United States Court of Appeals

United States of America v. City of Jackson, Mississippi,
359 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2004), affirming 318 F.Supp.2d 395 (S.D. Miss. 2002)
Keys: Z-ACC, Z-CHI
The U.S. Department of Justice challenged the city’s zoning ordinances and policies under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the city failed to make the reasonable accommodations necessary to provide equal access to housing for people with disabilities. After the federal trial court granted summary judgment in its favor, DOJ entered into a consent decree with the city in lieu of proceeding to trial on the issue of remedies. The consent decree provided, inter alia, that the court could award “any damages, costs and/or attorneys’ fees” occasioned by the city’s violation of the decree. After the city denied a special-use permit to open a shelter for abandoned and abused children with disabilities, the government asked the trial court to hold the city in contempt. When the city reconsidered and granted the permit, the government obtained summary judgment on the issue of contempt and filed a motion for damages. The trial court awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses to DOJ and to the nonprofit agency sponsoring the shelter.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding that, despite language in the Fair Housing Amendments Act that would ordinarily preclude the United States from recovering fees, the city had contracted around the statute’s default rule by entering into a consent decree that expressly allowed for such recovery. Finally, the court held that an award of costs and fees to the nonprofit was appropriate because the city had willfully violated the consent decree. The city had challenged the district court’s award based on the holding in North Realty Association, Inc. v. United States, 605 F.2d 1348 (5th Cir. 1979), which said the government could not be awarded compensatory damages for nonparties in a civil contempt action brought to enforce an injunction under the FHA. In rejecting the city’s argument, the court noted that by passing the FHAA, Congress made clear its intent to expand the government’s power to enforce federal fair housing protections, including giving it the power to seek monetary damages and other remedies on behalf of “persons aggrieved.”

LOUISIANA

United States District Court

Armant v. Chat-Ro Co.
2000 WL 1092838 (E.D. La. Aug. 1, 2000)
Keys: L-EVI
A tenant filed a motion for preliminary injunction restraining the owner of an apartment complex from denying renewal of his lease. The court denied the motion, finding that the tenant failed to make the necessary showing of likelihood of success on the merits. The tenant claimed that lease renewal was denied because he had requested and was denied a handicapped parking spot near his apartment, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, and because he complained about the denial of the parking spot to the state Attorney General’s office, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The court found that the tenant’s  handicap, a herniated disk, was not apparent, that the owner had made inquiries seeking further information, and that the tenant had failed to provide documentation of his handicap until the owner had been served with the motion for a temporary restraining order. Further, the court found that the owner made the decision not to renew the lease before being notified of the complaint by the AG’s office, and that the owner had numerous valid reasons for non-renewal, including the tenant’s threatening behavior toward the owner’s staff.

TEXAS

United States District Court

Whitaker v. West Village Ltd. Partnership
2004 WL 2008502 (N.D. Tex. 2004)
Keys: O-ACC
Three people with disabilities sued the owner and operator, architect and general contractor of a mixed-use development for violations of the Fair Housing Act and other statutes in the design, construction and operation of the development. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the development violated the FHA and state law because it did not have an accessible route into and through the dwelling, had inaccessible public and common-use portions and inaccessible walk-in pantry doors, and some units did not have usable bathrooms.

For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org