iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

. $ /!,j'pr .

fi"ff{'(42'1~ )' H.,..l. '."•~.

("
...,./

L,·-."1.'·\·'i1

,,!,,.
1 ....-..!'

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHANDt BISWAS, KENNETH R. SCOTT,·

)

and. FRANKIE L. ROBERSON,

)

)

Defendant.s.

)

-----------------------------)

COMPLAINT

I 11 ~:.ilq '111 ')
,I,;I.) . ' _ t_

. i1-\\ !'(\1,r.

J

: ..
',!.:~

,',
::

P.
;~;

iiEl,"lt,.C: rKCUOTU. HCTLK

. , . .' ;"I'~ l'i·;IC j ,1\L,'

Civil Action No.

The· pnited States of America alleges:

1. This action is broug}:l.t to enforce the Fair Housing Act, Title VII.I of the Civil Rights Act

of 1968~ as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988~ 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601

et seq.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 and

42U.S.C. § 3614. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C..§ 1391(b) as the. claims alleged

herein arose in the Middle District of Alabama.

3. Rolling Oaks Apartments' consists of apartments in nine· buildings located on North 8th Street in Cl\anton, Alabama, in the M. idd1eDistrict ofAlabama. Th.ese apartments.are

dwellings within the meaning ofthe Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).

4. De;fendant Chandi Biswas owns and operates the real property identified above~ known as

Rolling Oaks Apartments.

5. Defendant Biswas' resides within the Middle District ofAlabama.
6. Defendant Kenneth R. Scutt is an agent o{Chandi Biswas and serves as the Resident

Manager ofRo,llin,g Oaks Apartments. 7. While acting within the scope of his authority as an agent, Defendant Scott is responsible,
among other things, for the rental of apartments at Rolling Oaks Apartments.
8. Defendant Scott resides in the Middle District of Alabama. 9. Defendant'Frankie L. Rob~rson is an agent of Chandi Biswas and performs,among other
funcdons, maintenance work at Rolling Oaks Apartments. 10. While acting with actual or apparent authority as agent ofChandi Biswas, Defendant
Roberson showed apartments to prospective tenants at Rolling Oaks Apartmen~s. 11. Defendant Roberson resides in the Middle District ofAlabama. l~. The United States Department of Justice conducted a series of tests in 2008 and 2009 to
evaluate the Defendants' compliance with the Fair Housing Act. Testing is a simulation bfa housing transaction that compares responses given by hOl,lsing providers to different types ofhome-seekers in order to determine whetlJ,er illegal discrimination is occurring.
The testing undertaken by the United States -revealed that Defendants Scott and Roberson
engaged in housing practices that discriminate on the basis ofrace or color at RoIling Oaks Apartments by making statements with respect to the rental of dwellings indicating a preference, a limitation. or discrimination on the basis of race or color. 13. Defendants Scott and Roberson made these statements 'as agents for Defendant Biswas. 14. Defendants, through actions inclu,ding those describe above, have discriminated by making, or causing to be made, statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, a limitation, br discrimination based on race or color, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation,or discrimination, in violation of
2

42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). 15. The cDnduct .of the Defendants described above constitutes:
&. A·pattern Dr practice .of resistance t.o the .full enjoyment .ofrights granted by the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.§§ 360i,.et seq.; Dt
b. A denial tD a group ofpersons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601? et seq., which denial raises an issue of general public imp.ortance.
16. There. may be p.ersons WhD have been the victims .of discriminatory housing practices. by the Defendants. Such pers.ons are aggrieved perSDns as defined in 42 U.s.C. § 3602(i), and may have suffered injuries as a result .of the Defendants' conduct described above.
17. The Defendants' c.onduct describ~ above was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard fDr the rights .of .others.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an .order that:
1. Declares that the Defendants' p.olicies and practices, as alleged herein, vi.olate the Fair Housing Act;
2. Enjoins the Defendants, their .officers, empl.oyees, and agents, and all other persons in
aCtive· concert or participatiDn wit:h any ofthem, from:
a. Discriminating against anypers.on on the basis .of race or color in any aspect.of the rental .of a dwelling;
b. Failing Dr refusing to notify the public that dwellings .owned. operated, or managed by any ofthe Defendants are available tD all persons on a nondi.scriminatory basi.s;
c. Making statements with respect to the· rental of-a dwelling that indicate any
3

preference, limitation, or discrimination bas'e'd on -race or color; .3. Awards monetary damages to each person: injured by the Defendants' conduct, j:mrsua,nt
to 42 u.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B); and 4. Assesses a civil penalty against the Defendants in the amount authorized by 42 U.S.C.
§ 3614(d)(1)(C), to vindicate the public interest.
4

The United States further prays for such additional relief as" the interests ofjustice may require.

Dated: July :;'/. 2009

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. Attorney General

LEURA G. CANARY United States Attorney Southern District of Alabama
J~".~B"OIJS2.#.
Assistant United States Attorney 131 Clayton Street Montgo.mery, AL 36104 Tel: (334) 223-7280 Fax: (334) 223-7560 Ga. BarNo.: 231445 james.dubois2@usdoj.gov

". LORETTA KING Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rig~ts Division
O(;;&Sj~
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Housing "and Civil Enforcement Section
Deputy Chief DANIELH. YI Trial Attorney United States Department ofJustice Civil Rights Division " Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. NQrthwestern Buildingr 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 5144701 Fax: (202) 514-1116 Va. BarNo.: 73540 daniel.yi@usdoj.gov

5

 Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

V.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-683-MEF

CHANDI BIS WAS, KENNETH R. SCOTT, and FRANKIE L. ROBERSON,

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action was filed by the United States to enforce the provisions of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 - 3619. The United States alleges that Defendants Chandi Biswas ("Biswas"), the owner of Rolling Oaks Apartments in Clanton, Alabama, Kenneth R. Scott ("Scott"), the manager of Rolling Oaks Apartments, and Frankie L. Roberson ("Roberson"), the assistant manager at Rolling Oaks Apartments (collectively, "Defendants") have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color or a denial of rights to a group of persons, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614, in the rental of dwelling units at Rolling Oaks Apartments. 2. Specifically, the United States alleges that the Defendants have engaged in housing practices that discriminate on the basis of race or color, including: a. Making statements indicating that a selling point of the apartment complex is that the complex does not have many black residents;

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 25
b. Making statements indicating that a sign for a credit check and police background check was adopted to discourage black potential tenants from applying for an apartment; and
c. Making statements indicating that there was a preference against black tenants at Rolling Oaks Apartments.
3. The United States alleges that through this conduct the Defendants have discriminated by making, or causing to be made, statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). 4. In an effort to avoid costly litigation, the United States and the Defendants have voluntarily agreed, as indicated by the signatures below, to resolve the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants without a trial and without admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants. Further, Defendant Roberson further denies the United States' allegation that he was acting as an assistant manager at Rolling Oaks Apartments. ACCORDINGLY, It is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED:
II. GENERAL INJUNCTION 5. The Defendants, their agents, employees, successors and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, are enjoined, with respect to the rental of dwellings, from:
a. Refusing to rent a dwelling, refusing or failing to provide or offer information about a dwelling, refusing to negotiate for the rental of a dwelling, or otherwise making unavailable or denying a dwelling to any person because of race or color; -2-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 25
b. Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race or color;
c. Making statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race or color; or
d. Misrepresenting to any person because of race or color that any dwelling is not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling is, in fact, so available. III. NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY
6. Defendant Biswas shall implement a Nondiscrimination Policy regarding the rental of dwelling units at all properties owned or managed, in whole or in part, by Defendant Biswas at any time during the duration of this Consent Decree ("Subject Properties") that shall be applied equally to all actual and prospective tenants, regardless of their race or color. 1 The text of the Nondiscrimination Policy shall be as set forth in Appendix B hereto.
IV. NOTICE TO PUBLIC OF NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY 7. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Biswas shall take the following steps to notify the public of their Nondiscrimination Policy:
a. Prominently post at all rental offices Defendant Biswas may currently or subsequently use for the rental of dwellings, a fair housing sign no smaller than ten (10) inches by fourteen (14) inches that indicates that all apartments are available for rent on a nondiscriminatory basis. A poster that comports with 24 C.F.R. Part 110 will satisfy this requirement.
'Appendix A lists all residential rental properties currently owned or managed by Defendant Biswas.
-3-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 25
b. Whenever any dwelling unit at any of the Subject Properties is available for rent, Defendant Biswas shall prominently post an easily readable "For Rent" or "Vacancy" sign or notice at the apartment building in which the dwelling unit is available. The sign or notice shall include the slogan "Equal Housing Opportunity" and/or the fair housing logo. Such slogan and logo shall be prominently displayed and easily readable.
c. Include the words "Equal Housing Opportunity" and/or the fair housing logo in all new rental advertising conducted by Defendant Biswas, or his agents or employees, in newspapers, flyers, handouts, telephone directories and other written materials; on radio, television or other media broadcasts; and on all billboards, signs, pamphlets, brochures and other promotional literature, provided that this requirement does not compel Defendant Biswas to advertise in any of these media, but does require compliance with this provision whenever Defendant Biswas so advertises. The words and/or logo shall be prominently placed and easily readable.
d. Include the following phrase in the standard rental application and the standard rental agreement used for rental dwelling units in boldface type, using letters of equal or greater size to those of the text in the body of the document: We are an equal housing opportunity provider. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability or familial status (having children under age 18).
-4-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 25
e. Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Consent Decree and on an annual basis thereafter, provide written notification to the below-listed organizations that Defendant Biswas rents apartments at Rolling Oaks Apartments and that his policy is to rent apartments subject to uniform, nondiscriminatory standards to all qualified persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status (having children under age 18). This notice shall be sent to: Central Alabama Fair Housing Center 1817 W. Second Street Montgomery, Alabama 36106 Fair Housing Center of Northern Alabama 1728 3rd Avenue North Suite 400C Birmingham, Alabama 35203 V. TRAINING2
8. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Biswas shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree, including the Nondiscrimination Policy, to his managers, agents and employees involved in showing, renting, or managing any dwelling unit at the Subject Properties ("Management Agents"). Defendant Biswas shall secure a signed statement from each Management Agent acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have questions about the Consent
Defendant Scott has represented that he is no longer involved in the rental of dwellings and Defendants have represented that he is no longer employed at any of the Subject Properties. If, at any point during the term of the Consent Decree, Defendant Scott is either involved in the rental of dwellings or employed at any of the Subject Properties, Defendant Scott will be required to complete the training described in Paragraphs 10-11 within thirty (30) days.
-5-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 25
Decree and Nondiscrimination Policy answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Consent Decree and the Policy. This statement shall be in the form of Appendix C. 9. During the term of this Consent Decree, within thirty (30) days after each new Management Agent becomes involved in showing, renting, or managing units at the Subject Properties, Defendant Biswas shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy to each new Management Agent and secure a signed statement from each acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy, has had the opportunity to have questions about the Consent Decree and Nondiscrimination Policy answered, and agrees to abide by the relevant provisions of the Consent Decree and the Nondiscrimination Policy. This statement shall be in the form of Appendix C. 10. Within one hundred and fifty (150) days from the date of entry of this Consent Decree, Defendants Biswas and Roberson, as well as all Management Agents, shall undergo in-person training on the Fair Housing Act, with specific emphasis on discrimination on the basis of race and color. The training shall be conducted by an independent, qualified third party, 3 approved in advance by the United States, and any expenses associated with this training shall be borne by Defendants Biswas and/or Roberson. Defendants Biswas shall obtain certification of attendance, executed by each individual who received the training, confirming their attendance. This confirmation shall take the form of Appendix D. 11. At a minimum, the training required in the preceding paragraph shall consist of the following:
