Jump to Navigation


Bernie Kleina Housing MuralRelman, Dane & Colfax's fair housing practice has included some of the most important and groundbreaking housing discrimination cases filed in state and federal courts.  The firm has brought a wide range of fair housing cases, including challenges to discrimination by landlords in the rental of apartments, discrimination by real estate agents and companies in the sale of housing, the discriminatory provision of services by municipalities and other governments, discrimination in the construction of residential buildings that are inaccessible to people with disabilities, and racial and sexual harassment of tenants by landlords.  Our cases involve all classes of people protected under the fair housing laws, including race, national origin, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, marital status, source of income, and sexual orientation.  In addition to representing individuals, groups of individuals, and classes of people harmed by housing discrimination, the firm frequently brings cases on behalf of fair housing groups and other public interest organizations that have received and investigated complaints of discrimination.  The firm's fair housing lawyers are frequently asked to draft amicus briefs to federal appellate courts considering important legal issues under the nation's fair housing laws.

Selected Cases

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Settles Housing Voucher Discrimination Case Against Travelers Indemnity Company

  • On February 20, 2018 Travelers Indemnity Company entered into a settlement requiring that it insure properties in Washington, D.C. without regard to whether tenants in those properties are Housing Choice Voucher holders, and refrain from inquiring whether such tenants receive government assistance in connection with eligibility, pricing, or underwriting decisions. Travelers will also pay $450,000 in damages and attorneys' fees, and provide training to employees involved in the sale or underwriting of insurance for area rental properties. To read more click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Wins Injunction Requiring Trump Administration to Provide Housing Choice to Low-Income Families

  • On Saturday, December 23, 2017, a federal judge ordered the Trump Administration immediately to reinstate an Obama Administration regulation providing thousands of low-income families who use Housing Choice Vouchers the opportunity to move from impoverished, racially segregated neighborhoods to areas that provide better schools, better jobs, and greater access to community amenities. To read more and the Opinion click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Challenges Trump Administration Roll Back of Housing Choice Voucher Rule

  • On October 23, 2017, Relman Dane & Colfax filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two Housing Choice Voucher holders and a civil rights group, alleging that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) violated its civil rights obligations by unlawfully suspending a program that was intended to give low-income households the chance to live in high-opportunity areas. That action, the plaintiffs allege, relegates Voucher holders to lower-rent neighborhoods characterized by poverty and racial and ethnic segregation. They seek a court order requiring HUD to implement the program on schedule. To read more and review the Complaint click here.

  • Settlement of HUD Fair Housing Complaint Concerning Maryland's Administration of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax is pleased to announce the settlement of a HUD administrative complaint that alleged that the State of Maryland operated its Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program in a manner that violated civil rights laws. The complaint--filed in 2011 on behalf of the Baltimore Regional Housing Campaign--alleged that State policies permitted local officials to block affordable housing from being built in majority white, high opportunity communities. As a consequence, the Campaign alleged, developers in the region had few opportunities to build other than in the poorest and most segregated neighborhoods in the City of Baltimore. To read more and review the agreement click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Files Complaint Against Insurance Companies for Discrimination Against Housing Choice Voucher Participants in New Orleans

  • On September 14, 2017, Relman, Dane & Colfax filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that three insurance companies discriminate on the basis of race, sex and familial status by denying liability insurance (or charging higher premiums) to landlords who accept tenants with federal rental subsidy vouchers. To read more and review the complaint click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Sues Landlord for Practice of Demanding Sexual Favors from Low-Income Tenants

  • On August 8, 2017, Relman, Dane & Colfax filed a federal housing discrimination lawsuit against Oswego, New York landlord Douglas Waterbury, alleging that Waterbury demanded sexual favors from female tenants in exchange for lower rents and other benefits of tenancy. The plaintiffs in the case, six women and a northern New York local fair housing organization, describe Waterbury’s long-standing and pervasive pattern and practice of quid pro quo sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the New York State Human Rights Law’s prohibitions against sex discrimination. To read more click here.

  • Federal Court Class Action Challenges Predatory “Rent-to-Own” Housing Scheme Targeted At Minority Communities in Indianapolis

  • On May 30, 2017, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC filed a class action housing discrimination lawsuit on behalf of four individuals and the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana against Rainbow Realty Group, Inc., Empire Holding Corporation, and James R. Hotka. The complaint alleges that the Defendants use the promise of homeownership to lure people into toxic “rent-to-own” contracts for rundown houses, reviving predatory land contract practices that denied fair homeownership opportunities to residents of minority neighborhoods during much of the twentieth century. The lawsuit asserts claims under the federal Fair Housing, Equal Credit Opportunity, and Truth in Lending Acts, as well as state law. To read more and review the complaint click here.

  • Federal Court Complaint Challenges Georgia City's Discriminatory Utility Policies

  • On May 18, 2017, Relman, Dane & Colfax, along with the National Immigration Law Center and the Southern Center for Human Rights, filed a lawsuit against the City of LaGrange, Georgia, on behalf of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, Troup County NAACP, Project South, and seven individual plaintiffs challenging LaGrange's utility service policies that have an unlawful disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos. To read more and review the complaint click here.

  • Federal Court Complaint Challenges Connecticut Town's Discriminatory Treatment of Group Home for People with Disabilities

  • On April 17, 2017, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center filed a housing discrimination lawsuit, on behalf of the Center and Gilead Community Services, against the Town of Cromwell, Connecticut. The complaint alleges that Cromwell and three of its high-ranking officials violated three federal civil rights laws--the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act--through an illegal and concerted campaign to force Gilead to close a residence for individuals with mental health diagnoses. To read more and review the complaint click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Settles Affordable Housing Case for $2.45 Million

  • On April 18, 2017, the Village of Tinley Park, Illinois agreed to pay $2.45 million to settle fair housing claims brought by Buckeye Community Hope Foundation. The lawsuit alleged that Village officials' actions to block the development of Buckeye's affordable housing development had the purpose and effect of discriminating against African Americans and families with children. The settlement represents one of the largest monetary payments to an affordable housing provider for claims brought under the Fair Housing Act. To read more about the case click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against Fannie Mae on Behalf of Twenty-One Private Fair Housing Organizations

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC filed a housing discrimination lawsuit against Fannie Mae on behalf of the National Fair Housing Alliance and twenty local fair housing organizations. To read more and review the Complaint click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Secures Landmark Accessible Housing Settlement with City of Los Angeles

  • On August 30, the Los Angeles City Council agreed to settle litigation brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by three nonprofit disability and fair housing advocacy groups that had claimed the City’s housing programs were inaccessible to people with disabilities. The agreement, which is the largest of its kind in the country, provides that, over the next 10 years, the City will ensure that at least 4,000 of its affordable housing units meet architectural standards required by the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Those UFAS standards require substantially greater accessibility than the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines; for instance, UFAS requires accessible roll-in or transfer showers, much larger maneuvering clearances at doors, lowered kitchen counters and greater access to appliances, and grab bars must be pre-installed in bathrooms. To read more and review the Judgment and Settlement Agreement click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Files Race and Familial Status Discrimination Case Against Chicago Suburb

  • On April 19, 2016, Relman, Dane & Colfax filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (“Buckeye”), a non-profit affordable housing developer, challenging the Village of Tinley Park’s obstruction of Buckeye’s efforts to build a multi-family affordable housing development. Tinley Park, which is thirty miles southwest of Chicago, is just 3.6 percent African American, but a much larger percentage of the neighboring population that is eligible for affordable housing is African American. To read more and review the Complaint click here.

  • HUD Guidance Says Blanket Criminal History Bans Violate Fair Housing Act, Supporting Firm’s Claims in Fortune Society Litigation

  • On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued new guidance stating that blanket bans on applicants with criminal histories likely violate the Fair Housing Act. Without an individualized assessment of each applicant’s circumstances, HUD says that such bans are likely to have a harsher, unjustified effect on people of color, who are more likely to have come into contact with the criminal justice system. The HUD guidance also makes clear that landlords cannot use mere arrests to deny applications. To read the Complaint, Guidance and Press Coverage click here.

  • Sapelo Island Descendants of Slaves File Discrimination Lawsuit

  • Fifty-seven Sapelo Island property owners and other residents and two community organizations – Help Org Inc. and Raccoon Hogg Community Development Corporation – filed on December 9, 2015 a federal race discrimination lawsuit against McIntosh County, the state of Georgia, and the Sapelo Island Heritage Authority (SIHA). The families are descendants of Gullah-Geechee slaves who lived on the Georgia barrier island as far back as the 18th century. The lawsuit alleges that the county, state, and SIHA are engaged in a policy designed to make plaintiffs’ lives so uncomfortable that they abandon their homes and their land. “These actions are destroying the last intact Gullah-Geechee community in the country,” said Reed Colfax, the plaintiffs’ attorney and a partner in the civil rights law firm, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC. “The county and state are depriving our clients of basic municipal services, limiting their access to their lands. In addition, the county tried to dramatically increase their taxes in an effort to force them off Sapelo Island, which their families have known as home for generations.” To read the Complaint click here and Press Release click here.

  • Second Circuit Holds That Obtaining Housing Is a Major Life Activity Under the Fair Housing Act

  • In a case of first impression in the circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that obtaining housing is a “major life activity” under the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act. The court held that if a person’s impairments limit her ability to live in a broad class of housing, she has established that she is a person with disabilities. The Second Circuit is only the second court of appeals to find that obtaining housing is a major life activity, and this holding represents a great victory for all people who seek to live in the housing of their choice, regardless of their actual or perceived disabilities. The court also held that, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, non-medical evidence may be sufficient in a Fair Housing Act case to show that an impairment is substantially limiting. Thus, courts must give proper credence to the testimony of parents, teachers, and other persons who are familiar with a person with disabilities. To read more about the case and the Court’s Opinion, click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax and Department of Justice Settle Housing Discrimination Claims for $850,000

  • Plaintiffs in a major housing discrimination case against an Akron-Canton, Ohio area landlord have settled their claims for $850,000 and extensive injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs had filed the case under the federal and Ohio fair housing laws alleging that John Ruth, who owns and operates more than one hundred apartments in the Northeast, Ohio area, regularly discriminated against both African Americans and families with children. To read more and review the Proposed Consent Order click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Files Two Amicus Briefs in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax has filed two briefs in the closely watched case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Case No. 13-1371. The Supreme Court is expected in that case to decide whether the Fair Housing Act allows for disparate impact liability. To read more and review the briefs, click here.

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax Wins First Appellate Decision Holding that Intent not Required to Prove FHA Reasonable Accommodation and Reasonable Modification Claims

  • In the first appellate decision squarely addressing the issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that evidence of intent or pretext is not required to establish reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification claims under the Fair Housing Act. To read more about the case and the Opinion and Judgment click here.

  • Advocacy Groups Settle Civil Rights Complaint Against State of New Jersey Involving Superstorm Sandy

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax is pleased to announce the resolution of an administrative complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which alleged that the State of New Jersey violated civil rights laws in the administration of its Superstorm Sandy recovery program. The Firm represented Latino Action Network, Fair Share Housing Center (FHSC) and NJ NAACP, and co-counseled the matter with FSHC. To read more about the case and the Settlement click here.

  • Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Article Analyzes HUD’s Disparate Impact Rule

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax is pleased to announce the publication of a new article examining HUD’s February 2013 final rule interpreting the disparate impact standard under the Fair Housing Act. Authored by Michael Allen, Jamie Crook and John Relman and titled “Assessing HUD’s Disparate Impact Rule: A Practitioner’s Perspective,” the article appears in the Winter 2014 issue of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, available at http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/HLC104.pdf.

