Fairways 1998

FHCSP will be joining with the Disabilities Law Project (DLP) and Freedom Valley Disability Center to help improve the support network for persons with disabilities in the Delaware Valley.

DLP, founded in 1977, provides legal protection and advocacy services to Pennsylvanians with disabilities. The agency’s program of free legal assistance and class action/law reform litigation serves more than 1,500 disabled consumers across the state each year. In Greater Philadelphia, DLP receives referrals from and serves clients of disabled providers regionwide, including centers for independent living, local chapters of United Cerebral Palsy, local chapters of the Arc (formerly the Association for Retarded Citizens), mental health associations, and other advocacy groups. The agency also provides technical assistance and litigation support to attorneys on a national level. DLP will be working with the Council to improve our disability testing methodology, training our testers, and litigating disability complaints.

Freedom Valley Disability Center in Newtown Square, Delaware County, was founded in 1986. It began as a satellite program of the Philadelphia Center for Independent Living and is now an independent nonprofit agency serving persons with disabilities throughout Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties. As an independent living center, Freedom Valley operates with a mission to help people with disabilities achieve or maintain more self-sufficient and productive lives in their communities. The agency also works to educate the public about disability issues, including the housing needs of the disabled, and to promote a barrier-free society for its constituents. FHCSP will train the staff at Freedom Valley about fair housing laws so that they can act as an information and referral service for their clientele. Freedom Valley will provide fair housing workshops to disabled consumers regarding their legal rights as homeseekers and options when facing housing discrimination, and will also be helping the Council recruit disabled individuals as fair housing testers.

FHCSP v. The Regency

Bob (not his real name) lived at the Regency and was having problems with the management. One of the problems was that he was required to notify the complex when he had friends coming over who were Black. The Council sent testers to the site to investigate whether there was in fact discrimination occurring at the Regency. The results of two tests showed that both African American testers were told an apartment would be available in a couple of weeks but could not be shown currently. They were told to call back at a later date and then come see it when it was finished. This would have been impossible, because it would not have given a homeseeker enough time to find a place before they needed to move. Both the white testers, however, were shown the apartment being repaired and even told they could have a price break on the rent. The Council filed a complaint at the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and after negotiations, settled for damages. The owners and managers of the Regency will now be trained in fair housing laws, HUD will monitor their compliance with the laws, and the Council will test them for further compliance recommendations.

Vince was looking for a new apartment for his family. He thought he had found the perfect place when he read an ad in the newspaper. The size seemed right, the price was good, utilities were included and it was in the country on a horse farm. Yet when he called to inquire, he was told that he could not live there because the owner did not allow children. He was told the reason was a spiral staircase leading into the apartment. The owner was afraid a child might fall and get hurt. The Council tested the property and the testers were told the same thing. A complaint was filed at HUD, and after negotiations, was settled. The owners claimed that they were not aware that it was illegal to not rent to families with children. According to case law, the parents must make a decision about what is or is not safe for their children, the landlord cannot make that decision for them. The owners of the property have agreed to comply with the law in the future and the Council will train them in fair housing laws.

The Phoenix newspaper published an advertisement for a 1BR apartment that was "suitable for 1 person." The Council investigated and discovered that the apartment was not an efficiency apartment and that they were limiting the occupancy to 1 person. The owners could not present any evidence to prove a business necessity for this policy, and the Council contended that this policy had the discriminatory effect of eliminating families with children from the property. A complaint was filed at HUD, and after negotiations, was settled for damages. The owners of the property have agreed to comply with the law, follow the 1995 HUD guidelines (24 C.F.R. Part 109) for future advertising and be trained in fair housing laws. The Morelli’s records will also be monitored for two years by HUD.

In 1993 the Council received a complaint from one of its members about a large display ad published in the Philadelphia Inquirer for a retirement community that stated "surround yourself with caring Christian neighbors." A complaint of housing discrimination was filed at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). The Commission made a finding of probable cause of housing discrimination in July, 1996. In April of this year, the Inquirer decided to settle this case rather than awaiting a hearing before the Human Relations Commission. Without admitting guilt, the Inquirer agreed to no longer publish discriminatory advertising, train their employees in fair housing law, educate advertisers as needed, publish an "Equal Opportunity Housing" notice with the Council’s phone number, and pay the Council $8,500 for damages, fees & costs.

In 1993 the Council filed a complaint at PHRC against Realen Homes, a new housing development in Bucks County. The complaint alleged that Realen Homes had run an advertising campaign in 1993 which depicted only white human models. The Commission made a finding of probable cause of housing discrimination in the case. In May of this year, Realen Homes decided to settle this case rather than await a hearing before the Human Relations Commission. Without admitting guilt, Realen Homes agreed to sell and make available their properties without regard to protected classes, to use human models that are proportionally representative of the racial population of the geographic area in which the property is located, and pay the Council $8,500 for damages, fees & costs. 

FHCSP v. Koutrakos, et al.

Anne was searching for a two bedroom apartment for herself, her husband and their two daughters, yet every apartment she called about in the paper told her they wouldn’t rent to her because of her children. She called the Council and told us about a property owned by Drakoulis & Peggy Koutrakos, where she was told "adults only here." The Council investigated the complaint by sending testers to the site. A tester representing a family with two children was told that no children were allowed, and that "there is no such thing as quiet children;" and a tester representing a family with four adults was offered the apartment. A complaint was filed at PHRC in October, 1993. The Commission made a finding of probable cause of housing discrimination in 1997. In June of this year, the Koutrakos’ agreed to settle this case rather than await a hearing before the Human Relations Commission. Without admitting guilt, the Koutrakos’ agreed to make their rental properties available without regard to the protected classes, they will be monitored by the PHRC for 1 year, and pay the Council $1,000 for damages, fees & costs. Anne also agreed to a separate undisclosed settlement.

On August 18, 1998, in a stunning defeat for the newspaper, Realtor and real estate industries in Pennsylvania, a federal court ruled that the Council has the legal right to sue a newspaper and those who advertise in it for publishing discriminatory housing advertising.

In the first case interpreting two federal appellate court decisions issued last Spring which had denied the Council standing in certain circumstances, the trial court found that the Council was injured by the newspaper’s actions. The Council was "forced to...divert [] itself from its counseling and education activities and begin a prolonged investigation of The Mercury to identify the extent and nature of The Mercury’s discriminatory activity." The Council also had to "counteract the effects of the allegedly discriminatory ads" by having to "teach the law, the meaning of the law, and the method to follow the law" to various newspaper, Realtor, and landlord trade groups and companies due, in part, to the over one thousand allegedly discriminatory ads published over several years by The Mercury.

The Court found that the very specific detail provided by the Council of its injury met the requirements of the two new appellate court decisions. Those decisions stated that the courts "were committed to the laudable goal advanced by the [Council]; eliminating discrimination in housing is vitally important" and that their rulings "should not restrict or impede in any meaningful way the ability of these organizations to combat violations of the [Fair Housing] Act."

The lower court yesterday applied those words and will permit the trial to proceed against the Goodson newspaper, The Mercury, for publishing over 1,182 advertisements alleged to discriminate against families with children. One of the advertisers, William J. Hnath Corp., will also stand trial. Another defendant advertiser in this case, Gilbert Real Estate, settled with the Council in 1997 and is under court order not to publish discriminatory ads, has received training and has paid a fine, fees and costs to the Council.

This ruling is especially significant as the two appellate decisions issued last Spring had sent mixed messages. Those cases, FHCSP v. Montgomery Newspapers, et al., and FHCSP v. The Main Line Times, et al., announced in no uncertain terms that fair housing groups have standing to sue even though there is no bona fide complainant, and yet narrowed the basis for standing. The narrowing took the form of the Court's defining "injury" under the Constitution. Such injury now may only be the costs of a non-routine investigation of a discriminator or a non-routine education effort. Litigation costs were specifically ruled not within the definition of "injury." The Court dismissed the Council’s claim against Montgomery Newspapers and the Main Line Times for illegal advertising discrimination finding no injury from those specific papers.

However, as to the claims that Montgomery Newspapers and their owner, Art Howe, retaliated against the Council, the appellate court found the Council may have been injured. Thus, Mr. Howe and his paper will now stand trial for repeatedly stating falsely that the Council sued him and his paper for ads that read "walk-in closet" and "room with a view." It is the Council’s position that these false claims caused us to be subject to questioning and ridicule suggesting that the Council was a fringe organization suing over absurd phrases. The Council claims its reputation and funding was harmed by Mr. Howe and his paper's actions. The trial is expected this winter.

The Council is pleased that the court has upheld us in our effort to rid housing advertising of discriminatory messages. Of late, the newspaper, Realtor and real estate industries have been working hard at cleaning up such advertising so it does not target people for exclusion. It is unfortunate that a few in those industries still wish to fight us and refuse to accept responsibility for their years of harmful conduct. For those few, we will continue to press our rights and the rights of the community to fair housing.

The full text of the affidavit, motions and court decision can be found on the Council’s website at www.fairhousing.com/fhcsp.

In the continuing saga in the case of FHCSP, et al v Eliza Keulian, a federal judge ordered Ms. Keulian in July to sell her property because of her lack of regard for the judge’s previous orders and her inability to manage her property in compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

In March, 1997 the Council won a jury verdict against Eliza Keulian and awarded seven plaintiffs and the Council $28,000. The jury found Mrs. Keulian liable for discriminating against homeseekers by telling them that their children were diseased, and informing an African American homeseeker that "this doesn’t matter anyway, because I don’t rent to Blacks." In June, 1997, 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, was appointed to manage all aspects of her rental units for a period of five years. The injunction stated that Mr. Harkin was expected to engage a professional real estate management firm that would take over all functions regarding the rental, management and maintenance functions.

The Council had hoped this would finally bring closure to Mrs. Keulian’s long history of discrimination. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In October, 1997 the Council again began receiving complaints about Mrs. Keulian. The Council’s investigation uncovered further acts of familial status discrimination and possibly racial discrimination and found that she was still managing her property. The Council filed motions of contempt of court against both Mrs. Keulian and her attorney. In July of this year, the Judge found Mrs. Keulian in contempt of court and ordered her to sell the property. Mrs. Keulian agreed to sell the property, the new owner was to hire a professional firm, and the building was to be renovated to correct township code violations.

In August, the Council had to file a second contempt motion. Mrs. Keulian has indeed sold her property, however, she sold it to her son for $1. The property manager she retained withdrew after seven weeks and thus she still has the opportunity to manage her property through her son.

"It’s unfortunate that this had to happen," stated Council Executive Director James Berry. "The Council has been dealing with Mrs. Keulian for more than seven years. She has had ample time to change her policies and practices, yet her behavior has showed that she is completely unwilling to do so. The Council is not here to put landlords out of business, but in this case it seems the only way to gain compliance with the Fair Housing Act."

George has cerebral palsy. To get around he uses a motorized wheelchair and the aid of his service dog, Tristan, a professionally trained Golden Retriever. Tristan opens and closes doors, retrieves objects and provides therapeutic exercise and companionship to George. Tristan lives with George and accompanies him to work each day and on all business trips. George currently lives independently with his service dog in his townhouse in West Chester and works full time as Vice-President for the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters, located in Malvern. Because of his busy work schedule and special needs, George has been searching for an assisted living arrangement that provides meals, cleaning services and some level of personal assistance. He thought he had found the perfect assisted living arrangement at Highgate at Paoli Pointe in Paoli, Chester County.

After submitting an application, however, Highgate staff began expressing concerns. The first was regarding George’s ability to independently evacuate the apartment building in the event of a night-time fire. Highgate stated that it did not have the staff to fully assist him in the event of such a fire. Based on this concern, his application was denied. George responded to their concern by asserting that he could swiftly transfer out of bed into a manual wheelchair and from that point evacuate the premises on his own with minimal aid from one staff person. After George physically demonstrated his ability to evacuate to staff, they abandoned this specific objection to his application.

Then Highgate staff explained that George’s service dog would be an additional obstacle to obtaining an apartment. They required him to agree, as a pre-condition to renting an apartment, not to use his service dog in the dining area.

In addition, when George visited Highgate, it was noted that the apartments had not been constructed in compliance with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines which require all new multi-family construction built after March 1991 comply with specific dimensional requirements. The bathrooms in the one bedroom apartments at Highgate do not have the internal minimal turning space for wheelchairs to maneuver as required by the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. George requested that the modifications be made.

George was then informed that there were no longer any units available for rent. Fair Housing testers were able to prove that there were indeed still apartments available at Highgate, and a lawsuit has been filed in George’s name.

George Head v Geriatric and Medical Services, Inc. 98-CV-4208, U.S. Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Attorney: Thomas H. Earle, Disabilities Law Project.

In February 1993, Christine Amour-Lilly, an African American woman with a 6 year old son, was searching for an apartment. She finally found a unit in Brighton Village Apartments in Delaware County that seemed perfect. She met with the Realtor, filled out an application, and paid $27 for a credit check. The next day, Christine contacted the Realtor and was told that the owner of the property had reviewed her credit and application and she had been accepted. She then went to the Realtor’s office, signed the lease, paid the first months rent and a security deposit, and was given the keys to the property. The next day, she began moving into the apartment. While she was unpacking two police officers arrived and said they had received a call from the owner, Mr. McDevitt, accusing her of cutting the screen on the door to enter the unit. Christine showed the officers the keys and they confirmed that the keys did in fact open the door to the apartment. Christine received a call from the Realtor that evening and was told there was a problem with her credit and that she should not move in. The next day when she arrived at the unit with her son, the Realtor, the owner, and the two police officers were already there. She was informed that she was trespassing, that she had 24 hours to remove her property or the police would arrest her, "and anyone else in the unit" referring to her 6 year old son who was already crying.

The Council investigated by sending testers to the unit and found evidence of discrimination on the basis of race. An African American tester was told the property had already been rented, while a Caucasian tester was told soon after that it was still available. Complaints of housing discrimination were filed at the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) in 1993. In 1996, Christine’s complaint was dismissed by PHRC stating that Christine was turned down for housing because of her credit and not for a discriminatory reason. In addition, PHRC would not investigate the police activity because of it’s "lack of jurisdiction over police matters". Christine has since moved to another state.

PHRC did however make a finding of probable cause of housing discrimination on the Council’s complaint. In December 1997, almost 5 years after the complaint was filed, a pre-hearing conference was scheduled. At that hearing Mr. McDevitt claimed that he was never notified of the Council’s complaint. PHRC’s Hearing Examiner subsequently ruled to dismiss the Council’s complaint for PHRC’s "failure to serve the complaint."