in a home due to source of income discrimination is palpable. Sometimes the landlord has refused to renew a lease because they do not want to cooperate with the housing authority anymore, Ogle said. In Lincoln, the number of people without a home as of January 2025 rose by almost 10% from January 2024. Some of those displacements occurred due to almost 2,400 eviction filings last year in Lancaster County, where Lincoln is the county seat.

As of 2025, only 24 states (including Maryland) and roughly 180 municipalities have clear antidiscrimination laws based on source of income, with some others joining in, according to a recent policy memo from the Washington, D.C.-based Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC). For example, Kansas City, Missouri passed an ordinance in June 2024.

 These state laws and local ordinances have varying degrees of effectiveness. Only about 60% of voucher holders are protected against source-of-income discrimination, the PRRAC estimates. 

National advocates who helped get the Lincoln proposition on the ballot say propositions are a good way to get around legislative logjam. Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project, said that local advocates tried to get the City Council in Lincoln to pass source-of-income discrimination protections. Hall said this ballot measure may get these protections across the finish line.

Read the April 16, 2025 Prism article.

Read the March 19, 2025 ABA American Bar Association article.

(Image courtesy of Kansas City, Missouri.)

New York State Attorney General's Office Stops Illegal Source of Income Housing Discrimination in the Albany Capital Region

 

New York Attorney General Letitia James has stopped two brothers and their spouses who own three rental buildings in the Capital Region from illegally denying housing opportunities to low-income renters. An investigation by the New York Office of the Attorney General (OAG), found that Greg and John Karian – who own or manage 24 rental units in buildings located in Glenmont, Albany, and Troy – violated New York’s human rights laws by refusing to rent to New Yorkers with housing vouchers. The Karians advertised that they do not accept Section 8 vouchers and charged exorbitant fees on late rent payments in violation of the law. As part of a settlement with OAG, the Karians and their employees must rent at least three units to applicants using housing vouchers, undergo anti-discrimination training, and take other actions to make housing more accessible for low-income renters.

Rental vouchers such as the Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program provide housing assistance to the lowest-income households to rent decent, safe housing in the private market. These programs also aid senior citizens and disabled persons on fixed incomes, displaced families, and homeless individuals with disabilities.

The OAG opened an investigation into the Karians’ alleged discrimination in September 2024 after online rental listings for their properties warned that they did not accept renters using Section 8. Throughout the investigation, OAG found multiple instances of discriminatory practices, including refusing to rent, lease, or negotiate with prospective tenants who intended to pay for some or all of their rent with housing subsidies; advertising that their rental properties do not accept Section 8 housing vouchers; and charging exorbitant fees of $100 for late rental payments.

The settlement with OAG requires the Karians: (1) to rent at least three units to applicants who use a housing subsidy within the next year, and must also renew the lease of these tenants for at least a one-year term, provided the tenant elects to renew; (2) to attend anti-discrimination training and implement an anti-discrimination policy to distribute to everyone involved in the rental process at their properties; (3) to publicly advertise their acceptance of Section 8 and other housing subsidies by placing an “Equal Housing Opportunity” sign at each of their properties and indicate they are an “Equal Housing Opportunity Provider” on any advertisement, listing, or social media post; (4) to provide OAG with copies of the application, lease, and renewal lease of any applicant or tenant who pays for all or some of their rent with housing subsidies and must update their lease to limit late fees to 5% of the monthly rent or $50, whichever is lower, and solely one late fee may be charged per month; and (5) to pay $3,000 in penalties and $6,000 more if they do not comply with the terms of OAG’s agreement.

It is illegal in New York State for any owner, managing agent, broker, or any other representative to refuse to rent, sell, or lease housing to any person based on their source of income. New Yorkers who suspect they are victims of source of income discrimination are encouraged to file a complaint online.

Read the April 15, 2025 New York State Attorney General's office press release.

NCRC Statement: Vacating Settlement Of Flagrantly Racist Townstone Financial Conduct Is Disgraceful

In response to the Trump administration’s attempt to vacate the Townstone Financial settlement and return the $105,000 fine levied to resolve it, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition released the following statement from President and CEO Jesse Van Tol.

It is absurd to walk away from a positive settlement in a cut-and-dried case of openly racist practices from a mortgage lender. And it is disturbing and disgusting to see Director Vought pretend that the case was brought “with zero evidence.

When your CEO goes on his company radio show and slanders Black neighborhoods as “scary” “jungles” that are “packed [with] people from all over the world” who participate in “hoodlum weekends,” your company is being very clear: There are places they won’t lend, and the reason is that those places have lots of non-White people living in them.

We know a company that markets itself through such shockingly open racism is determined to discourage Black customers from even calling.

Townstone got what it wanted: Compared to other lenders serving the area, the company received far fewer applications from Black borrowers.

Pretending this was anything other than gutter racism is ugly.

And using the power of the American people’s government to also hand money back to the man who wielded his financial power in such disgraceful fashion is a stain on us all.

For more background on the Townstone case, see here.

For more coverage of the Trump administration’s handling of the settlement, see here.

Source: March 27, 2025 NCRC article.

HUD Cuts Will Drastically Cut Government and Nonprofit Efforts to Reduce Housing Discrimination

The Trump administration’s cuts to fair housing funding have raised serious concerns about the ability to enforce civil rights laws and help people find affordable housing. It will make it harder for Americans to find safe and affordable places to live and may allow even more housing discrimination to go unchecked, according to current and former government employees, fair housing experts, and local organizations. Advocates say the overhaul will ultimately alienate, discourage, and hurt people seeking help.

Enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws, which prohibit discrimination in public and private housing, is carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as state, local and nonprofit agencies that receive federal funding. Last year there were more than 34,000 fair housing complaints of all kinds, a record high for the third year in a row. But the enforcement power is rapidly being eroded and under increasing threat, according to fair housing federal employees. Cases dealing with alleged discrimination based on gender identity have stalled, with staffers afraid to keep working on them until they receive clear instructions on how to interpret terms such as “gender ideology,” referenced in an early executive order from the President.

People often call HUD hotlines to ask about their rights, register a complaint or get help in a crisis. But now they can only do so through an online form, with few exceptions for those with disabilities or who have tech or language barriers. Regional phone lines shut down in March, according to a HUD memo to fair housing staff. The changes were meant to “maximize efficiency and maintain responsiveness through staffing reductions,” the March 10th notice said. But staff members raised concerns that the moves make it harder for people to get help when they need it, including people facing eviction or families without a place to sleep.

More destructive changes are coming. The HUD office that enforces the 1968 Fair Housing Act is expected to be cut by more than 75%. Employees say that will further strain an understaffed office with a hefty case backlog. One employee said that while the Fair Housing Act requires investigations to be completed in 100 days, “we’re lucky if we can meet that goal for 30% of cases.”

“The level of cuts we’ve heard are on the table would effectively end enforcement of the Fair Housing Act in any meaningful sense,” said another HUD fair housing staffer. “The fear within the agency is that the administration’s goal is to gut some of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement by simply ignoring the laws and refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated to enforce them.”

In late February, HUD and the U.S. DOGE Service abruptly canceled 78 fair housing grants to nonprofits, jeopardizing $30 million in congressionally authorized funds. Four organizations later filed a class-action lawsuit against HUD and DOGE, and in late March, a judge reinstated the funds with a temporary injunction. The Government Accountability Office - an independent watchdog based in the legislative branch - is also investigating the cuts to congressionally earmarked funds. Relief came only after the groups - many of which have small offices and depend on federal grants -faced the prospect of laying people off or closing. Private nonprofits processed 75% of complaints in 2024, and they say that being in communities makes their work to fight discrimination more effective. 

“This is evisceration,” said Gail Williams, executive director of Metro Fair Housing Services in Atlanta. “That’s exactly what it is. It’s pretty plain. There’s no cover to it.” When Williams got an email on Feb. 27 saying her organization’s $425,000 enforcement grant was canceled, she knew that would leave 34 pending investigations in limbo. The grant represents 53 percent of the organization’s annual budget. Without it, she could keep the 51-year-old organization open for only three more months. “Most fair housing centers right now are uncertain as to how we will continue,” she said.