An Equal Opportunity Specialist from the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will be an acceptable provider of this training.
-6-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 25
a. Instruction on the requirements of all applicable federal and state housing discrimination laws;
b. Instruction on the requirements of Defendant Biswas' nondiscriminatory standards and procedures discussed in Section VI of this Consent Decree; and
c. A question and answer session for the purpose of reviewing the foregoing areas. 12. Every twelve (12) months after the entry of this Decree, Defendant Biswas will hold the in-person training described in Paragraph 11 for all new Management Agents. The training shall be conducted by an independent, qualified third party, 4 approved in advance by the United States, and any expenses associated with this training shall be borne by Defendants Biswas. If a new Management Agent begins work at a time when an in-person training is not scheduled within the next sixty (60) days from the commencement of his or her employment, that Management Agent must undergo, within those sixty (60) days, online training on the Fair Housing Act. The online training shall be approved in advance by the United States, any expenses associated with this training shall be borne by Defendants Biswas. Defendant Biswas shall obtain certification of participation, executed by each individual who received the training, confirming their participation in the online training. This confirmation shall take the form of Appendix D. All new Management Agents, including those that have taken the online training, must participate in the next in-person training session held by Defendant Biswas. Defendants Biswas shall obtain certification of attendance, executed by each individual who received the inperson training, confirming their attendance at the in-person training. This confirmation shall take the form of Appendix D.
Equal Opportunity Specialist from the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development may conduct this training.
-7-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 25
VI. NONDISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR SHOWING AVAILABLE DWELLING UNITS TO PROSPECTIVE TENANTS
13. Within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Biswas shall develop and implement, with respect to the Subject Properties, objective, uniform, nondiscriminatory standards and procedures for informing persons about and showing available dwelling units to prospective tenants. Such standards and procedures shall be submitted to the United States for approval in advance of their implementation and shall be consistent with the provisions of this Section. The standards and procedures shall be posted and prominently displayed in any office where there is rental activity and/or personal contact with applicants, and a copy of these standards and procedures shall be made available upon request to any applicant for the rental of a dwelling. For the duration of this Consent Decree, these standards and procedures may be modified only if written notice is given to counsel for the United States thirty (30) days before the proposed modifications are to take effect and the United States makes no objection thereto. 14. The nondiscriminatory standards and procedures discussed in Paragraph 13, above, shall include the use of the following documents, which Defendant Biswas shall maintain and update as new information becomes available, and retain for the duration of the Consent Decree:
a. Guest Cards: 5 Defendant Biswas shall ensure that, for all prospective tenants who inquire in-person about dwelling units, a Guest Card is completed, either by the prospective tenant and/or Defendant Biswas (or his employee or agent), that contains:
A logbook maintaining the information below will suffice for reporting purposes under this Decree.
-8-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 25
1. The date of the prospective tenant's visit and the prospective tenant's name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers;
2. The race of the prospective tenant, based on the good faith observation of Defendant Biswas or his employee or agent;
3. The apartment size the prospective tenant requests and the date on which the prospective tenant wishes to move;
4. Whether the prospective tenant filled out an application; 5. Whether the prospective tenant was invited to see available dwelling units
and the address and unit number of each one shown or, if not, an explanation why not; and 6. The names of all Defendants and Management Agents who assisted the prospective tenant. b. Availability List: Defendant Biswas shall ensure that he maintains and timely updates an Availability List that includes the addresses and unit numbers of all dwelling units known to be available or reasonably expected to be available for rental within thirty (30) days, including the date Defendant Biswas or a Management Agent was first informed each would be available for rental and the first date it would be available for rental or occupancy by a new tenant. Defendant Biswas and Management Agents shall share the complete information on the Availability List with each person who visits or calls to inquire about the availability of dwelling units.
-9-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 25
c. Rental Applications: Defendant Biswas and Management Agents shall provide and process rental applications on a non-discriminatory basis and shall maintain all rental applications, whether deemed complete or incomplete, and any correspondence about the availability of dwelling units.
d. Waiting Lists: Defendant Biswas and Management Agents shall maintain waiting lists in a non-discriminatory manner and develop uniform standards for selecting individuals from the list, whether formally or informally maintained.
e. Occupancy List: Defendant Biswas and Management Agents shall maintain a list setting forth the occupancy of all dwelling units at the Subject Properties. Such list shall include the address and apartment number of each dwelling unit, as well as the name and race of each tenant (based on Defendant Biswas' or Management Agent's good faith observation) in that dwelling unit during the reporting period. VII. COMPLIANCE TESTING
15. The United States may take steps to monitor the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree including, but not limited to, conducting fair housing tests at any office(s) in which the Defendants conduct rental activities.
VIII. REPORTING AND DOCUMENT RETENTION REQUIREMENTS 16. Defendant Biswas shall, no later than fifteen (15) days after occurrence, provide to the United States notification and documentation of the following events:1
'All documents or other communications required by this Consent Decree to be sent to counsel for the United States shall be sent by commercial (non-USPS) overnight delivery service addressed as follows: Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 1800 0 Street N.W., Suite 7002, Washington, D.C. 20006, Attn: DJ 175-02-83, or as otherwise directed by the United States. Facsimile transmissions shall be sent to (202) 514-1116.
- 10 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 25
a. Any change in Defendant Biswas' rules or practices regarding the Nondiscrimination Policy discussed in Section III or the nondiscriminatory standards and procedures discussed in Section VI.
b. Any written or oral complaint against Defendant Biswas andlor the Management Agents, regarding discrimination in housing. If the complaint is written, Defendant Biswas shall provide a copy of it with the notification. The notification shall include the full details of the complaint, including the complainant's name, address, and telephone number. Defendant Biswas shall also promptly provide the United States all information it may request concerning any such complaint and shall inform the United States within fifteen (15) days of the substance of any resolution of such complaint.
17. Within ninety (90) days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, and every twelve (12) months thereafter for the duration of this Consent Decree, 6 Defendant Biswas shall deliver to counsel for the United States a report containing information about Defendant Biswas' compliance efforts during the preceding reporting period, including but not limited to:7
a. Notification and documentation of the adoption and implementation of the Nondiscrimination Policy referred to in Section III, above, including copies of all Employee Acknowledgment forms;
b. Notification and documentation of the adoption and implementation of the nondiscriminatory standards and procedures discussed in Section VI;
