Jonathan E. Meer

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) secured dismissal of two housing discrimination charges before the Texas Workforce Commission.

On May 4, 2026, the Commission issued a letter of determination dismissing claims of housing discrimination based on race and retaliation.  The Commission found that the Respondent did not act to terminate the Complainant’s tenancy, nor did they take an action against this tenant that was different from someone in a different protected class.  The Commission found that the Respondents presented direct evidence suggesting that many of the actions were standard and universally applied in their policy enforcement.  It noted that the Complainant provided no evidence that a tenant of a different racial group or disability status committed a similar lease violation and was not issued an infraction or faced more lenient treatment.  After conducting an on-site inspection, the Commission also noted that interviews with other residents generally supported the absence of observed racial or disability discrimination.  As to the claim of retaliation, the Commission found that the Complainant did not even engage in an activity protected by the Texas Act, let alone be subjected to an adverse action.

In a separate matter on May 8, 2026, the Commission dismissed claims of housing discrimination based on national origin and retaliation.  The Commission found that while the Respondent did restrict the Complainant’s use of the community workshop until she signed a waiver and issued formal violations, it was not due to her national origin.  The Complainant and all residents, including those who identify with a different national origin, were required to sign a waiver, and the Commission found that the Complainant was denied access solely because she explicitly refused to sign the mandatory safety form.  The Commission noted that she received a notice to vacate, not because of her national origin but because her rent was unpaid.  With respect to the claims that she was unfairly targeted by the annual audit process, the auditor who worked remotely had never met the Complainant, was unaware of the Complainant’s national origin, and used the income calculation using a locked-cell spreadsheet based on standardized state formulas used for all tenants, including those for non-Russian residents.  Further, the Commission found that there was no retaliation as the Respondents had documented issues with lease violations and failure to complete the income audit before she engaged in any potentially protected activity.

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY)​ and Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) secured dismissal of a disability discrimination housing claim before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The charge, brought by the tenants' children, arose from a request to modify the tenant’s shower in the unit to accommodate a disability. During its investigation, the Commission found that the respondents permitted the requested modification, provided the tenant covered the cost, as required under applicable law. When the tenant indicated they could not afford the modification and instead requested early termination of the lease, the respondents also granted that request, allowing termination without a penalty.  As such, the Commission found that the allegations of disability discrimination were unsupported and dismissed the charge.

Angela Sekerka (Of Counsel-Chicago/New York, NY) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) secured dismissal of a claim alleging national origin discrimination in housing before the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this matter, HUD found no probable cause that national origin was considered in the respondents’ handling of the claimant’s maintenance requests or his concerns regarding unauthorized vehicles in his assigned parking space. HUD noted that even if the comment “go back to your country” was made, this single isolated comment did not rise to the level of harassment or discriminatory intent in connection with the respondents’ processing of the claimant’s maintenance requests. HUD also noted that additional maintenance requests could not be completed because the complainant refused to grant access to his unit. With respect to the parking issue, HUD found insufficient evidence of discriminatory motive based on national origin, observing that the respondents attempted to locate the vehicle owner parked in the complainant’s spot and, when unsuccessful, offered the claimant’s monetary compensation for the inconvenience.

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.

Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) prevailed on behalf of the firm’s insurance client in a case involving an insured closely held family corporation that sought coverage under its D&O policy for a declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the stock transfer provisions in its shareholders’ agreements. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the policy’s contract exclusion precluded coverage because the declaratory judgment action – although not an action for breach of contract – arose out of the insured’s contractual obligations under the shareholder agreements. Jim and Jonathan secured the dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Jim and Melissa handled the Second Circuit briefing, and Melissa presented oral argument.  Jim and Melissa are now 8-1 before the U.S. Court of Appeals, where they have handled matters in the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits.

The appeal was covered by Law360 in their June 22, 2023, December 5, 2023, March 22, 2024, March 27, 2024, June 17, 2024 articles.

Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) successfully defended a hotel operator in connection with a claim of discrimination based on race, national origin, disability and retaliation by a former housekeeper employee before the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYS DHR). DHR’s investigation found that, even assuming the housekeeper had a disability (general malaise), our client provided her an accommodation by allowing her to get a COVID-19 test and does not reflect that any discriminatory animus existed. In terms of the alleged discrimination based on race and national origin, the DHR noted that the “Complainant has not articulated how she was discriminated against because she is Hispanic and Salvadorian when everyone she worked with was as well.” It also noted that there “is nothing alleged that could have been interpreted as being engaged in a protected activity.” The DHR concluded that it found “no evidence of a discriminatory or retaliatory animus present in any of the respondent’s actions as alleged by the complainant” and dismissed all the claims against Wilson Elser’s client.