  • Settlement Eliminates Discriminatory Local Residence Requirements

  • Relman, Dane & Colfax is pleased to announce that its clients—Crystal Carter and Connecticut Fair Housing Center (CFHC)—have settled their housing discrimination case against the Winchester (Connecticut) Housing Authority (WHA). WHA has traditionally served 17 towns in northwestern Connecticut, a part of the state that is overwhelmingly White. This landmark settlement does away entirely with local residence requirements and preferences that discriminate on the basis of race and national origin. The Consent Decree, entered November 14, 2013, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, provides for comprehensive relief for Ms. Carter and for CFHC, and requires WHA to pay $350,000 in damages, attorney’s fees and costs. To read more and review the Complaint and Consent Order click here.

  • Complaints Filed Alleging Discrimination By Property Insurers

    In June, 2014, Relman, Dane & Colfax filed two complaints against property/casualty insurers for alleged insurance discrimination based on race and disability. The claims allege that insurer restrictions on the number of Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) tenants who can live in the insured’s rental units have a disparate impact on these protected bases. HCV tenants are lower income, and receive rent subsidies from HUD to live in private market housing. In most urban communities, HCV tenants are disproportionately people of color or disabled. In one matter, the insurer (Lloyds of London) canceled the client’s insurance after the insurance inspector realized that HCV tenants lived in the property. In the other matter, the insurer (Great American) refused to renew the insurance of one housing provider and increased the premium of another due the presence of HCV tenants in their properties. To read the complaints click here and click here. To view the consent decree resolving one of the cases, click here.

  • National and Dallas Fair Housing Groups Settle Case Against Housing Developer

    On June 20, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement of a housing discrimination lawsuit alleging disability discrimination by UDR, Inc., the designer and builder of several multifamily housing developments near Dallas, Texas.

    The lawsuit, filed in September 2012 by the National Fair Housing Alliance and the North Texas Fair Housing Center, alleged that since at least 2007, UDR and its affiliates designed and/or constructed multifamily dwellings, and common- and public-use areas, without the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act.

    Under the terms of the settlement, UDR will make major renovations to three apartment complexes in Texas and pay $87,000 as compensation and for attorney’s fees. It will also provide additional education about fair housing laws to current and future employees, and will provide notices to existing tenants of additional alterations that can be made at the tenant’s option, without cost to the tenant.

  • City Found Liable Under the ADA and the FHA For Failing to Accommodate Homeowner

    On May 14, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to Bernita and Winston Vance on their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act against the City of Maumee, Ohio. The Vances filed suit after the City refused to allow them to use a public right-of-way to access the rear of their home so that Mrs. Vance could avoid walking up 18 steps from the public street in the front of her home. The right-of-way in the rear had not been maintained by the City in several years, and neighbours had objected to the Vances use of it, so the City denied their request to use it and erected a temporary wooden barrier at its entrance, with threat of prosecution, so that Mr. Vance could not drive Mrs. Vance to her back door. To review the Complaint and the Court’s Order, click here.

  • Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against D.C. Housing Authority for Illegally Denying Sign Language Interpreters and Basic Services to People with Disabilities

    On May 7, 2013, Relman, Dane & Colfax, along with the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the D.C. Housing Authority’s failure to provide sign language interpreters and equal access to Housing Authority programs and services to people with hearing impairments.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jacqueline Young and Latheda Wilson, both of whom rely on American Sign Language to communicate, and Deaf-REACH, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that people with hearing loss are equal participants in society.  The complaint details how the Housing Authority has repeatedly denied interpreters to individuals with hearing impairments like Ms. Young and Ms. Wilson, forcing them to rely on notes, attempts at lip-reading, and gestures, without any effective means of communication. To read more and review the Complaint click here.

