Title VI, Title VIII and combinations of both titles
These cases illustrate situations where housing providers failed to comply with Title VI and/or Title VIII and serve as object lessons. The intent is that housing providers might learn from the mistakes of others and independently adjust policies and procedures to appropriately serve those that are limited English proficient.
Title VI Case – Federally-assisted activity
Four Massachusetts housing authorities
Case Numbers: 01-16-4200-6; 01-16-4279; 01-16-4280-6; 01-16-428 1-6
This case brought by the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center against the Northampton Housing Authority, the West Springfield Housing Authority, the Greenfield Housing Authority and the Westfield Housing Authority. These housing authorities manage federally-assisted housing. The complaint alleged National Origin discrimination by 1) treating Hispanic Spanish-speaking applicants less favorably than White English-speaking applicants; and, 2) denying language assistance to Spanish-speaking persons.
Key findings:
- $6000 granted in relief for attorney’s fees.
Additional relief was granted in the public interest that required the housing authorities to:
- Participate in training, discussing their LEP accommodation process;
- Display a sign indicating a person’s right to an interpreter;
- Have available “I speak…” cards to assist in identifying a person’s language;
- Log any interpretation or translation services provided (including the name of the person need the service, their language, the name of the staff member assisting the LEP person, the documents provided);
- Provide a supply of easily accessible applications in both English and Spanish in the office, as well as, standard and emergency forms of the state-aided voucher programs in the six languages in which they are available;
- Make a notation of language preference in tenant files so that it is apparent to any staff member;
- Establish a Language Access Plan that includes a Language Needs Assessment;
- Offer in-person interpretation provided by staff in target languages or over-the-phone interpretation services;
- Prohibit the use of internet translation services to translate certain important documents;
- Strictly limit the use of internet translation services to simplest communication.
- Offer oral interpretation to LEP persons in their primary language;
- Never require or encourage LEP persons to use family, friends, neighbors, or any other informal interpreters;
- Never use a minor child as an interpreter except in emergencies;
- Provide language services whenever the LEP client shows a limited understanding of receptive or expressive English language skills;
- Provide neutral interpreters at all grievance hearings or meetings;
- All notices and documents for hearings and adverse actions will inform the applicants and/or tenants of their right to a qualified interpreter at no cost;
- Train all staff to the Language Access Plan and how to respond to requests for interpretation, etc.; and,
- Complete certain actions within a specified time along with reporting requirements.
Title VI case – federally-assisted activity
Jacksonville (FL) Housing Authority (2012) 04-08-1733-6
A LEP tenant failed to recertify income, was terminated, & didn’t know appeal rights. All communication was in English. JHA agreed to adopt Language Needs Assessment and Language Access Plan, train staff, and do outreach. $25,000
Title VI & Title VIII case – federally-assisted activity
Hazelton (PA) Housing Authority (2015) 03-14-0361-8/6 et al
Agreement to settle that HHA, despite having a Language Access Plan, was not providing language assistance. $14,000 to complainants + $4000 attorney fees
Title VIII case – conventional activity
Virginia Realty Co of Tidewater (2013) 03-11-0424-8
Denied LEP person a rental application. Adopt non-discrimination policy & Limited English Proficiency Plan, train staff, do outreach. $75,000
Title VIII case – conventional activity
Page Edmunds III (2015) MN District Court Case No. 0:15-cv-02705
Landlord refused to rent to Hmong family with a member perceived to be LEP + retaliation. The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in federal court (U.S. vs Page Edmunds III). $5000
Title VI & Title VIII case – federally-assisted activity
IFHMB (2020) Case Nos: 09-20-1063-8/6, 09-20-1001-8/6, 09-20-1000-8/6, 09-20-1066-8/6
Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) filed multiple complaints, based on testing data, with HUD, alleging that the respondents refused to rent to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) based on national origin. The complainant received a total of $9,000.00.
Title VI & Title VIII case – federally-assisted activity
FPI Management, Inc. (2021) Case No. 09-20-2040-8 and 09-20-2040-6
The parties reached a Conciliation Agreement/Voluntary Compliance Agreement where a project manager alleged retaliation because she had advocated providing language assistance for LEP tenants. $10,000 for the complainant and $20,075 shared by 73 households.
Title VI & Title VIII case – federally-assisted activity
MGM Investment Compxxany (2021) Case No: 09-20-1781-8; 09-20-1781-6
An LEP woman alleged the federally assisted apartments, where she and her daughter live, failed to provide her with the language services she needed to make informed decisions. She had to sign English-language documents when she could not speak or read English very well. The complainant will receive $1,000 and each household with limited English proficiency will get $500 up to a total compensation of $34,000 along with other forms of relief.
Title VIII and ADA/Section 504 case – federally-assisted activity
Chicopee Housing Authority (2021) Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-10649-KAR
On December 21, 2021, the United States filed an amended complaint in United States v. Chicopee Housing Authority and Monica Blazic (D. Mass.). The complaint alleged that the defendants discriminated against Housing Authority residents based on race, national origin, and disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Title VIII case – a conventional activity
CNY Fair Housing, Inc (2022). Case No. 5:21-cv-1217
On July 8, 2022, a motion was denied to dismiss CNY Fair Housing v. Swiss Village LLC, et al. This lawsuit alleged that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was violated by refusing to rent apartments to applicants who were limited English proficient, unless someone who spoke English lived in the unit. The Court found that discrimination due to language can be evidence of discrimination because language has legally been associated with race and national origin, both of which are protected classes under the FHA.
Language Access Plan (LAP) and AFHMP
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2022)
The Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan and the Language Access Plan produced conflicting results regarding ethnicity, race, language, and national origin, suggesting marketing information should be in different languages. An assisted housing provider must comply with the findings of both Plans. Read more about these findings here and here. Learn more about language assistance regarding federally assisted housing.
Title VI & Section 504 case – federally-assisted activity
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2024). Case No. 02-21-R007-6
HUD found RAHF IV Shore Hill LLC and Rose Community Management violating Title VI and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Remedial Actions prescribed in the Voluntary Compliance Agreement cover: Non-discrimination, the Waitlist, the Affirmative Marketing Plan and MarketingStrategies, Eligibility, Tenant Selection and Tenant Selection Plan, Application Content, the Language Access Plan, Section 504, Concerns, Training, and Individual and Monetary Relief.