6 Except that Defendant Biswas shall submit the final report required before the expiration of this Decree two (2) months prior to that expiration date.
Defendant Biswas may notify the United States that any or all of the documents referenced in Paragraph I 7(a)-(h) are unchanged from those previously provided, in lieu of providing duplicate copies of such documents.
-11-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 25
c. Photographs of each office in which rental activity is conducted, showing the fair housing signs and nondiscrimination standards and procedures, pursuant to Sections IV and VI of this Consent Decree;
d. A list of all Subject Properties, including the street address, the number of rental units at each property, and a description of the interest in the property;
e. Copies of standard rental applications and rental agreements used at the Subject Properties;
f. Copies of all fair housing training certifications, pursuant to Section V of this Consent Decree;
g. Copies of the notice to the fair housing organizations referenced in Paragraph 7(e) and proof of mailing;
h. Copies of all documents referenced in Paragraph 14 generated in the current reporting period.
18. During the period in which this Consent Decree is in effect, Defendant Biswas shall preserve all records that are the source of, contain, or relate to any of the information pertinent to their obligations under this Decree, including, but not limited to, all guest cards, availability lists, waiting lists, rental applications, leases, rental payment ledgers, and occupancy lists. Upon reasonable notice to counsel for Defendant Biswas, representatives of the United States shall be permitted to inspect and copy all such records at any and all reasonable times or, upon request by the United States, Defendant Biswas shall provide copies of such documents.
12 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 13 of 25
IX. CIVIL PENALTY 19. Within sixty (60) days after the entry of this Consent Decree, the Defendants shall pay a civil penalty to the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C), in the following amounts: $15,000.00 from Defendant Biswas, $250.00 from Defendant Roberson, and $250.00 from Defendant Scott. 8 These payments shall be delivered to counsel for the United States in the form of a cashier's check 9 payable to the "United States Treasury."
X. ACQUISITION OR TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN RENTAL PROPERTIES 20. If at any time while this Decree remains in effect, Defendant Biswas decides to sell or otherwise transfer the entirety of his interest in any of the Subject Properties to an unrelated party in an arms-length transaction,2 he shall take the following steps:
a. At least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the sale or transfer, provide each prospective purchaser or other transferee a copy of this Consent Decree along with written notice that the property to be sold remains subject to Sections H-VIII and XI-XV of the Decree;
b. At least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the sale or transfer, provide the United States written notice of the intent to sell or otherwise transfer Defendant Biswas' interest in the property to be sold, along with a copy of the notice sent to
For purposes of this Consent Decree, each individual defendant is responsible solely for the civil penalty amount listed by his name.
Defendant Roberson may provide this payment via a check made payable to the "United States Treasury," drawn from his client account with his counsel. 2 For purposes of this Decree, "arms-length transaction" is defined as a transaction that has been arrived at in the marketplace between independent, non-affiliated persons, unrelated by blood or marriage, with opposing economic interests regarding that transaction.
- 13 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 14 of 25
each prospective purchaser or transferee, containing the latter's name, address and telephone number; c. Within thirty (30) days following completion of the sale or other transfer, Defendant Biswas shall provide the United States a copy of the documents memorializing the transfer in interest of the sold property; and d. Defendant Biswas shall require the transferee, as a condition of the sale or other transfer, to agree in writing to perform all obligations and be liable for compliance with Sections 11-VIlI and XI-XV of this Consent Decree for the duration of the Decree, with respect to the sold property. 21. If Defendant Biswas complies with Paragraph 20(a)-(d), and transfers all of ownership, management, or other financial interest in a Subject Property to an arms-length purchaser or other transferee, Defendant Biswas shall thereafter be relieved of his obligations under this Consent Decree with respect to that sold Subject Property, except for his obligations set forth in Section IX of this Decree. Defendant Biswas shall otherwise remain liable for compliance with all sections of the Decree and with respect to all other Subject Properties. 22. If the proposed transfer of interest is not an arms-length transaction, Defendant Biswas must comply with the requirements of Paragraph 20(a)-(d). In addition, Defendant Biswas shall remain jointly and severally liable, along with the purchaser or other transferee, for any violations of Sections Il-VIlI and X-XI of this Decree for its duration. 23. If at any time while this Decree remains in effect, any Defendant inherits or decides to acquire an ownership, management, or other financial interest in any other residential rental property, either in whole or in part, he shall notify the United States in writing at least thirty (30)
-14-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 15 of 25
days before completion of the transaction, providing the name and address of the property and the identity of the manager of the property, and that property shall be subject to the provisions of this Decree for its duration. In addition, within thirty (30) days following completion of the purchase, said Defendant shall provide the United States a statement specif'ing (a) the nature of the Defendant's interest in the property and a copy of the documents memorializing the acquisition of that interest; (b) the number of individual dwelling units at the property; (c) the names of any existing tenants; and (d) the race and/or color of each such tenant, based on the good faith observation of said Defendant or his employee or agent.
XI. SCOPE AND DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE 24. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to all of the Defendants' agents, employees, successors and assigns, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them. 25. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for four (4) years after the date of its entry. By consenting to entry of this Consent Decree, the United States and the Defendants further agree that in the event any Defendant engages in any future violation(s) of the Fair Housing Act, such violation(s) shall constitute a "subsequent violation" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 361 4(d)( 1 )(C)(ii). 26. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Decree to enforce its terms, after which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The United States may move the Court to extend the duration of the Consent Decree in the interests ofjustice.
- 15 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 16 of 25
XII. REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 27. The parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Consent Decree prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event the United States contends that there has been a failure by any of the Defendants, whether willful or otherwise, to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Consent Decree or otherwise to act in conformance with any provision thereof, the United States may move this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including, but not limited to, an order requiring performance of such act or deeming such act to have been performed, and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees which may have been occasioned by the violation or failure to perform.
XIII. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE 28. Any time limits for performance imposed by this Decree may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. The other provisions of this Decree may be modified by written agreement of the parties or by motion to the Court. If the modification is by written agreement of the parties, then such modification will be effective upon filing of the written agreement with the Court, and shall remain in effect for the duration of the Decree or until such time as the Court indicates through written order that it has not approved the modification.
-16-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 17 of 25

