Jury Awards $75,000 To Couple Whose Christmas Program Was Opposed By Homeowners Association

The Spokane Spokesman-Review reports that a federal court jury in Idaho last month awarded $60,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages against a Homeowners Association that attempted to block a resident from setting up an elaborate Christmas display. The jury, in the case which attracted national media attention when filed, found that the Homeowners Association engaged in religious discrimination in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act when it sent a letter to Jeremy and Kristy Morris telling them that if they wanted to move into the neighborhood they would need to cancel plans for their annual 5-day Christmas celebration.  The celebration features elaborate decorations, live music, and live animals, draws thousands of people, and raises money for charities benefiting children suffering from cancer and abused children. The HOA letter, in addition to claiming that the celebration would violate lighting and noise rules, added: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith, and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."  This was portrayed by some media as part of the so-called "war on Christmas." More details on the lawsuit and photos of the celebration are at The Daily Mail and the Coeur d'Alene Press.

Chautauqua Cottage Community Eliminates Christian-Only Clause

As previously reported, last year a suit was filed in Michigan federal district court against the Bay View Association, a Lake Michigan summer community with roots in the Chautauqua Movement, challenging provisions in the Association's rules that limit cottage ownership to practicing Christians. Now, according to the Grand Rapids News, nearly 70% of the members of the Association have voted to amend its bylaws to eliminate the requirement that members be of the "Christian persuasion."

Lesbian Spouses Sue Senior Housing Community For Discrimination

A suit was filed in Missouri federal district court this week by a lesbian married couple against a senior housing community for refusing to rent to same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, (ED MO, filed 7/25/2018), alleges that the senior housing community which is not religiously affiliated has a Cohabitation Policy that provides:

Friendship Village “will permit the cohabitation of residents within a single unit only if those residents, while residing in said unit, are related as spouses by marriage, as parent and child or as siblings,” defining “[t]he term ‘marriage’ as used in this policy means the union of one man and one woman, as marriage is understood in the Bible.”

The suit alleges violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act and Missouri's Human Rights Act. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the lawsuit.

Fair Housing Suit Filed Over Condo Rule Barring Toran

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a federal Fair Housing Act religious discrimination lawsuit filed on Wednesday in a Pennsylvania federal district court. Filed by a Hindu condo owner in an upscale high-rise Philadelphia building, the suit challenges a new rule adopted by the condo association which bars resident Akhilesh Tripathi from keeping a toran on his door.  The Hindu toran, made of chains, bells and balls of fabric, and blessed by a Hindu priest, has hung across his door frame since 2009.  The condo association's new rules permit certain religious symbols, particularly mezuzahs, to be attached to door frames, but does not allow Tripathi's toran.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages.

Suit Challenges Christian-Only Ownership Rules In Chautauqua Cottage Community

A discrimination lawsuit was filed in a Michigan federal district court last week against the Bay View Association, a Lake Michigan summer community with roots in the Chautauqua Movement. The complaint (full text) in Bay View Chautauqua Inclusiveness Movement v. Bay View Association of the United Methodist Church, (WD MI, filed 7/10/2017), challenges provisions in the Association's rules that limit cottage ownership to practicing Christians.  The suit contends that this is religious discrimination that violates the U.S. and Michigan constitutions, the federal Fair Housing Act, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.  Petoskey (MI) News-Review reports on the lawsuit.

Court Enters Housing and Policing Injunctions Against FLDS-Dominated Towns

In United States v. Town of  Colorado City, Arizona, (D AZ, April 18, 2017), an Arizona federal district court took major steps to attempt to normalize the housing and policing situation in the FLDS-controlled twin towns of Colorado City, Arizona and Hilldale, Utah.  The Justice Department sued the towns under the Fair Housing Act and the Policing Act (42 USC §14141).  In introducing its 54-page opinion setting out detailed injunctive relief, the court said;

The constitutional right to free exercise of religion, on the one hand, and the statutory right to housing and constitutional policing, on the other hand, are vitally important to a viable, peaceful community.... Denial of housing rights and lawful policing to some residents at the behest of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ... has cost the cities dearly – millions of dollars – in the past.

