On July 05, 2011, the United States Department of Justice filed an action under the Fair Housing Act against the Tel-Clinton Trail Courts, Inc., and its manager, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Plaintiff claims the defendants engaged ...
read more >
On July 05, 2011, the United States Department of Justice filed an action under the Fair Housing Act against the Tel-Clinton Trail Courts, Inc., and its manager, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Plaintiff claims the defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of denying full enjoyment of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619 based on familial status. The Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
The defendants are the owners, operators, and mangers of a mobile home park in Monroe, Michigan. In April 2009, a home seeker called the park to inquire about housing for herself, her husband, her minor child and a child with whom she was pregnant at the time. The agent informed the home seeker that they had a one-child-only policy.
The home seeker complained about her treatment to the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan (FHCSM). The FHCSM sent testers to compare the treatment afforded to prospective home seekers at Shamrock Village based on their familial status. The tests revealed that tenants were not allowed to live at the mobile home park if they had more than one child. The tests also revealed that the ownership established policies and practices for Shamrock Village that discriminate against families with children. For a period of time, Defendants printed advertisements with the statement: "We are more an adult community because we don't have anything to offer children."
On July 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (Judge Arthur J. Tarnow) entered a consent order. The defendants were enjoined from discriminating against persons with more than one child in their policies and practices, including:
-Refusing to sell or rent to any person on the basis of their familial status;
-Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with, because of familial status, including, but not limited to, charging additional rent and/or fees based on the presence of or the number of children in a household;
-Advertising that indicates a preference, limitation or discrimination or suggesting that a dwelling is not suitable for children.
Further, the Defendants agreed to prepare and implement a nondiscrimination policy to be applied equally to all actual and prospective residents, regardless of their familial status. The Defendants agreed to deposit $20,000 into an interest-bearing account for the purpose of compensating other persons whom the Court determines may have been harmed by Defendants' discriminatory housing practices.
The case closed on July 13, 2011.Stacey McClurkin - 10/29/2011