XIV. COSTS OF LITIGATION 29. Each party to this litigation will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees associated with this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED this _______ day of F6C..ahA1

, 2011.

UNITE3RICT JUDGE

- 17 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 18 of 25

By their signatures below, the parties consent to the entry of this Decree: For the United States:

LEURA G. CANARY United States Attorney

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

JAMES J. DUBOIS Assistant United States Attorney 131 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel: (334) 223-7280 Fax: (334) 223-7560 Ga. BarNo.: 231445 james.dubois2@usdoj.gov

STEVEN H. ROSENBAM Chief MICHAEL S. MAURER Deputy Chief DANIEL H. Yl Trial Attorney Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Northwestern Building, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-4701 Fax: (202) 514-1116 Va. Bar No: 73540 daniel.yiusdoj.gov

- 18-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 19 of 25 For Defendant Chandi Biswas: Lewis, Bush & Faulk, LLC 400 South Union Street, Suite 230 Montgomery , AL 36104
- 19-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 20 of 25 For Defendant Frankie L. Roberson: JO PH C. GtJILLOT MePhillips Shinbaum LLP P0 Box 64 Montgomery , AL 36101-0064
- 20 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 21 of 25

For Defendant Kenneth R. Scott:

KE

H R. SCO1T

Thorsby, Alabama

-21-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 22 of 25
Appendix A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CURRENTLY OWNED OR MANAGED BY
DEFENDANT BIS WAS Rolling Oaks Apartments Clanton, Alabama Brookmoor Apartments Prattville, Alabama Hyatt House Apartments Auburn, Alabama Garden Court Apartments Arab, Alabama Spanish Trace Apartments Hartselle, Alabama Florendale Apartments Florence, Alabama Austinvilla Apartments Decatur, Alabama Regency West Apartments Decatur, Alabama Carriage House Apartments Scottsboro, Alabama 102 Montview Court Prattville, Alabama
- 22 -

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 23 of 25
Appendix B
NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY
It is the policy of [insert name of apartment complex] to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, by ensuring that all apartments are available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex. This policy means that, among other things, [insert name of apartment complex] and all agents and employees with the responsibility for renting, managing, or administering any dwelling units at [insert name of apartment complex] must not discriminate in any aspect of the rental of dwellings against qualified applicants or tenants because of race or color. Such agents and employees may not:
A. Refuse to rent, refuse to negotiate for the rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex;
B. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex;
C. Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex; or
D. Represent to persons because of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex that any dwelling is not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
Any agent or employee who fails to comply with this Nondiscrimination Policy will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Any action taken by an agent or employee that results in unequal service to, treatment of, or behavior toward tenants or actual or potential applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, familial status, or sex may constitute a violation of state and federal fair housing laws. Any tenant or applicant who believes that any of the above policies have been violated by any owner, agent, or employee may contact the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-440-8091 x 2493, or the U.S. Department of Justice at 1-800-896-7743 x 1 or 202-514-4701.

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 24 of 25
Appendix C EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGMENT I acknowledge that on ________________________, 20, I was provided copies of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in United States v. Biswas. et al., Civil Action No. 09-cv683 (M.D. Ala.), and the Nondiscrimination Policy of Chandi Biswas. I have read and understand these documents and have had my questions about these documents answered. I understand my responsibilities and shall comply with those responsibilities.
Signature Print Name Job Title Home Address Home Address Continued Home Telephone Number Date
-24-

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF -TFM Document 49 Filed 02/03/11 Page 25 of 25
Appendix D CERTIFICATION OF FAIR HOUSING TRAINING I acknowledge that on ________________________, 20, I attended/participated in training on the federal Fair Housing Act, including its requirements concerning race and color. I have had all of my questions concerning the Fair Housing Act answered to my satisfaction.
Signature Print Name Job Title Home Address Home Address Continued Home Telephone Number Date
-25-

 Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff
v. BISWAS, et al.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:09-cv-683

)

) (WO- Do Not Publish)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America’s (“the

Government”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 25); Defendant Chandi Biswas’s

(“Biswas”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 27); and Defendant Frankie

Roberson’s (“Roberson”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29), all filed July 23,

2010. Defendant Kenneth Scott (“Scott”), who is unrepresented by counsel in this matter,

did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set out below, these

Motions are each DENIED.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614. The parties do not assert that this Court lacks

personal jurisdiction over them, and there is no dispute that venue is proper pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 13
III. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The movant “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23. Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324. The Court must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the non-moving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion
2