.... It is now time for the citizens of Colorado City and City of Hildale to come together and accept the fact that communal ownership of residential property in the Defendant Cities is a thing of the past. All residents of the Defendant Cities must be afforded equal access to housing and residential services, to nondiscriminatory law enforcement, and to free exercise of their religious preferences that are not contrary to law. By this judgment and decree, the court hopes to assist the Defendant Cities and their residents in advancing the protection of civil rights to which they are entitled.

The court ordered the cities to engage an independent monitor to assure housing compliance and hiring of an outside consultant to aid in reorganization and policy changes in the Colorado City Marshall's Office.

Homeowners Sue Over Opposition To Their Christmas Display

A lawsuit alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act has been filed by a Hayden, Idaho couple who are in a battle with their neighbors and their homeowners association over an elaborate Christmas display they put on every year to raise funds for two local charities.  The display, which includes a live nativity scene with a small camel, sheep, donkey, Santa Claus, and the Grinch, attracts large crowds.  The complaint (full text) in Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, filed 1/13/2017), alleges religious discrimination, contending that the Homeowners Association objects to the couple's Christian beliefs being pressed on others in the neighborhood.  KHQ News report on the lawsuit.

Amish Man Wins Exemption From State Building Code

A Michigan state trial court judge has held that a member of the Old Order Amish is entitled to an exemption from the Michigan Residential Building Code.  According to the Sault St. Marie News, in a June 6 opinion visiting Judge Harold Johnson sitting in the 50th District Court held that denial of the exemption would violate both the Fair Housing Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Amish defendant William Miller objected on religious grounds to requirements for electric and plumbing systems, indoor bathrooms, modernized kitchens and electronic devices such as smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors.

Federal Jury Says FLDS Twin Towns Discriminated

Yesterday an Arizona federal district court jury agreed that the towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and their joint water company systematically discriminated, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, against individuals who are not members of the FLDS Church in providing housing, utilities and police services. As reported by Deseret News, even though the jury awarded damages of $2.2 million to six residents, prior to the jury verdict the parties had negotiated a $1.6 million settlement under the Fair Housing Act.  According to a Justice Department press release, the suit was also filed by the government under 42 USC 14141.  The Sec. 14141 civil action does not include the right to a jury trial, so the jury's findings on that portion of the government's suit are advisory:

In its advisory verdict, the jury found that the Colorado City Marshal’s Office, the cities’ joint police department, operated as an arm of the FLDS church in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment; engaged in discriminatory policing in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the establishment clause; and subjected individuals to unlawful stops, seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(See prior related posting.)

Housing Crunch For Orthodox Jews In New Jersey Places Focus On Real Estate Practices [UPDATED]

AP reported yesterday on the influx of ultra-Orthodox Jews into the town of Lakewood, New Jersey and surrounding communities.  AP reports that the influx is of Hasidic Jews, but as a commenter on Twitter to an earlier version of this post points out, the Jews in Lakewood, and the yeshiva that attracts them are largely in the Orthodox Lithuanian Jewish ("Yeshivish") tradition, not Hasidic. Nevertheless here is AP's report:

A housing crunch in Lakewood, home to one of the nation’s largest populations of Hasidic Jews, has triggered what residents of neighboring communities say are overly aggressive, all-hours solicitations from agents looking to find homes for the rapidly growing Jewish community.

The complaints have prompted towns, including Toms River, to update their “no-knock” rules and related laws, adding real estate inquiries to measures that already limit when soliciting can occur and allow residents to bar solicitations.

But Jewish leaders and others say the no-knock laws unfairly target Orthodox Jews and those seeking to help them find houses. Many current residents came to the community to study at one of the largest yeshivas in the world and eventually settled down....

On the other hand, some of the solicitation activity is reminiscent of the kind of activity that led to the federal Fair Housing Act's ban on "blockbusting."  42 USC Sec. 3604(e) makes it illegal:

For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

AP describes one homeowner's experience:

James Jackson didn’t want to sell his home but thanked the black-suited man for his interest anyway.

That’s when the man put his hand on Jackson’s shoulder and told him he might want to reconsider. Many of his neighbors in the New Jersey shore town of Toms River, the man said, already planned to sell to Jewish buyers like those he represented.

“He asked me why I would want to live in a Hasidic neighborhood if I wasn’t Hasidic,” Jackson recalled. “He asked if I would really be happy, if it would be in my family’s best interests.”