  • Refusal to Grant Reasonable Modification Costs New Mexico Landlord $200,000

    On March 27, 2013, U.S. District Court Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo entered a Consent Order directing Michael Croom, an Albuquerque, New Mexico landlord, to pay $200,000 to Dereck Scott, a tenant who had sought reasonable modifications to make his home accessible. After developing multiple sclerosis in January 2011, Mr. Scott’s ability to walk quickly declined and within months he was forced to use a wheelchair. The single-family home he and his family were renting from Mr. Croom was inaccessible in many ways, including having narrow bathroom doorways that Dereck could not enter with his wheelchair. To use the toilet, Mr. Scott had to have his wife lift him from the chair into the bathroom. When his wife was not home, Mr. Scott had to use a small portable toilet he set up outside the door to the bathroom. In October 2011, the family sent a letter to Mr. Croom, requesting permission to make various modifications that had been recommended by an occupational therapist. To read more and review the Complaint and Consent Order click here.
  • Federal Court Permits Design and Construction Claims Against Architect to Proceed on Continuing Violation Theory

    On January 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied an architect's summary judgment motion on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) may proceed with claims that the architect is liable for violations of the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act at apartment buildings in North Carolina and South Carolina, even though the architect's work on one project ended more than two years before suit was filed. Read more.

  • Carter v. Housing Authority of the Town of Winchester

    On August 1, 2012, on behalf of Crystal Carter and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center (“CFHC”), Relman, Dane & Colfax filed a federal lawsuit against the Housing Authority of the Town of Winchester, Connecticut (“WHA”) alleging that WHA discriminates against African Americans and Hispanics by imposing a “residency requirement” in its allocation of Section 8 housing choice vouchers.

    Ms. Carter, who is an African-American single mother, contacted WHA to request a Section 8 voucher application, hoping for a chance to move her family into a safe, stable, high-opportunity area. Although WHA's Section 8 waiting list was open, WHA refused to send Ms. Carter an application, telling her that she was not eligible because she did not live in Winchester or one of sixteen neighboring towns, the populations of which are all overwhelming White and non-Hispanic. WHA also told Ms. Carter that Winchester was not on a “bus-line,” that there were no jobs there, and that it was in the “woods.”  WHA told Ms. Carter to apply to other housing programs in communities with considerably larger African-American and Hispanic populations.

    The CFHC conducted an investigation confirming that WHA precludes prospective applicants who do not already live in Winchester or a neighboring town from applying to, or becoming beneficiaries of, its Section 8 voucher program. The CFHC's investigation also revealed that WHA's residency requirement disproportionately affects African-Americans and Hispanics and perpetuates segregation in Winchester and the surrounding towns, prohibiting tens of thousands of income-eligible African-American and Hispanic households from participating in WHA's Section 8 program.

    The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  For a copy of the complaint, click here. To read an article on the case from the New York Times, click here.

    Whyte, et al. v. Alston Management, et al.

    On February 7, 2012, a federal jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida awarded more than $1 million to seven families discriminatorily forced from their Central Florida homes because they had children living in their households.  After a four-day trial, the jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to the former residents of Pelican Lake Village, a 117-unit apartment complex located in Pahokee, Florida.  The families were forced out because the landlord wanted to rent the complex to a prison ministry seeking to house sex offenders there.  To read more about the case, click here.

  • Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, et al. v. Julie Magee, et al.

    On November 18, 2011, Relman, Dane & Colfax, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and LatinoJustice, filed a federal class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of three Alabama fair housing groups, two individual plaintiffs, and a class of victims, alleging that a provision of Alabama's anti-immigrant law, HB 56, violates the Fair Housing Act and the Supremacy and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and threatens to leave families across the state homeless.  To read more about these cases, click here.

  • Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and Provident Realty v. St. Bernard Parish

    On September 11, 2009, Relman, Dane & Colfax won its third motion for contempt in a year-long dispute against St. Bernard Parish and the St. Bernard Parish Council.  The firm represented the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and Provident Realty Advisors, Inc. in opposing the Parish's continuing efforts to block Provident from building four mixed-income, affordable housing developments.  The Court ordered the Parish to meet specific deadlines for approval of Provident's building permits, the final step necessary to begin construction, and ordered the imposition of sanctions of up to $10,000 per day if the Parish did not comply.  For a copy of that opinion, click here.  To read more about the case, click here.


Housing Archives