Staffers working on fair lending, consumer protection, and other public interest issues at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) were also put on administrative leave in March. Agency director Bill Pulte rolled out a string of new directives in recent days, including those paring tenant protections and ending programs that help borrowers lacking the traditional 20% cash down payment required to buy a new home.

In the backdrop, a national housing crisis has made it more difficult for people to find affordable places to live. "Record high housing costs are putting the squeeze on families in every part of this country," said former HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, who heads Enterprise Community Partners. He said arbitrary cuts to staff and funding "will only serve to destabilize our housing system and drive up costs for both renters and owners." Many staffers and housing experts say the cuts will indeed make it more difficult for the agencies to carry out basic duties and that it will keep local groups from on-the-ground work. "The shelters are overwhelmed. There's not enough affordable housing," Zoe Ann Olson of the  Intermountain Fair Housing Council in Boise, Idaho, said. "We're just seeing an extraordinary amount of evictions, like so many that we're getting on a daily basis. It's so disheartening to lose this money."

There are also fears that the lack of guardrails brings broader economic risk. Fair lending experts noted that many of the mortgages that defaulted during the 2008 housing crisis were predatory and disproportionately affected people of color - risks that can be reduced with proper oversight. Minority borrowers are also more likely to be denied home loans and to pay higher interest rates.

Read the April 6, 2024 Washington Post article.

Read the February 14, 2025 NPR article on HUD cuts.

Abell Foundation Report Discovers Systematic Racial Bias in Home Appraisals in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area

 

A just-released report, authored by the Reinvestment Fund and funded by a grant from  the Abell Foundation, examined newly available public data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD) to analyze potential racial bias in home appraisals in the Baltimore metropolitan area during 2013-2022. The report found that neighborhoods with larger non-white populations tend to have a higher percentage of homes with appraised values that are lower than the contract sale price than what is observed in predominantly white neighborhoods. Conversely, predominantly white, non-Hispanic neighborhoods tend to experience a higher percentage of homes with appraised values that exceed the contract price.

While these racial differences in appraisal accuracy have lessened somewhat in recent years, negative patterns are continuing. Analysis of the public appraisal data suggests the presence of systematic appraisal bias that undervalues homes in predominantly Black communities in Baltimore City and the surrounding counties. Key observations from the neighborhood level analysis are:

• Neighborhoods with a predominant percentage of residents who are not-white, not-Hispanic tend to have higher rates of under-appraising than neighborhoods that are predominantly white, not-Hispanic.

• Neighborhoods with a predominant percentage of residents who are not-white, not-Hispanic tend to have lower rates of over-appraising than areas that are predominantly white, not-Hispanic.

• Between 2018 and 2022, these patterns show signs of improvement, but they remain observable in the data.

It is important to consider that the available federal and local data are limited because a disproportionate share of appraisals regarding Black borrowers is excluded, meaning that any evidence it provides of racial bias in appraisals potentially understates the problem.

The report also provides a summary of policies Maryland could institute to reduce the impact of appraisal bias. Among the recommendations of the Maryland’s Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity in late 2024 were: (1) Institute a reconsideration of value process in Maryland modeled after one used by the Department of Veterans Affairs which allows lenders or other interested parties to provide relevant information to an appraiser before a valuation is made and requires appraisers to contact the requester of the appraisal for additional information in cases where the appraised value appears likely to be lower than the agreed sales price; (2) Require timely reporting of sales of newly constructed residential properties to ensure that the comparable sales appraisers use to determine value reflect changes in communities; (3) Create a unit within the state government to provide a third-party review in cases where the reconsideration of value process is insufficient; and (4) Remove barriers to entry to the appraisal profession for minorities.

One recent example of this problem is that in March 2024, a Black couple - both professors at Johns Hopkins University - who claimed mortgage lender loanDepot denied a refinancing of their mortgage because it relied upon a racially biased, considerably low appraisal of their Baltimore home agreed to a legal settlement in which the lender vowed to change how it handles complaints of racially biased appraisals. The settlement filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland also includes an undisclosed financial amount for the couple. It does not include any admission of liability or facts by loanDepot nor does it resolve complaints against the independent appraiser, who has denied liability and countersued for defamation.