Orthodox Jewish Tenants Sue Over Electronic Keys In Building Renovations

The New York Daily News reports on a class action religious discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York last month by Orthodox Jewish tenants in LeFrak City, a 20-building housing complex in Queens.  The case is Ibragimov v. Lefrak Organization, Inc., (ED NY, filed 7/23/2015).  The Fair Housing Act suit claims that an electronic key system that has been installed in the renovations of the buildings creates Sabbath observance problems. The change means that  Orthodox Jews who will not create or break an electrical circuit on the Sabbath have to wait outside until someone else is entering the building. The lawsuit seeks to require installation of one door in each building that opens with a conventional key and also the installation of a chip that allows an elevator in each building to operate as a Sabbath elevator-- stopping automatically at every floor without riders needing to press buttons.

Supreme Court Holds Fair Housing Act Supports Disparate-Impact Claims

Today in a 5-4 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., (Sup. Ct., June 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that disparate-impact claims, not just intentional discrimination claims, are cognizable under the federal Fair Housing Act.  In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the court held that while the statute which bars discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin supports challenges to policies that cause racial or other disparities, there are significant limitations on such claims, saying:

If the specter of disparate-impact litigation causes private developers to no longer construct or renovate housing units for low-income individuals, then the FHA would have undermined its own purpose as well as the free-market system.

Justice Kennedy went on for 5 pages discussing the required safeguards against inappropriate disparate-impact claims, saying in part:

An important and appropriate means of ensuring that disparate-impact liability is properly limited is to give housing authorities and private developers leeway to state and explain the valid interest served by their policies. This step of the analysis is analogous to the business necessity standard under Title VII and provides a defense against disparate-impact liability....

It would be paradoxical to construe the FHA to impose onerous costs on actors who encourage revitalizing dilapidated housing in our Nation’s cities merely because some other priority might seem preferable. Entrepreneurs must be given latitude to consider market factors. Zoning officials, moreover, must often make decisions based on a mix of factors.... The FHA does not decree a particular vision of urban development; and it does not put housing authorities and private developers in a double bind of liability, subject to suit whether they choose to rejuvenate a city core or to promote new low-income housing in suburban communities.

Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinon joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas.  Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissent.

Suit By U.S. Against FLDS Towns Moves Ahead

United States v. Town of Colorado City, Arizona, (D AZ, June 17, 2015), is a decision in a civil suit by the Untied States against the twin towns of Colorado City, Arizona and Hilldale, Utah, and against utility companies serving the towns alleging a pattern of discrimination against residents who are not members of the polygamous FLDS Church, denying them housing, police protection and access to public services. (See prior posting.) The court refused to dismiss claims that defendants violated Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 by denying plaintiffs their constitutional rights, saying that there are material questions of fact as to whether there have been violations.  The court also allowed the United States to move ahead with its claims of violations of the Fair Housing Act, though found that plaintiff could not recover damages on behalf of certain individuals. It also held that a prior civil suit by a private party could not be relied on by the government to assert non-mutual collateral estoppel. AP reporting on the decision calls it a loss for the Justice Department.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Fair Housing Act Disparate-Impact Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.  At issue in the case is whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, or whether there must be a showing of intentional discrimination.  While this case involves claims of racially discriminatory impact, the Court's decision will apply to cases involving religious discrimination as well.  The transcript of full oral arguments is available from the Supreme Court's website. SCOTUSblog's case page contains links to all the briefs in the case as well as to the 5th Circuit's decision below.  SCOTUSblog also reports on today's arguments.

Suit Settled Allowing Christian Group To Use Building To House Recovering Addicts and Their Children

Alliance Defending Freedom announced this week that it has reached a settlement with the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi in a suit challenging the city's refusal to rezone or provide a special use permit for a Christian organization to use a building it purchased for overnight housing of women who are recovering from addiction and their children. The complaint (full text) in Lighthouse Rescue Mission, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, (SD MI, filed 5/3/2013) claimed that the zoning denials violated RLUIPA, the federal Fair Housing Act and the speech and religion protections in the federal and state constitutions. The order and settlement agreement (full text, filed 11/7/13) permits Rescue Mission to house allows it to use the building for overnight housing and related ministry operations.