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 13
for summary judgment, the court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
IV. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Biswas owns and operates several residential apartment complexes in Alabama. (Doc. # 27 Ex. F). One of these, the Rolling Oaks Apartments in Clanton, Alabama, is the subject of this lawsuit. Id. Defendants Scott and Roberson were employees of Rolling Oaks during all times relevant to this lawsuit.1 (Doc. # 28 ¶ 6, 8). Scott served as the part-time property manager, the employee in charge of renting apartments, maintaining leases, collecting rents, etc. (Doc. # 28 ¶ 6). Roberson served as the property’s maintenance technician, but also performed managerial duties when Scott was unavailable to do so. (Doc. # 26 Exhibit B at 103–5). These managerial duties included informing potential tenants about rent prices and showing potential tenants vacant apartments. Id. Between July 2008 and January 2009, the United States Department of Justice conducted a series of fair housing tests at Rolling Oaks Apartments. (Doc. # 26, Ex. L). Testing is “a simulation of a housing transaction that compares responses given by
1 The Court has used the term “employee” out of convenience in describing the facts of this case. The Court makes no determination at this time about whether a principal/agent relationship existed between the Defendants.
3

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 4 of 13
housing providers and staff to different types of home-seekers in order to determine
whether illegal discrimination is occurring.” Id. Four whites and three African-
Americans were used as testers at Rolling Oaks. Id. All wore sound recording equipment
during the tests, and therefore captured the statements made by Roberson and Scott on
tape. Id. On October 1, 2008, Roberson was approached by white tester Mark Markley
(“Markley”). (Doc. # 26). Because Scott was not in the office that day, Roberson gave
Markley information about a two-bedroom apartment and showed Markley around a
vacant unit. Id. During the test, Roberson stated:
[A] lot of people are moving up from that area over there over to here because they’re —they have a lot of—and a lot of it is just—it’s prejudism (sic) to be honest with you but they have a lot of Mexicans and Black folks and such other there and a lot of folks just don’t want to be around them. I mean, this is the South.
I mean, this is the South. So you have to understand to some degree where they’re coming from, I guess, but I’ve never really had any trouble with Black folks or Mexicans, either one. They haven’t bothered me, either one of them. But I’ve worked with just about everybody, so I guess, different kinds of people. So most of them, I don’t have any trouble with, but a lot of folks do. And very few—there’s very few Black people around here that can afford much of anything over $350.00 anyway.
(Doc. # 26 Ex. J, K). Roberson went on to describe the number and location of
apartments in the Rolling Oaks complex in which African American tenants lived, saying:
You know, like I think in the whole complex I doubt there’s—let’s see, well, actually in that building there’s some Black folks that live in that building, on apartment in Building 3. Now Building 8, there’s no Black people that live in it. There’s probably four apartments in the whole place
4

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 5 of 13
where Black people live out here but they’re nice, don’t have any trouble out of them, you know. And we’ve had Mexicans live here before but now we don’t have any here now, but they always paid their rent ahead of time. Never had any trouble out of them, they were quiet, but you know, like I say, you’re in the South and you run across folks sometimes that don’t want to be around anybody else. (Doc. # 26 Ex. J, K). On October 2, 2008, Markley returned to Rolling Oaks to try and speak with Scott. At the time Markley visited, there was a sign on the door of the Rolling Oaks Leasing Office warning potential applicants that a $30 application fee was required, and that police background and credit checks would be performed. (Doc. # 26 Ex. C at 69-72). This sign was displayed prominently since early 2008, and was intended to deter individuals with criminal histories from applying for an apartment at Rolling Oaks. (Doc. # 28 Ex. B at 73). Scott also hoped the sign would deter individuals from taking several copies of the application form with no intention to fill it out and return it. Id. at 90. In response to the sign, Markley questioned Scott about the need for a background check. (Doc. # 26 Ex. E, F). Scott responded that: “there ain’t going to be none. That’s just there mainly to throw off—because we get Blacks coming in here, you know, come in, want your application and they see that and they just—a lot of them—a lot of times people see that and they just turn around and walk away.” Id. On January 13, 2009, a white tester named Mikchel Aucoin (“Aucoin”) visited
5

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 6 of 13
Rolling Oaks. (Doc. # 26 Ex. G, H). He spoke with Scott about available units and took a tour of the complex. Id. When describing the other apartment complexes in town, Scott warned Aucoin to stay away from the Peachtree and Inverness Apartments. Id. He stated that “[t]hey have a lot of Blacks at Emernus (sic). Well, Peachtree and Emerness are all Section 8. . . .They’re 90 percent Black.” Id. Scott also said that here, at the Rolling Oaks apartment complex, “[w]e’ve got just enough to keep them off our butt.” Id.
Scott and Roberson also each spoke to African-American testers on two occasions. (Doc. # 26). According to the Government, neither man made comments about the racial composition of either Rolling Oaks or surrounding apartment complexes when speaking to African-American testers. (Doc. # 26).
On July 21, 2009, the Government filed this lawsuit against Biswas, Scott, and Roberson, alleging that the Defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or denial of rights to a group of persons because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. in the rental of dwelling units at Rolling Oaks. (Doc. # 1).
V. DISCUSSION A. The FHA: The Government alleges that defendants Scott and Roberson made recorded statements to testers that violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). The FHA provides in part that it shall be unlawful
6

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 7 of 13
to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race [or] color . . . or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The FHA gives the Attorney General standing to enforce rights under the FHA against “any person or group of persons . . . engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted” by the FHA. 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a). The Attorney General is also permitted to bring suit when a purported violation of the FHA “raises an issue of general public importance.” Id. The Government bears the burden of proof on whether the defendants’ conduct rises to the level of a pattern of practice of discrimination. U.S. v. Habersham Props., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1372 (N.D. Ga. 2003). In order to establish a pattern or practice, the Government must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that discrimination was the defendants’ “standard operating procedure, the regular rather than the unusual practice.” Id. (citing Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 336 (1977)). There is no threshold number of incidents that must occur before the Government can bring suit based upon a pattern or practice of discrimination. Id. at 1372–73. However, isolated, accidental or sporadic misconduct will not be enough to establish a pattern or practice. Id. Whether a defendant’s conduct rises to the level of pattern or practice is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Id. at 1373.
7

