|
A little over five
years ago, a lawsuit was brought by HOME against the New York State
Division of Human Rights for their “unconscionable delays in processing
cases of housing discrimination.” In a statement to the press issued at
that time, HOME’s executive director Scott Gehl said the suit was on
behalf of “victims of a kind of double jeopardy. First they met housing
discrimination…. Secondly they have all been injured by the very state
agency charged with protecting them against discrimination.”
Two years
later, in a landmark decision, State Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline
Koshain ruled in HOME’s favor stating that that the DHR had in fact
violated the law and ordered the Division to process claims within the
time frame mandated by law and present a proposed remedial plan of action.
In November
2000, the decision was reversed on appeal; it was found that the time
frames written in the New York State Human Rights Law were not “mandated,”
but merely “directory” and that HOME had not shown that the delays (in
some cases as long as eleven years) had caused any prejudice in the cases.
Perhaps the prejudice seemed self evident: in fact, in one striking
instance, the case was delayed for so long that the respondent died—so the
case was dismissed. Most often, as in the case of HOME v. Plaza
Apartments, defense attorneys used the delays to their advantage.
In July 1993,
HOME received a report that the Plaza apartments had a policy of
discriminating on the basis of age and the presence of children. Although
the Plaza apartments was not legally a senior citizen complex, the
management billed the place as an adult complex that did not accept
families with children or anyone under the age of 50. HOME testing
confirmed that the complex had this policy and had an application that
contained illegal inquiries regarding marital status and age.
HOME staff then
contacted the complex management notifying them that they were violating
fair housing law and proposing a settlement before legal action became
necessary. The proposed settlement asked that the complex: refrain from
discrimination in their rental policy; revise their application to remove
illegal inquiries; require staff to attend fair housing training; list
apartments with the Housing Assistance Center; allow HOME to monitor their
applications; and reimburse HOME in the amount of $1,750 for
investigation, training and monitoring future compliance.
The attorney
for the complex responded by accusing HOME of extortion and ageism. He
asserted that HOME was defaming the character of the complex owner and not
allowing her to provide affordable housing for older persons.
Accordingly, in February 1994, HOME filed a complaint of housing
discrimination on the basis of familial status, age, and marital status
with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR).
DHR promptly
scheduled a conference between the two parties at which the respondent
never showed. The conference was rescheduled and DHR subsequently
returned a finding of probable cause.
Meanwhile,
other cases were languishing in the Division. In July of 1994, Scott Gehl
wrote a letter to DHR Commissioner Margarita Rosa listing 15 cases that
had received findings of probable cause—the oldest from 1988 and the
newest being the one against the Plaza Apartments—and asking that the
thirteen oldest receive a public hearing. He pointed out that delays gave
respondents an unfair advantage.
A few months
later, a pre-hearing conference was held in the HOME v. Trippi
case. HOME arrived with a proposed settlement containing basically the
same terms as had been proposed initially. Not to be outdone, the
respondents arrived with a copy of an absurd discrimination complaint that
they had filed against HOME on behalf of the United Senior Advocacy
Association of New York. The five page complaint (which the Division
refused to accept) accused HOME and Scott Gehl of discriminating against
landlords who rent to persons 55 years or older and retaliating against
the owners of the Plaza Apartments for opposing HOME’s discriminatory
practices.
The respondents
offered to withdraw the complaint if HOME agreed to a settlement which
included a training program for HOME’s employees on age sensitivity, the
placement of “We Encourage the Availability of Housing for Older Persons”
on all HOME documents and payment in the amount of $21,937.87 to USA
Association of NY because Scott Gehl’s actions necessitated counseling for
many of its members. In spite of all of this, a public hearing was
scheduled for the next month.
There followed
a series of postponements until the hearing finally took place in March
1995 and a settlement agreement was reached. However, citing a variety of
pretexts, the respondents failed to comply with the agreement they had
made before a State Administrative Law judge.
In January of
1998, nearly four years after the complaint was filed, a final order was
issued by DHR. The terms were remarkably similar to the one proposed by
HOME five years before. The settlement included a $2,500 payment to be
distributed among Child and Family Services ($937.50), the SUNY-Buffalo
Law School Human Rights Fund ($937.50) and HOME’s attorneys, Hurwitz and
Fine ($625.00).
Despite the
State’s order, the respondents still would not comply. At the urging of
HOME’s attorneys, in May of 2001, a compliance hearing was held.
In August of
2002, in what we hope will be a final final order, the Commissioner
of DHR ordered the respondents to comply with the terms of the 1995
settlement. As a penalty, the respondents were ordered to pay a whopping
9% interest on the original amount—not since the original settlement in
1995, but as of the final order issued in 1998. |