Read the March 25, 2025 Abell Foundation report.

Read the March 26, 2024 Insurance Journal article.

HUD Baltimore Field Office to Close, Along with Many Other HUD Field & Regional Offices

 

The Baltimore field office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will soon be permanently closed, along with many other HUD field offices. The downtown Baltimore office, which employs about 90, is to be shut down. All who work there will likely be terminated by order of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency. The closure is part of HUD's reduction of regional and field offices.

Eliminating the Baltimore office and transferring cases to other FHA offices will mean it will take longer to receive approvals and resolve issues between the loan originator and the agency. Boston or New York are already swamped with servicing the loans. HUD construction analysts, appraisers, underwriters, and, most importantly, asset management who know the market here are all going to be eliminated. It is going to make it much more difficult to finance and monitor housing.

The biggest impact will be a severe slowdown in processing Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans for multi-family projects, one of the Baltimore office’s major functions. An observer commented, “It doesn’t make any sense to do this in the name of saving money. They finance anything from affordable- to market-rate projects, and they also asset manage them. They actually make money – billions – for the federal government that gets put back into the general fund.” Created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression under the authority of the National Housing Act of 1934, the FHA is one of the main government agencies that offers low down payment mortgages for qualifying homebuyers.

Other functions of the Baltimore office include Community Planning and Development (CPD), which administers local grants to promote better housing and expanded economic opportunities to low and moderate income persons, and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing-related activities. Another loss from the shutdown of the field office will be oversight of Section 8 and voucher housing and local public housing authorities. Because this office administers the money to public housing authorities and keeps a watch over those funds, there will be more opportunity for fraud.

Responding after publication, the HUD Public Affairs Office said “no decisions have been finalized.”

Read the March 5, 2025 BaltimoreBrew article.

Read the March 5, 2025 Bloomberg article.

HUD Publishes Very Weakened Version of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule in the Federal Register

 

On March 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published its stripped-down version of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule in the Federal Register. This interim final rule repeals the 2021 interim final rule, including any parts of the 2015 AFFH Rule incorporated therein, and the 1994 AI requirements where they appear in regulation or guidance.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule is intended to implement a provision of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned housing discrimination and predatory real estate practices. The AFFH was designed to help local governments and housing agencies proactively address persistent barriers to fair housing and equal opportunity. Learn more about the history of the Fair Housing Act and the AFFH rule at the National Fair Housing Alliance. 

Under the new AFFH Interim Final Rule (IFR), jurisdictions will still be required to certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). However, these certifications will be deemed sufficient as long as the jurisdiction took any action during the period that is rationally related to promoting fair housing, such as efforts to eliminate housing discrimination or to improve housing conditions. Unlike previous requirements, jurisdictions will not need to provide detailed reports or justifications to demonstrate compliance.

The rule will be finalized on April 2, 2025. HUD is inviting public comment on the IFR for a 60-day period until May 2, 2025 and has said that all feedback will be considered as part of its ongoing review to ensure consistency. Comments can be submitted to the Federal Register: Federal Register: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions.

To support stakeholders in the AFFH public comment process, PolicyLink has developed a public comment guide for the Biden Administration’s 2023 Proposed AFFH Rule. While the 2025 IFR differs from the 2023 proposed rule, the guidance in this resource are relevant. The Guide provides essential tools to help individuals and organizations craft strong, equity-focused comments, including: strategies for advancing equity in public comments, An overview of the federal rulemaking and public comment process, a step-by-step guide to writing and submitting effective feedback, key data sources to strengthen your comment, Sample language tailored for organizations across sectors 

PolicyLink Comment on 2023 Proposed AFFH Rule

PolicyLink Full Comment Guide for the 2023 proposed AFFH Rule

Despite this shift at the federal level, states and local jurisdictions can continue to implement their own policies and planning efforts to promote inclusive communities. 

Explore more about AFFH and access additional advocacy tools:

Alliance for Housing Justice: Understanding AFFH - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | AHJ 

National Fair Housing Alliance: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing - NFHA 

National Housing Law Project: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing | NHLP 

National Low Income Housing Coalition: Racial Equity and Fair Housing: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) 

PRRAC: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)   

Read the March 3, 2025 PolicyLink article.

