Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-White Plains, NY) secured a no probable cause determination for a landlord client in a housing discrimination matter before the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The complainant tenant alleged that our client/respondent discriminated against her based on disability and source of income, as well as claiming retaliation. The investigation established that the respondent lacked knowledge of the complainant’s physical disability and determined that the only request for reasonable accommodation by the complainant included documentation exclusively supporting the need for an emotional support animal (ESA). The complainant, however, asserted that she requested accommodation for a severe breathing disorder, while our client maintained that no such request or medical documentation of a respiratory condition was ever received. While the complainant successfully obtained accommodation for her mental health needs, no evidence supported the existence of a formal request concerning a physical breathing disability. The investigation concluded that the respondent did not treat the complainant differently from other tenants or subject her to harassment based on her disability or source of income.

​Giovanna Bonafede (Associate-McLean, VA) scored a significant win for our housing authority client in a Fair Housing/ADA case. The plaintiff brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against our client and their individual employees alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the American Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleged that our client and their employees discriminated against her by denying her housing voucher following an internal appeal process conducted by the housing authority. Plaintiff previously filed a near identical suit against our clients in the same court, which was dismissed without prejudice and which plaintiff appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal. Giovanna’s motion to dismiss argued (1) that res judicata bars the plaintiff’s claims, (2) the plaintiff’s claims are time-barred, and (3) the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court found that the claims were time-barred by the appropriate statutes of limitations and did not address the remaining arguments. The plaintiff attempted to salvage her claims by arguing that the statutes of limitations were tolled through the time she spent on other lawsuits and the appeal. However, the Court agreed with Giovanna, finding that “If a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled, ‘the tolling effect of the filing of the suit is wiped out and the statute of limitations is deemed to have continued running from whenever the cause of action accrued, without interruption by that filing.’” The Court was not swayed by the plaintiff’s argument that the enforcement of her voucher termination tolls her claims in seeking to invoke the continuing violation doctrine. The Court determined that a “continuing violation is occasioned by continual unlawful actions, not continual ill effects from an original violation.”

Christina Heischmidt (Partner-McLean, VA) and Lauren Stadler (Associate-McLean, VA) defended the owner and manager of a low-income housing property in a matter involving a housing discrimination complaint dually filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). In her complaint, the complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, arguing the housing provider did not equally enforce policies or perform repairs in her unit. After reviewing the client’s policies, procedures and maintenance history, Christina and Lauren submitted a position statement asking for full dismissal of the housing complaint given that the client performed all requested maintenance work and equally enforced its community policies. Following a client interview and brief period of review, the ICRC issued a “no probable cause” determination in the client’s favor, granting a full dismissal of the housing discrimination complaint.