Co-op Agrees to Pay $165,000 in Damages to Victim of Housing Discrimination and to Offer to Purchase Shares in Her Co-operative Apartment for $585,000
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the entry of a Consent Decree with the RUTHERFORD TENANTS CORP. (“RUTHERFORD”) resolving the United States’ lawsuit against RUTHERFORD and its former Board President James Ramadei under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). The lawsuit alleged that RUTHERFORD discriminated against a shareholder (the “Complainant”) in its co-operative building by refusing to permit her to live with emotional support animals to accommodate her disability and by retaliating against the Complainant when she filed a Complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). U.S. District Judge Jennifer H. Rearden approved the Consent Decree on August 16, 2024.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “This is the largest recovery the Department of Justice has ever obtained for a person with disabilities whose housing provider denied them their right to have an assistance animal. This outcome should prompt all housing providers to consider carefully whether their policies and procedures comply with federal law. We greatly appreciate our partners at HUD who provided invaluable assistance in the investigation and resolution of this matter.”
According to documents filed by the Government in federal court:
The Rutherford is a residential cooperative apartment building that contains 175 units and is located at 230 East 15th Street in New York, New York. Defendant RUTHERFORD is the shareholder cooperative association. The Complainant moved into the building in 1999. At the time, RUTHERFORD did not have a reasonable accommodation policy of any kind, whether for people with disabilities generally or for assistance animals specifically.
The Complainant maintained parrots in her home as emotional support animals to assist her with her disabilities and did so without incident until March 2015, when one of her neighbors began complaining about alleged noise. In response, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) visited the building and/or the Complainant’s apartment on 15 occasions over the course of a year and conducted inspections of these noise complaints. DEP issued zero notices of noise violations. RUTHERFORD never conducted any decibel testing or other objective evaluation of the alleged noise complaints. Similarly, RUTHERFORD never retained the services of a noise prevention consultant, architect, engineer, or anyone with qualifications or experience in soundproofing to address the neighbor’s complaints.
In March 2016, the Complainant asked RUTHERFORD to allow her to maintain her parrots as support animals as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA, supporting her request with a letter from her treating psychiatrist.
The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms and conditions of the sale or rental of, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling based on the prospective buyer or renter’s disability. The FHA also mandates that reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and services be provided when necessary to afford equal housing opportunities to persons with disabilities. The assistance animals that must be allowed in private dwellings under the FHA are different from those that must be allowed in places of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is limited to dogs and miniature horses. Under the FHA and its applicable regulations, persons with disabilities may maintain in their homes a wide array of animals as support animals, provided the animal does not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, and does not physically damage the property.
Despite being aware that the Complainant was a person with a disability who needed the parrots as support animals, RUTHERFORD commenced eviction proceedings against the Complainant in May 2016. The Complainant began to suffer severe emotional harm because of the eviction proceedings and left her apartment in July 2016. Despite the fact that the Complainant left the building in 2016, RUTHERFORD continued to maintain the eviction proceeding against her well into 2024.
In May 2018, the Complainant filed a Complaint with HUD, alleging that the eviction proceeding interfered with her fair housing rights. While HUD was investigating the Complaint, the Complainant obtained an offer to purchase the shares appurtenant to her unit for $467,500, but RUTHERFORD rejected the application from the proposed purchaser, thereby prolonging the dispute and, as alleged by the Government, engaging in retaliation against the Complainant for asserting her rights.
HUD completed its investigation and, in January 2021, found probable cause to believe that RUTHERFORD violated the FHA, at which juncture the parties had the opportunity to settle the matter, or, failing that, either the Complainant or RUTHERFORD could elect to proceed to federal court with the dispute. RUTHERFORD chose to proceed to federal court, thereby triggering the statutory requirement that the Department of Justice file suit against it to resolve the matter in federal court.
Under the consent decree approved by Judge Rearden, RUTHERFORD must:
• Pay the Complainant $165,000 in damages, upon receipt of a release from the Complainant;
• Offer $585,000 to purchase the Complainant’s shares in the co-operative at a time when similarly situated units in the building are valued at approximately $500,000;
• In the event that the closing of the sale of the Complainant’s unit does not occur, provide the Complainant with additional accommodations, including a right to sublet the unit for 10 years;
• Adopt a reasonable accommodation policy regarding requests for assistance animals;
• Comply with certain notice, training, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that its
agents and officers are knowledgeable about and comply with the requirements of the FHA;
• Allow the U.S. to monitor compliance with the Consent Decree;
• Dismiss the eviction proceedings against the Complainant in Housing Court.
This is the tenth case brought in recent years by the Southern District of New York to vindicate the rights of tenants and co-operative shareholders to maintain support animals in their homes, and the tenth case to end with an agreement compensating the victims of the alleged discriminatory acts and requiring the adoption of reasonable accommodation policies to protect future residents and co-operative shareholders from discrimination. The monetary recovery for the Complainant in this case, above and beyond the value of her shares, is the largest recovery by the Government for a victim of housing discrimination denied the right to an assistance animal.
Individuals who believe they have been victims of housing discrimination may submit a report online at www.civilrights.justice.gov, by email to SDNY.Rights@usdoj.gov, or may contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-669-9777 or www.hud.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment