Relman & Dane currently represents plaintiffs and public interest organizations in more than 30 individual and class action discrimination cases before federal courts across the country.

Our docket is divided among:

  • fair housing cases, covering housing, lending and homeowners' insurance discrimination;
  • employment discrimination cases including unfair hiring, promotion, assignment and compensation, as well as workplace harassment;
  • public accommodation cases involving discrimination against customers at hotels, restaurants, and other retail or service companies; and
  • police accountability matters.

We represent individuals who are members of every federally protected class, including persons with disabilities and families with children.

Read about our current cases or prior cases.

Selected Current Cases

Listed below are a few examples of the cases we are currently handling.

If you have information that might be helpful to any of the following cases, we would like to know about it. Please call us at (202) 728-1888.

Moore, et al. v. Chertoff (U.S. Secret Service)

Kennedy, et al. v. The City of Zanesville, et al.

Herriot v. Channing House

National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. Century 21 Town & Country, et al.

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, et al. v. St. Bernard Parish, et al.

Border Fair Housing and Economic Justic Center v. JL Gray Company, Inc. et al.

Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines

Moore, et al. v. Chertoff (U.S. Secret Service)
C.A. No. 00-0953 (U.S. District Court, D. D.C.)
In May 2000, Relman & Dane filed suit on behalf of a class of African-American Secret Service Agents against the United States Secret Service.

On August 4, 2008, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification of claims of discriminatory non-promotion to GS-14 from 1994-2004 and GS-15 from 1995-2005. The Plaintiffs amassed extensive statistical and anecdotal evidence of race discrimination in the promotion process. More than sixty African-American current and former Special Agents submitted declarations describing their experiences of discrimination in the Secret Service.

The case has received widespread national attention. More recent media attention has focused on the discovery of racist emails and on the Secret Service's misconduct in failing to turn over and destroying documents.

Back to top

Kennedy, et al. v. The City of Zanesville, et al.
C.A. No. 03-1047 (U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio)
Relman & Dane brought suit against the City of Zanesville, Ohio and other municipal governments on behalf of residents in Coal Run/Langan Lane, a predominantly African-American neighborhood near the city limits of Zanesville. The suit alleges that the city, county, and township intentionally denied the plaintiffs public water service on the basis of race. The plaintiffs live within one mile of public water lines, but were denied public water service for nearly fifty years. As a result, they had to haul water from the city, collect rainwater, and store water in cisterns, where it often became dangerous for consumption. During the same time period, white residents on the same street were provided with water. When plaintiffs repeated their requests for water to the Muskingum County Commissioners a Commissioner stated that they would not get water "until President Bush drops spiral bombs in the holler."

In 2002, the residents filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC). The OCRC found probable cause that the defendants discriminated against plaintiffs. Relman & Dane, along with the Equal Justice Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, subsequently filed a federal lawsuit. After the discrimination charge and the filing of the lawsuit the local governments finally ran water lines to plaintiffs. Relman & Dane represents the plaintiffs to recover damages incurred from the fifty years of monetary loss, humiliation, and deprivation of civil rights suffered as a result of the local governments' discriminatory actions and to ensure that no other residents are denied water because of their race.

Back to top

Herriot v. Channing House
C.A. No. 06-06323 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.)
In October 2006, Relman & Dane filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, California, on behalf of Sally Herriot, who wants to remain in her own apartment in a retirement community rather than being transferred a small double-occupancy hospital-like room in the assisted living unit. Mrs. Herriot neither wants nor needs that type of living situation. The lawsuit seeks to establish that the strong protections of the Fair Housing Act and related civil rights laws apply to senior housing, and that housing choice should not depend on age or disability status.

Back to top

National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. v. Century 21 Town & Country, et al.
C.A. No. 07-10385 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Mich.)
On January 24, 2007 Relman & Dane, on behalf of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), filed a fair housing lawsuit against Century 21 Town and Country of Detroit and Century 21 Real Estate LLC, the national franchisor, alleging that their agents repeatedly steered potential home-buyers to neighborhoods based on their race.

Back to top

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, et al. v. St. Bernard Parish, et al.
C.A. No. 06-7185 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana)
On November 2, 2006 Relman & Dane and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights asked a federal court to enjoin St. Bernard Parish from enforcing a September 2006 ordinance barring single-family homeowners from renting to anyone except blood relatives without the special permission of the Parish Council. The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance disproportionately excludes minority families seeking housing, and perpetuates the parish's history as a segregated, predominantly white community.

Back to top

Border Fair Housing and Economic Justic Center v. JL Gray Company, Inc. et al.
C.A. No. 07-00107 (U.S. District Court, D. N.M.)
On January 31, 2007, Relman & Dane, on behalf of the Border Fair Housing and Economic Justice Center (“BFHC”), a non-profit civil rights organization dedicated to ensuring equal housing opportunities in the Southwest United States, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against JL Gray Company, Inc., a large regional apartment management and development company with properties in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Utah. BFHC’s lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in New Mexico under the federal Fair Housing Act, alleges that JL Gray and its employees discriminated against tenants living in the Desert Palms Apartments in Las Cruces, New Mexico because of their religion.

The case alleges that JL Gray’s Regional Manager for the Las Cruces area, Kevin Smith, took numerous discriminatory actions against Desert Palms tenants who refused to join a small branch of the “Life Purpose Church” that Mr. Smith founded. Mr. Smith, who also served as pastor of the church, held services in the Desert Palms community room and those tenants who attended church services received preferential treatment. At the same time those tenants who rejected Mr. Smith’s regular proselytizing at the apartments were refused many basic services. At least one prospective resident was not allowed to rent a Desert Palms apartment until she agreed to join Mr. Smith’s church. Desert Palms tenants who would not join the church were also denied maintenance and rodent control and were regularly threatened with eviction based on fabricated rules violations or policy infractions not enforced against church members.

Back to top

Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines
C.A. No. 02-2665 (U.S. District Court, D. Ca.)
The firm represents a United States-born citizen of South Asian descent who was told by Northwest Airlines he could not fly on their airline even after the FBI and local law enforcement authorities had determined he was not a security threat. Northwest gave him a ticket for a flight with another airline instead. This incident caused our client’s name to be added to a terrorism watch-list, distributed nationwide, until an employee of another airline had our client’s name removed several weeks later. Our lawsuit alleges that Northwest Airlines prohibited our client from flying, not because of any legitimate concerns about security, but because of his ethnicity.

Back to top

Prior Cases

Listed below are a few examples of cases our attorneys have litigated.

Dyson, et al. v. Denny's, Inc.

Nevels, et al. v. Western World Insurance Co., Inc.

2922 Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association, et al. v. District of Columbia

Gilliam, et al. v. HBE Corp. (d/b/a Adam's Mark Hotel)

Pugh, et al. v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.

Timus v. William J. Davis Inc.

Hargraves v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.

The Wilson Company v. City of Oldsmar, Florida

Dyson, et al. v. Denny's, Inc.
On April 1, 1993, six African-American on-duty officers in the U.S. Secret Service were refused service for more than an hour when they attempted to order breakfast. Meanwhile, their white fellow officers at a nearby table were served without incident.

After the six officers filed suit, thousands of other customers reported that they had experienced similar discriminatory incidents at Denny's Restaurants nationwide.

Eventually, the suit involved class members in 49 states. On May 24, 1994, Denny's and 18 named plaintiffs settled the case for a record $17.725 million. Each officer received $35,000, and the other named plaintiffs received $15,000. In all, checks were mailed to more than 130,000 class members, making this the largest class action settlement distribution to date in a public accommodations discrimination case.

In addition, Denny's signed a consent decree, which placed the corporation under an extensive court order to provide nondiscrimination training to its employees and to monitor and report future instances of discrimination. John Relman was co-lead counsel in this class action lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, with the assistance of the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. The suit received extensive press coverage, including The New York Times Magazine (Nov. 6, 1994) cover story.

Back to top

Nevels, et al. v. Western World Insurance Co., Inc.
C.A. No. 04-1024Z (U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington)
In May 2004, the firm brought a class action lawsuit alleging disability-based discrimination in the provision of property and liability insurance by Western World Insurance Company. Plaintiffs were owners and/or operators of adult family homes and two fair housing organizations, the Fair Housing Center of South Puget Sound and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon.

Click here for the Honorable Judge Thomas Zilly's December 10th, 2004 order denying Western World's motion to dismiss, in which the Court held that the Fair Housing Act is applicable to both property and liability insurance covering group homes.

In May 2006, Western World settled the lawsuit for $2.0 million. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs and Western World established a Settlement Fund for the benefit of other adult family homes who received a Notice of Cancellation/Non-Renewal of insurance coverage from Western World between January 1, 2002, and May 7, 2004 that made reference to mental illness or a mental illness designation associated with the insured’s adult residential care facility license. Western World also agreed to comply with the Fair Housing Act in the future, provide disability rights education and training to all of its supervisory employees and officers engaged in underwriting or pricing insurance to congregate living providers and to establish procedures designed to track and report all claims of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act by its insureds or applicants.

Back to top

2922 Sherman Avenue Tenants' Association, et al. v. District of Columbia
C.A. No. 00-0862 (U.S. District Court, D. D.C.)
On November 30, 2006 Relman & Dane and The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs announced a $700,000 settlement with the District of Columbia in a civil rights lawsuit filed by twenty-four tenants of the Columbia Heights/Mt. Pleasant neighborhood. The settlement resolves the tenants’ claims that in early 2000, District officials targeted and condemned large apartment buildings in this predominantly Hispanic neighborhood and threatened or forced tenants to evacuate, under the guise of “code enforcement.”

Back to top

Gilliam, et al. v. HBE Corp. (d/b/a Adam's Mark Hotel)
During the 1999 Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, Fla., April 9-11, African-American guests at the Adam's Mark Hotel were subjected to discriminatory treatment based on their race. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that they were:

  • charged higher room rates and deposits and required to prepay in full;
  • confined to less desirable sections of the hotel;
  • forced to wear Day-Glo orange wristbands for identification;
  • provided substandard services and amenities;
  • subjected to hostile and threatening security measures;
  • limited in the number of people who could visit them in the hotel; and
  • required to vacate their rooms and check out earlier than normally required.

In May 1999, five of the African-American guests filed a lawsuit, which later was joined by the state of Florida and the U.S. Department of Justice. Investigation by the Justice Department found that the St. Louis-based chain routinely subjected black guests to higher room charges and other discriminatory practices as part of a corporate strategy to limit the percentage of blacks staying at the hotel.

In March 2000, the hotel chain settled the case for $2.1 million, a portion of which was distributed to four historically black colleges and universities for scholarships and hotel management internships. The chain also agreed to provide diversity training to hotel employees and to monitor the hotel's ongoing treatment of guests. This was the largest and most comprehensive settlement ever reached in a hotel discrimination case. According to former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the settlement set a new standard for the entire hospitality industry to meet. John Relman was co-lead counsel in the case, which was brought by the Washington Lawyers' Committee, the law firm of Burr & Smith, and the NAACP.

Back to top

Pugh, et al. v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.
In May 1995, Linda Pugh, an African-American businesswoman, reserved two minivans from an Avis franchise in Wilmington, N.C., for a family trip to Florida. When she arrived to pick up the vans, she was treated rudely and not permitted to rent the vans.

Calling an Avis toll-free number to complain, Ms. Pugh was told that the company had received other complaints about the Wilmington franchise. In the fall of 1996, she filed a complaint against Avis along with two other black women who also had been refused rentals at other locations owned by the same Avis franchise in North and South Carolina. In sworn statements, a former manager and many former employees at these locations said they were instructed to find reasons to refuse rentals to black customers. Statements from other ex-employees made it clear that top Avis officials at its reservation center in Tulsa and its world headquarters in New York were aware of the discrimination but took no action to stop it.

In 1997, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add class action allegations, including declarations from more than 100 African-Americans who said they had experienced discrimination at the Carolina locations. Plaintiffs reached a class action settlement agreement with Avis and the franchise owner for $5.4 million in April 1998. The settlement includes a consent decree that covers the operations of the franchise hownr for three years. John Relman and Christine R. Ladd acted as co-lead counsel for this case, which was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Washington Lawyers' Committee and the law firms of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, and Crowell & Moring.

  • "Avis faces bias suit in Carolinas," USA Today (Nov. 12, 1996)

  • "Former Avis manager outlines bias," USA Today (Nov. 13, 1996)

  • "Companies caught in cross hairs: Avis CEO says he just learned of bias charges," USA Today (Nov. 14, 1996)

  • "Race bias complaints against firms rise," Los Angeles Times (Nov. 20, 1996)

  • "Ex-Avis workers: Bias complaints no secret," USA Today (Nov. 26, 1996)

Back to top

Timus v. William J. Davis Inc.
On two occasions, Carrie J. Timus, a mother of two, was turned down for rental apartments managed by William J. Davis Inc. in Washington, D.C. In both instances, she was told that children were not welcome in the properties she wished to rent. She filed suit under the Fair Housing Act, alleging discrimination based on familial status. Surveys by the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington showed a pattern of discrimination against families by the company, which managed 275 apartment buildings in the area.

In 1992, a federal jury awarded Ms. Timus and the Fair Housing Council $2.4 million. The award was the largest in the country at that time under the new federal housing discrimination law. The award included $2 million in punitive damages.

John Relman was the lead attorney in the case, which was brought by the Washington Lawyers' Committee.

Back to top

Hargraves v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.
C.A. No. 98-1021 (U.S. District Court, D. D.C.)
Relman & Dane represented a group of individual plaintiffs and a church that had been victimized by the predatory lending practices of a Washington, D.C., area mortgage company. The suit is of particular importance because it alleged that the mortgage company violated the Fair Housing Act by targeting only African-American neighborhoods for the sale of its fraudulent, deceptive and predatory loans. This case produced the first legal ruling in the country holding that this type of predatory lending (sometimes called "reverse redlining") is covered under the Fair Housing Act.

The Federal Trade Commission filed its own deceptive trade practices claims against Capital City Mortgage Corp. and litigated the case with our firm.

Back to top

The Wilson Company v. City of Oldsmar, Florida
In September 2001, the firm was retained by The Wilson Company, one of Florida's largest providers of quality affordable housing, to serve as its fair housing counsel in a dispute involving the City of Oldsmar, Florida. Oldsmar officials and local residents have attempted to block constuction of an affordable housing community The Wilson Company has planned for Oldsmar because, the company believes, this new rental complex will significantly increase the number of African-American and Hispanic residents living in the City. After being provided a copy of a federal fair housing complaint prepared by the firm to challenge the City's conduct, the City agreed to allow the new complex to be constructed. The firm's work on behalf of The Wilson Company is particularly important because of the unique role progressive companies like this one play in expanding quality housing opportunities for people of color and families with children.

Back to top