Leslie Valerie Matlaw's Legal Cases (3)

Civil rights

Three Cases I jointly filed with the Justice Department

Sep 13, 2004

OUTCOME: Consolidated Lawsuits result in Consent Orders

In these cases, I represented Complainants through HUD's investigative process. After HUD issued Charges of Discrimination, they "elected" to federal court, where the Justice Department (as do HUD att ... orneys in an administratively-adjudicated case) seeks enforcement of the Fair Housing Act on behalf of the Aggrieved Parties. In one case, Co-Counsel and I filed Plaintiffs' lawsuit first and the Justice Department consolidated its lawsuit with ours; in the other two cases, we intervened in the Justice Department's action to ensure full relief for our Clients. These three Consent Orders demonstrate clearly-available relief available to Housing Discrimination Plaintiffs within the post-filing Mandatory Settlement Conferences held by Judges of the Northern District of Illinois during 2002 and 2004: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/chlypnsettle.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/boleslavsettle.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/vlahakissettle.htm Note that the amounts recovered and scope of relief was Ordered pursuant to the Parties' Agreements. By settling, these Defendants saved significant attorneys' fees and costs necessary for their own defense (as well Court-Ordered payment of Plaintiffs' Fees and Costs had they prevailed on any significant issue), Out-of-Pocket and Punitive Damages, and/or Civil Penalties which could have been Ordered had Defendants proceeded to trial.

Litigation

23 days from Lawsuit's Filing to an Agreed Settlement (15 days to establish facts)

Dec 04, 2000

OUTCOME: Consent Order awarded $15,000 for "no kids" policy

In 2000, shortly after I joined the Leadership Council, the nation's first fair housing advocacy group, we received an anonymous Complaint from a Homeseeker who did not want to become involved in a law ... suit or investigation. The Council performed its own investigation of the complaint by "testing" the Housing Provider. Our investigation (three paired tests) confirmed that Defendants' attempt to restrict Tenants with Children to first-floor units (however well-intentioned their motives) was an overtly-discriminatory policy and the statements made to LC's testers established strict liability. Filing an administrative Complaint would have created delay and diverted HUD's resources from other pending cases, so I advised LC's director to file a federal lawsuit immediately to stop the conduct and prevent additional denials to homeseekers. Our Complaint was filed on October 30th, 2000. Upon their November 13th return of Service, Defendants promptly secured Counsel, who reviewed the law and wisely advised his Clients to settle. By November 22nd, the Parties had agreed to a total payment of $15,000 and three years of monitoring and reporting activity, in addition to Defendants' attending a mandatory Fair Housing Training; that Agreed Settlement was signed and Court-approved on November 28th, 2000. The Final Order was entered on December 4th. Defendants sold the property the following year, which terminated their obligations under the Consent Order.

Civil rights

White v. Secretary of HUD

N/A

OUTCOME: Fair Housing is the law of the land!

Fair Housing is the law of the land -- Reversing administrative adjudications on the facts is extremely rare. However, as the White v. HUD appeal established, although certain exemptions (e.g., religi ... ous groups, private clubs, small-landlords) may insulate Housing Providers from most Fair Housing Act liability, prohibited Discriminatory Statements are never exempt! This binding Seventh Circuit precedent (which is strongly-persuasive in other courts) resulted from my having represented a single mother since 2001 to fully-effectuate her relief. A key component to my Clientâ€™s success was her having intervened (per my recommendation) in the HUD Secretaryâ€™s administrative action (HUD files its Charges on behalf of, but not as the representative for, Complainants). Trial before HUDâ€™s Office of Administrative Law Judges (originally set for the fall of 2001) was followed by an attenuated process and HUDâ€™s having found the Respondent not liable in late-2004/early 2005. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed that Order in early-2007. Unanticipated issues have since arisen, and collection proceedings are still ongoing. However, White v. HUD established an extremely important principle: While claims based upon Homeseekersâ€™ â€œmarital statusâ€ are not protected by the federal Fair Housing Act (as they frequently are under state and local statutes), that fact does not affect Familial Status claims. If the presence of children under 18 in the household was a basis for Housing Providersâ€™ denials (as determined by a â€œreasonable listenerâ€ standard), the Fair Housing Act imposes liability â€“ upon all Providers, even those otherwise-exempt â€“ for Discriminatory Statements. See, White v. HUD Secretary, 475 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2007).

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained