Fairways 1997

On March 14, 1997 a federal jury found Eliza Keulian libel for housing discrimination and awarded seven plaintiffs and the Fair Housing Council a total of $28,000.

In 1991, the Council settled a federal lawsuit with Mrs. Keulian. At that time she was asking homeseekers on the telephone what color they were and then explaining that she would not rent to Blacks. In 1993, the Council began receiving complaints that Mrs. Keulian was telling homeseekers that children were diseased, they had mumps, chicken pox & measles, and that she would not rent to them. The Council conducted an investigation and found evidence that she was indeed saying these things.

A complaint was filed in 1993 with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), and Mrs. Keulian was notified that a complaint had been filed against her. She then wrote a letter to the Commission apologizing for her behavior and promising never to do it again. However, Mrs. Keulian refused to attend any meetings at PHRC or discuss terms of settlement of the complaint. In June 1993, the Commission made a finding of "Probable Cause" on the case.

In 1994 the Council again began receiving complaints against Mrs. Keulian. When Andrew & Allicia Totdahl met Mrs. Keulian, she saw that Allicia was 8 months pregnant and told her she was wasting her time, she doesn’t rent to children because they are filthy. She then looked at Andrew and informed him that it didn’t matter anyway, because she doesn’t rent to "people of color." Over the next several months, the Council received five other complaints of discrimination by Mrs. Keulian. So in 1996, the Council filed a lawsuit in federal court in hopes of ending this problem. The jury award will hopefully send the message to Mrs. Keulian that housing discrimination is expensive. The Council hopes that it will no longer receive complaints against Mrs. Keulian and that a message has been sent to all landlords that discriminatory statements made over the telephone or in person can be very costly.

Agreement Reached with Kennett Square Borough

The Fair Housing Council recently held a fair housing training session for Kennett Square Borough Council members, police officers and all other employees of Kennett Square. The training was part of a conciliation agreement settling a complaint filed by the tenants of Center Square Apartments and Comite De Apoyo A Los Trabajadores Agricolas, a group that assists farmworkers with employment and legal problems, against the Borough Council of Kennett Square, the Code Enforcement Officer, and the Chief of Police.

Kennett Square, also known as the "Mushroom Capital of the World," has had difficulty in recent years supporting affordable housing for its migrant farmworker population, most of them of Mexican descent. The problem boiled to a head when the Alliance for Better Housing, a non-profit group concerned with the lack of affordable housing in the area, decided to purchase and rehabilitate two properties on Broad Street in Kennett Square to lease as low income housing. After a heated Borough Council meeting where area residents expressed their concern that this housing would be occupied by migrant farmworkers, the Council voted to change its zoning to prohibit the conversion of single family dwellings to multi-family dwellings and attempted to contact the Alliance’s funding sources to urge them to repeal the grants that had already been approved.

During this time, tenants of Center Square Apartments were experiencing abrupt late night inspections and head counts. Borough housing inspectors, accompanied by local police officers, were checking for violations of housing codes and occupancy restrictions at night after many of the tenants had already gone to bed. Most didn’t even understand what was happening because there was no Spanish speaking translator available.

Thanks to HUD and Ada Montare, a federal mediator with the justice department, an agreement was reached. In addition to the fair housing training the respondents were required to attend, some other provisions of this agreement include:

When Ali & Donna Makki moved to the area, they took the first apartment they could find. The apartment was in Bryn Mawr, a prestigious main line community that a friend said they would really like. The Makki’s did really like the area, but the apartment was not all that nice. So in 1993, soon after the birth of their first son, they began looking for a new apartment. Their first choice was spacious Broadlawn Apartments. Situated on over 20 acres were 76 buildings with 316 units. The complex was located directly across the street and they could see the beautiful lawns from the window of their apartment. Donna would walk through the property on sunny days enjoying the open space and shade trees. Best of all, the price was right. But, when they visited the management office, they were bluntly informed that they could not live there because they had an infant son. They were told that it had nothing to do with discrimination, but that the complex simply had a policy of no more than 2 persons in a 2 bedroom apartment. It was then that it occurred to Donna that she had never seen children playing on the property.

The Council investigated. A fair housing tester saying that the apartment would be for herself, her husband and their child, was told that obtaining an apartment in the complex would be impossible because they had a policy of only 2 persons in a 2 bedroom apartment. A second fair housing tester saying that the apartment would be for himself, his wife and their 31 year old daughter was also told about the 2 person per 2 bedroom policy, but was told that if they didn’t put the daughter on the lease, and if she was just a "frequent visitor," it would be O.K. for them to have the apartment.

The Council filed a complaint in October 1993 at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission alleging housing discrimination. Not only did the 2 person/2 bedroom policy have a "disparate impact" on families with children, but Broadlawn seemed to only apply that policy to families with children.

