www.HopeandHelpCenter.org
Are you an inclusive community?
Time/Date:
1 - 4 PM,
Feb. 25, 2009
Tower Grove Manor 2710 South Grand
Do your advertisements show models that represent the diversity of our metropolitan area?
Do you ask questions about a person's disability or require a medical evaluation as part of their housing application?
Does your advertising reflect a preference for people of a particular religion?
Do you provide an inclusive community for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender elders?
The Fair Housing Act covers senior housing providers, including CCRCs, "independent living" senior communities, assisted living facilities, residential care facilities and skilled nursing facilities and prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, national origin, familial status (exemption for qualified senior housing providers) and disability. Additional state and local laws may prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Come and learn about your responsibilities under our fair housing laws and join in a discussion about how to create an inclusive community.
Senior Housing Providers Face Liabilities under Fair Housing Act
Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc. v. Peninsula United Methodist Homes, Inc.: Peninsula United Methodist Homes owns and operates retirement communities in Maryland and Delaware. The suit challenged the exclusive and extensive use of white human models in advertising. In settling the suit, Peninsula United Methodist Home agreed to spend $20,000 for affirmative recruitment of black residents for retirement communities it operates. It has also agreed to waive a total of $78,000 in entry fees for new black residents and to assure that at least one in four human models in real estate ads are black. Peninsula also paid damages to BNI Inc.
United States v. Resurrection Retirement Community, Inc.: The Justice Department brought a "pattern or practice" complaint against a 500-unit retirement community, alleging that the defendant's FHA violations included discouraging prospective residents who used wheelchairs and requiring applicants to submit to medical assessments conducted by the defendant's employees as a condition of residency. The case is significant not only because it demonstrates the ongoing resistance of senior housing providers-including large, market-rate retirement communities-to abandoning their "independent living" requirements, but also as a demonstration of the federal government's commitment to challenging such requirements as part of its FHA enforcement responsibilities. The Resurrection case ultimately resulted in a consent decree under which the defendant, in addition to paying $220,000 in monetary damages and penalties, agreed to rescind its "independent living" and medical-exam policies.
Armstrong v. Senior Citizens Housing of Ann Arbor, Inc.: A retirement complex's rejection of applicant based on her inability to satisfy the complex's "live independently" requirement was held to violate state law's prohibition of disability discrimination in housing.
United States v. Covenant Retirement Community (E.D. Cal.)
The Department of Justice alleged that Chicago-based Covenant Retirement Communities, Inc., and its subsidiaries violated the Fair Housing Act by employing policies that: required residents of retirement communities who used motorized mobility aids to obtain personal liability insurance, demonstrate their competence at operating the motorized aid, and provide physician's certifications of need; they barred residents and visitors from using mobility aids in certain common areas, including dining rooms; and steered persons with mobility impairments from independent living to assisted living. A 2007 consent order required Covenant to allow residents and guests to use their mobility aids throughout the complexes without conditions. The Defendants will also establish a $530,000 settlement fund for persons who may have been injured by their policies, pay residents who were tested $250 (and such additional damages as they may have suffered), and pay a $30,000 civil penalty. The consent order also calls for employee training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping, and monitoring. The consent order remains in effect for three years.
United States v. Reeves & Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc.: The complaint, filed on June 6, 2005, alleged that Defendants Susan Reeves, Richard Reeves, and Red Oaks Assisted Living, Inc. discriminated against the complainant because she was HIV positive. On June 9, 2005, the court entered a consent decree which requires the defendants to pay $3,500 to the complainant, and follow requirements for record-keeping and training.