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 8 of 13
If the Government has standing to bring suit, it must then prove that defendants engaged in discriminatory conduct that violated the FHA. The McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis applies to cases brought pursuant to the FHA. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev. v. Blackwell, 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990). First, the Government must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. If the Government can do so, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for his actions. Id. Third, if the defendant satisfies his burden, the Government must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the reasons given by the defendant are pretextual. Id.
Biswas did not himself make any allegedly discriminatory statements, and the Government seeks to hold him vicariously liable for the statements made by Roberson and Scott. That the FHA allows for vicarious liability has long been settled. Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285 (2003). Traditional principles of agency law determine whether a principal can be held liable without fault under the FHA for the actions of his agents. Id. at 290–91. Therefore, to hold Biswas liable for the actions of Roberson and Scott, the Government would have to show that an agency relationship existed between Biswas and Roberson and Biswas and Scott.
B. Contentions of the parties: Defendant Biswas argues in his motion for summary judgment that 1) the Government cannot establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendants
8

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 9 of 13
engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, and 2) even if the Government does have standing to bring this suit, the actions taken by Roberson and Scott were not discriminatory. (Doc. # 27). The Court reads the second argument to be that the Government would not be able to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against the Defendants.
Defendant Roberson argues in his motion for summary judgment 1) the Government cannot prove a prima facie case of discrimination against him, and 2) even if the Government does satisfy its burden, Roberson can rebut the case of discrimination with race-neutral explanations for the recorded statements he made. (Doc. # 29).
Last, the Government argues in its motion for summary judgment that it can establish both standing to sue and a prima facie case of discrimination against the Defendants. (Doc. # 26). The parties’ arguments can be categorized into two groups: 1) those pertaining to the Government’s prima facie case of discrimination, and 2) those pertaining to the Government’s standing to bring suit. These will be discussed in turn.
C. The Government’s prima facie case of discrimination: The Government has joined Biswas as a defendant in the lawsuit based on a theory of vicarious liability. Therefore, the prima facie case of discrimination against Biswas must be built on a prima facie case of discrimination against Roberson and Scott. To succeed against Roberson and Scott as individual defendants, the Government need only establish a prima facie case of discrimination as to Roberson and Scott, respectively,
9

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 10 of 13
in addition to establishing a pattern or practice. 1. Evidence of discrimination by Scott: The evidence presented against Scott includes the recorded statements made to
testers Markley and Aucoin. When Markley visited the leasing office, a sign read that a $30 application fee, police background check, and credit check would be required. (Doc. # 26, Ex. E, F). Scott discussed with Markley the sign posted on the door, saying that while the sign indicated that a police background check was a requirement for all applicants, for Markley “there ain’t going to be none. That’s just there mainly to throw off—because we get Blacks coming in here, you know, come in, want your application and they see that and they just—a lot of them—a lot of times people see that and they just turn around and walk away.” (Doc. # 26 Ex. E, F). Scott could have been saying that the sign was posted to keep African Americans from applying for apartments at Rolling Oaks. This would clearly indicate a preference regarding the race of Rolling Oaks tenants. According to his deposition testimony, however, the sign was really meant to deter individuals from taking applications unless they were serious about renting from Rolling Oaks. (Doc. # 28 Ex. B at 89–90). Because there was no copy machine in the leasing office where Scott worked, he would have to drive to another location to make more copies of the application form each time he ran out. Id. Therefore, Scott’s comments could also be interpreted as frustration with would-be applicants who are not
10

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 11 of 13
serious about renting at Rolling Oaks. During a separate test, Scott told Aucoin to stay away from two other apartment
complexes in town, because those complexes were Section 8 housing and 90% of the residents were black. (Doc. # 26 Ex. G, H). In comparison, Scott said, Rolling Oaks had just enough black residents to “keep them off our butts.” Id. Biswas argues in his motion for summary judgment that Scott’s statement was simply an acknowledgment that Rolling Oaks complied with “legal housing requirements—nothing more, and nothing less.” (Doc. # 28 at 18). However, Scott could also have been using the low number of African American residents to entice applicants to rent from Rolling Oaks.
Both of Scott’s statements are ambiguous, and some inferences need to be drawn in order to determine whether or not the statements are discriminatory. On a motion for summary judgment, all inferences that can be drawn from the evidence must be done so in favor of the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Doing so requires in this case that the Court leave the question of whether the Government established a prima facie case of discrimination against Scott to the jury.
B. Evidence of discrimination by Roberson: The Government has also tried to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Roberson. The evidence raised against Roberson in the Government’s motion for summary judgment comes entirely from his recorded conversation with tester Markely.
11

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 12 of 13
During this conversation, Roberson explains that many residents have chosen to move to Rolling Oaks from other complexes because Rolling Oaks has fewer minority residents. (Doc. # 26 Ex. J, K). He then proceeds to point out each building in the complex where an African American tenant lives. Roberson could have been saying that Rolling Oaks chooses not to have minority residents in an attempt to appeal to potential residents. But Roberson could also have simply been stating a fact about prejudice in the community. Again, there is a material issue of fact regarding what Roberson meant in his discussions with Markley. Therefore, the Court must deny summary judgment with regards to the Government’s prima facie case of discrimination against Roberson.
D. The Government’s standing to bring suit: Biswas has argued that the Government does not have standing to bring suit, because the Defendants did not engage in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This question is generally one for the jury. Habersham Props., Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d at 1372. Because the Court cannot determine as a matter of law whether Roberson and Scott engaged in any kind of discrimination in violation of the FHA, the Court also cannot determine as a matter of law that the Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of such discrimination. The Government has presented some evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination. On at least three visits to the Rolling Oaks complex, Scott or Roberson made arguably discriminatory statements. Also, Scott may have posted a sign on the door
12