In June 1995 the Commission made a finding of Probable Cause of housing discrimination in the case. In February 1996, since Broadlawn refused to make changes to its policy and it was unlikely that PHRC would adjudicate this case in the foreseeable future, the Council filed a lawsuit in federal district court. In September 1997, after four years of fighting, and within a week of the scheduled court date, the Council and the Makki’s, represented by attorney Clifford A. Boardman, agreed to settle with Broadlawn for $80,000. They admitted no guilt, but they did however agree to change their policy. Their policy now is 2 persons per bedroom for all persons with familial status, i.e. families with children. All others are still allowed only 2 persons/2 bedroom apartment. After 2 years, Broadlawn can file a motion to decrease with the court if they can allege the existence of hardship attributable to this occupancy policy. If Broadlawn does not prevail in its motion, they must pay the Council’s attorney’s fees and costs for investigating their motion. All of Broadlawn’s staff will be trained in fair housing laws, and they have been required to remove the question from their rental application asking potential tenants, "Are you expecting a birth?" The $80,000 settlement will be split between the Makki’s and the Council and used to pay attorney’s costs and fees in the case. The Council will use its remaining portion to continue its fight against housing discrimination.

Mike [not his real name] is 50 years old. He is learning disabled. His mother recently passed away and he relocated to this area to live with his cousin. He found a job at a local restaurant, and wanted to move into his own small apartment, close to his cousin, because their own apartment was too small for all of them. The family lived in William Henry Apartments in Malvern, a complex with 363 units. His cousin went to the office for him to see what the smallest, least expensive apartment available was. There was one available in just a couple of weeks. It was close to his cousins, and he thought he could support the rent himself on his own salary. His cousin’s said they would help him with his rent and expenses anyway, and co-sign for his apartment. That’s where they were wrong. When the manager at William Henry found out the apartment was for Mike, she firmly explained William Henry’s policy of requiring 3 credit references and no co-signers. His cousin begged the manager to change their policy for Mike, because he would never be able to meet their requirements on his own, and because the apartment was perfect because it was so close. They even offered to pay 3 months security deposit up front. At this point, the manager refused, and bluntly told Mike’s cousin that "Those type of people should be living with their family."

Mike was finally able to find a small room in a boarding house close to work, but across town from his family. The space was smaller, the cost more, and he’s no longer near the remainder of his family. Mike’s cousin’s were afraid to come forward with a complaint because they still resided at William Henry.

A fair housing tester visited the complex. She said she was seeking an apartment for her sister who was learning disabled. The agent immediately asked snidely, "Does she have a job?" The tester said that she did. The agent then calculated and said that her income was not high enough to qualify for the apartment. The tester then explained that her parents were going to help with the rent and would co-sign for the apartment. The agent ardently maintained that they would not allow a co-signer under any circumstances, it was not their policy. A second fair housing tester visited the complex. She explained that she was a recent college graduate with no credit history, but that her parents were willing to co-sign for her. The agent said she wasn’t sure whether they could do that, but would call her with the information. The agent called her that afternoon and said that since she was a recent graduate, they could make an exception in her case for her parents to co-sign.

The Council filed a complaint of housing discrimination at the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. William Henry should have been willing to make a "reasonable accommodation" to their co-signer policy so that a person with a disability could enjoy the property in the same way all others could. Not only were they unwilling to offer a "reasonable accommodation" to a person with a disability, they demonstrated that they were willing to accommodate and change their policy for someone without a disability. William Henry settled the complaint without admitting guilt. Their employees and staff have now been trained in fair housing laws.

FHCSP recently settled a complaint that had been filed at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) against Executive House Apartments. The complaint, filed in February of 1994 alleged that Executive House had run an advertising campaign in 1993 which depicted only white human models.

Executive House Apartments are located in Philadelphia County whose population is approximately 50% non-white. According to the PHRC finding of probable cause, "Representational use would have required nearly half the advertisements to use other than white human models." Yet Executive House produced no advertising that used models that were non-white.

Executive House, without admitting a violation of fair housing laws, has agreed to a $5,000 settlement, and have agreed to "not [print] any advertisement...that unlawfully uses human models disproportionally representative of the racial population of the county in which the property is located."

In our last newsletter, we reported the March jury verdict against Eliza Keulian. Mrs. Keulian told several families with children that she would not rent to them because "children are diseased," and informed an African American homeseeker that it didn’t matter, because she doesn’t rent to Blacks anyway. The jury found her liable for housing discrimination and awarded $28,000 in damages to seven plaintiffs and the Fair Housing Council.

FHCSP had previously settled a federal lawsuit against Mrs. Keulian in 1991, and was concerned that the discriminatory activity this jury found her liable of would only continue. On June 5, 1997 FHCSP achieved another victory in this case when Federal District Judge Anita B. Brody issued an injunction against Mrs. Keulian stating that she may no longer manage her property. Mrs. Keulian’s attorney, Edward C. Harkin, has been appointed to manage all aspects of her rental units for a period of five years. The judge stated in the injunction that "It is expected that Mr. Harkin will engage a professional real estate management firm during his tenure that will take over all aspects of rental management and maintenance and that he will oversee same for a period not to exceed one year. Thereafter, the management firm will take over all functions regarding the rental, management and maintenance functions." Mrs. Keulian was also ordered to pay all attorney’s fees and costs for the expenses of the March trial.

"Hopefully this verdict will finally end Mrs. Keulian’s long history of discrimination," stated Council Executive Director James Berry. "However, I am not convinced that this is the last time we will have to deal with her."