CFPB Takes Action Against Draper & Kramer Mortgage for Discriminatory Mortgage Lending Practices Including Redlined Neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has taken action against Draper & Kramer Mortgage Corporation (Draper) for discriminatory mortgage lending activities that discouraged homebuyers from applying to Draper for homes in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the greater Chicago and Boston areas. The CFPB alleges that Draper located all its offices in majority-white neighborhoods, concentrated its marketing in majority-white neighborhoods, and avoided marketing to majority-Black and Hispanic areas. These actions resulted in disproportionately low numbers of mortgage loan applications and mortgage loan originations from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston compared to other lenders. If entered by the court, the proposed order announced today would ban Draper from engaging in residential mortgage lending activities for five years, and require Draper to pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty into the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Draper & Kramer Mortgage Corporation is a non-depository mortgage lender based in Downers Grove, Illinois. Draper received applications and originated mortgage loans across the country, including in Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

The CFPB alleges that, from 2019-2021, Draper engaged in redlining majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the greater Chicago and Boston areas, resulting in it significantly underperforming its peers in lending activity to these areas. Draper discouraged mortgage applicants from making or pursuing an application for credit on the basis of race, color, and national origin, violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.

Specifically, the CFPB alleges that Draper violated the law by:

(1) Intentionally focusing mortgage lending activities in majority-white neighborhoods and excluding Black and Hispanic neighborhoods: Draper had no offices, no loan officers, and virtually no marketing or outreach in majority- or high-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston. Draper did not assign any loan officers to solicit applications in majority-Black and Hispanic communities and failed to train or incentivize its loan officers to lend in these communities. Draper’s outreach and marketing specifically targeted majority-white neighborhoods and mostly avoided majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

(2) Discouraging mortgage applicants from pursuing properties in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods: Draper’s business model discouraged borrowers from applying for loans to purchase property located in these neighborhoods. Draper’s peer lenders generated applications for properties in majority-Black and Hispanic areas in the Chicago metro area at over two and-a-half times the rate and in the Boston metro area at three times the rate that Draper generated such applications. Draper also originated disproportionately low amounts of mortgage loans for properties in these neighborhoods, with peers in Chicago and Boston originating two and-a-half times more loans than Draper in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.

If entered by the court, the order would require Draper to:

• Cease residential mortgage lending activities for five years: For that period, Draper cannot perform any residential mortgage lending activities, nor receive any compensation for any residential mortgage lending.
• Pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.

Read today’s proposed order.

Consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their company has violated federal consumer financial protection laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov. To learn more about reporting potential industry misconduct, visit the CFPB’s website.

Read the January 17, 2025 CFPB article.

Support Needed for Fair Housing Bill HB1239 in the Current Maryland Session!

 

The Fair Housing and Housing Discrimination - Regulations, Intent, and Discriminatory Effect Bill is sponsored by Delegates Deni Taveras (D-47B), Mary A. Lehman (D-21), Joe Vogel (D-17), Nick Allen (D-8), Julian Ivey (D-47A), Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk (D-21), and Jamila J. Woods (D-26). Go to https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB1239?ys=2025RS to read the Official Document.

The bill was originally assigned to the House Environment and Transportation Committee. Its effective date would be October 1, 2025. It currently is in the House of Delegates, and a House Environment and Transportation Committee hearing about the bill is scheduled for February 28th at 1:00 p.m.

HB1239 authorizes the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt certain regulations related to affirmatively furthering fair housing; providing that certain discriminatory housing practices may be committed without intent; prohibiting a person from acting in a certain manner that has a discriminatory effect against a person related to the sale or rental of a dwelling; and providing that certain conduct does not constitute a certain violation.

This bill enhances fair housing protections in the state of Maryland by expanding the Department of Housing and Community Development's responsibilities and clarifying housing discrimination regulations. The bill requires the Department to administer housing programs in a way that "affirmatively furthers fair housing" and to collaborate with nonprofit and governmental entities committed to fair housing goals. Most importantly, the legislation introduces a new legal standard that allows claims of housing discrimination to be proven even without demonstrating intentional discrimination, meaning that practices with a discriminatory effect can be challenged regardless of the actor's intent. This statement refers to the legal concept of "disparate impact" in housing discrimination.

Disparate impact theory is a key legal principle in fair housing enforcement, ensuring  that policies or practices that disproportionately harm protected groups - regardless of intent - can be challenged under the law. Unlike cases of overt discrimination, disparate impact cases address systemic inequities that come from seemingly neutral policies. This doctrine is crucial for addressing racial disparities in housing, zoning laws that disproportionately exclude certain populations, and lending practices that result in unequal mortgage approvals. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of disparate impact claims in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (2015), affirming that policies with discriminatory effects can violate the Fair Housing Act, even in the absence of intentional discrimination. California, New York, and Illinois have state-level disparate impact protections similar to what this bill proposes.

The bill specifically prohibits various discriminatory practices in housing, such as refusing to rent or sell, making discriminatory statements, or providing unequal services based on characteristics like race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, source of income, or military status. 

The bill also provides a defense for actions that meet three conditions: the action was without discriminatory intent, was justified by legitimate business necessity, and could not have been accomplished through less discriminatory means. 

The legislation empowers aggrieved persons to file civil actions and allows for remedies including damages and injunctive relief, with the Attorney General granted broad investigative and prosecutorial powers to address civil rights violations in housing.

Read the BillTrack50 summary.

Read the proposed bill.

Vote YES on SB107/HB392 to Expand Housing Justice in Maryland

 

In 2023, there were 198 fair housing complaints in the Baltimore Metro region. Economic Action MD received many fair housing complaints based on access to reasonable accommodations to assist residents with a disability. Testing is legal in Maryland to help determine if discrimination exists.

To determine whether housing providers are discriminating against Marylanders because of race, gender, ethnicity, how someone pays for their rent, or other legally-protected reasons, fair housing organizations conduct tests to see if discrimination exists. In 39 states including Virginia and the District of Columbia, fair housing testers use an audio recording to accurately capture the conversation with the housing provider, which can later be used as evidence if the provider violates civil rights law. However, in Maryland, taping a conversation to root out discrimination is illegal.

SB107/HB392 sponsored by Sen. Charles Sydnor and Del. Sandy Bartlett gives fair housing organizations and programs in Maryland the tools needed to more accurately document discrimination by allowing audio recordings. These recordings, when used as evidence in a housing discrimination are irrefutable, especially compared to the option of using only the handwritten notes taken by testers, which ultimately comes down to a "he said/she said" debate.

Using  recorded evidence of fair housing testing often leads to early resolution and settlement, rather than protracted litigation. It also helps protect testers and housing providers since there are clear audio recordings which act as quality control. Finally, using audio recordings provides the best evidence in court and is recommended by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Read more about SB107/HB392 here.

Please take 2 minutes to urge your senator and delegates to Vote YES on SB107/HB392 and expand housing justice in Maryland!

D.C. Sues Landlord Alleging Housing Discrimination Against Non-Voucher Holders

In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, the D.C. attorney general’s office has accused the major developer Petra Management Group of skirting rent control by renting only to voucher holders. In a lawsuit filed January 30th in D.C. Superior Court, the office of Attorney General Brian Schwalb contends that Petra is guilty of source-of-income discrimination at three D.C. buildings with over 100 apartments. This is the first time the city has sued a landlord for discrimination against non-voucher holders. At the three buildings cited in the lawsuit - just a portion of Petra’s portfolio - Petra rents exclusively to tenants with vouchers, the suit alleges. Rashid Salem, Petra’s founder and a named defendant in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Petra’s alleged scheme follows a shift in D.C.’s incentives for housing vouchers, under which low-income residents pay 30% of their income toward rent and the government covers the balance. A decade ago, in an effort to deconcentrate poverty, the D.C. Housing Authority began raising the rent limits for homes subsidized with vouchers - allowing many voucher holders to move to neighborhoods with better schools and less crime. But not only was the Housing Authority frequently overpaying for apartments, D.C.’s rent-control law granted an exemption for units rented to voucher holders, so landlords could get out from strict rent caps and collect far more money.

Petra began buying up residential buildings and filling them with as many voucher holders as possible, a Washington Post investigation found. As some of the buildings filled with people struggling with addiction or mental illness, neighbors complained of a lack of case workers and security and drug dealers operated out of the properties. Upscale apartment buildings along Connecticut Avenue NW managed by one property company began filling up with formerly homeless voucher holders, leading some residents (both longtime tenants and new voucher holders) to complain that there was not adequate support or security services.

Rent control in D.C. typically applies to all apartment buildings constructed before 1976. In 2020, the median rent was $1,442 per month in rent-controlled units, compared with $2,554 for units not subject to rent control. That makes these apartments substantially more affordable to residents of moderate means, but it also makes them less profitable for landlords.

A landlord can get an exemption from rent-control caps for voucher holders only after getting city approval, according to the attorney general’s office. But at the three Petra buildings, the suit alleges, Petra advertised the higher, non-rent-controlled rate both to lenders and to prospective tenants, violating the law and making the apartments unaffordable to many people without vouchers. At one of the buildings, the Adams on North Capitol Street NE, one three-bedroom unit would be capped at $1,000.25 under rent control, but Petra advertised and rented it at $3,131 per month, according to the attorney general’s office.

Read the January 30, 2025 Washington Post article.

Book Review: "The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North" by Michelle Adams

 

The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North by Michelle Adams. 528 pages. $35.00 hardcover.

"Splendid . . . Adams’s book explores class as well as race, with a richness and sophistication that recall J. Anthony Lukas’s 1985 masterpiece, Common Ground." - Jeffrey Toobin, New York Times Book Review.

This book relates Detroit's struggle to integrate schools in its suburbs and the associated struggle for desegregation in the North. In The Containment, Michelle Adams, the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, tells the history of the attempts to integrate Detroit schools, and the problems that followed when this effort collided with Nixon-appointed justices committed to a judicial counterrevolution. The book includes brief bios of the activists who tried to help Detroit's students during this period of riots, Black power, and white flight. In 1974, Federal District Judge Stephen Roth ruled that integration was not possible within the city's boundaries and ordered a new plan to include 53 of the 85 surrounding, mostly white, school districts. 

This metropolitan desegregation remedy could have remade the future direction of racial justice. Instead, the US Supreme Court on July 25, 1974 overruled the lower courts in ruling that the federal courts "could not impose a multidistrict, area-wide remedy upon local districts in the absence of any evidence those districts committed acts causing racial discrimination." The decision seriously impeded the struggle for forced desegregation both in Michigan and throughout the North, and limited the scope of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional.

Read the State Bar of Michigan's Michigan Legal Milestones historical article.

Read the full text of the Milliken v. Bradley decision.

Justice Department Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Iowa Landlord for Sexually Harassing Tenants

 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against Kurt Williams and Gearhead Properties LC, of Davenport, Iowa, for sexually harassing female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Williams has managed residential rental properties in Davenport since at least 2010.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleges that, since at least 2010, Williams subjected female tenants to unwelcome sexual contact, exposed his genitals to female tenants, made requests for sex in exchange for reduced rent or other housing benefits, and evicted tenants when they did not give in to his sexual advances.

“Landlords who target vulnerable women by repeatedly demanding sex for themselves and their friends and retaliating against those who refuse with eviction actions and refusals to make repairs show an egregious abuse of power,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department remains committed to protecting tenants’ right to live in and access housing free of sexual harassment. We encourage survivors of sexual harassment to speak out so that we can vindicate their fair housing rights.”

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate persons harmed by the alleged harassment, civil penalties to vindicate the public interest, and a court order barring future discrimination. The lawsuit is the result of a joint investigative effort with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG).

The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. It also prohibits sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination. Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or other types of housing discrimination at rental properties owned or managed by Kurt Williams or Gearhead Properties LC, or who have other information that may be relevant to this case, may contact the Justice Department by calling the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Iowa at (515) 473-9300. Individuals may also email the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov or submit a report online. Reports also may be made by contacting HUD at 1-800-669-9777 or by filing a complaint online.

Read the January 17, 2025 DOJ press release.