Case 2:09-cv-00683-MEF-TFM Document 41 Filed 12/08/10 Page 13 of 13 to discourage African Americans from applying for leases at Rolling Oaks. The sign was hung prominently on the door and, according to Scott’s conversation with Markley, was effective in turning black potential applicants away. This evidence is sufficient to raise a material issue of fact with regard to whether or not Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Therefore, this question must also be sent to the jury.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Biswas’s (Doc. # 27), Defendant Roberson’s (Doc. # 29), and Plaintiff United States’ (Doc. # 25) Motions for Summary Judgment are hereby DENIED.
th
Done this the 8 day of December, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13

 Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 1 of 6
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−00683−MEF −TFM

CLOSED

United States of America v. Biswas et al Assigned to: Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller Referred to: Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff United States of America

Date Filed: 07/21/2009 Date Terminated: 02/07/2011 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Daniel H. Yi United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Div 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Northwestern Building − 7th floor Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4701 Email: daniel.yi@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Joseph DuBois U. S. Attorney's Office PO Box 197 Montgomery, AL 36101 334−223−7280 Fax: 334−223−7418 Email: james.dubois2@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta King United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Northwestern Building − 7th floor Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4701 Fax: 202−514−1116 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Stuart Maurer U.S. Department of Justice Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW − G Street Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4713 Fax: 202−514−1116 Email: michael.maurer@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven H. Rosenbaum U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3107 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 2 of 6

V. Defendant Chandi Biswas
Defendant Kenneth R. Scott
Defendant Frankie L. Roberson

represented by Anthony B. Bush LEWIS, BUSH &FAULK, LLC 400 South Union Street, Suite 230 Montgomery, AL 36104 334−263−7733 Fax: 334−832−4390 Email: anthonybbush@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kenneth R. Scott 1603 Trilliam Lane Clanton, AL 35045 205−280−4294 PRO SE
represented by Joseph Charles Guillot McPhillips Shinbaum LLP PO Box 64 Montgomery, AL 36101−0064 334−262−1911 Fax: 334−263−2321 Email: joeglaw@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/21/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009
07/29/2009
07/29/2009
07/30/2009
07/31/2009 07/31/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Chandi Biswas, Kenneth R. Scott, Frankie L. Roberson filed by United States of America.(cc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
2 Summons Issued; summons and complaint mailed by CMRRR to Chandi Biswas, Kenneth R. Scott, Frankie L. Roberson. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for United States of America. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
3 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to plaintiff United States of America; Corporate Disclosures due by 8/10/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Conflict Standing Order)(cc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
4 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by United States of America re 3 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Yi, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
5 Return Receipt Card showing service of summons &complaint signed by: A. Bush for Chandi Biswas served on 7/28/2009, answer due 8/17/2009; Lindsey Massey for Frankie L. Roberson served on 7/28/2009, answer due 8/17/2009. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
6 Return Receipt Card showing service of summons &complaint signed by Ken Scott for Kenneth R. Scott served on 7/28/2009, answer due 8/17/2009. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
7 Defendant Frankie Roberson's ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Frankie L. Roberson.(Guillot, Joseph) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
8 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Frankie L. Roberson. (Guillot, Joseph) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 3 of 6

08/09/2009 08/09/2009 08/10/2009 08/12/2009 08/12/2009 08/28/2009 09/29/2009 10/05/2009
02/14/2010 05/17/2010 05/18/2010 05/20/2010
06/01/2010 06/21/2010 06/23/2010
07/22/2010
07/22/2010

9 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony B. Bush on behalf of Chandi Biswas (Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 08/09/2009)
10 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Chandi Biswas. (Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 08/09/2009)
NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for Chandi Biswas and to counsel for Frankie L. Roberson. (cc, ) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
11 Case reassigned to Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller and Honorable Terry F. Moorer. Honorable Terry F. Moorer no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (cc, ) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Chandi Biswas.(Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
13 RULE 26(f) ORDER: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/29/2009. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 8/28/09. (br, ) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
14 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Yi, Daniel) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/7/2011 in chambers before Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller; Jury Trial set for 1/31/2011 trial term in Montgomery before Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller; Amended Pleadings due by 2/19/2010; Discovery due by 6/25/2010; Motions due by 5/25/2010; Mediation Notice due by 6/21/2010. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/5/2009. (cc, ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Kenneth R. Scott.(jg, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
17 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline for Motions for Summary Judgment and Discovery by Chandi Biswas. (Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
18 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Kenneth R. Scott Corporate Disclosures due by 5/28/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Conflict Standing Order)(jg, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
19 ORDER; Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order/Extend Deadlines 17 filed on May 17, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to and including July 23, 2010. The discovery completion deadline is extended to and including August 20, 2010. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/20/2010. (jg, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
20 SECOND Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Kenneth R. Scott. Corporate Disclosures due by 6/11/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Conflict Standing Order)(jg, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
21 NOTICE by Chandi Biswas, Frankie L. Roberson, United States of America of Settlement Conference (Guillot, Joseph) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2010: # 1 Corrected Certificate of Service) (jg, ). (Entered: 06/21/2010)
22 NOTICE of Correction to 21 Notice of Settlement Conference. Notice of Correction is being filed this date to advise that the referenced document was filed on 6/21/2010 and did not have a corrected certificate of service attached.The corrected certificate of service is attached to this notice. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Certificate of Service)(jg, ) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Summary Judgment and Discovery Deadlines by Chandi Biswas, Frankie L. Roberson (Bush, Anthony) Modified on 7/22/2010 to correct docket text and to remove Kenneth R. Scott as a filer (jg, (Entered: 07/22/2010)
24 ORDER; Upon consideration of the defendants' Motion to Extend Summary Judgment and Discovery Deadlines 23 filed on July 22, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/22/2010. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 4 of 6

07/23/2010 07/23/2010
07/23/2010 07/23/2010
07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/26/2010 07/27/2010
07/27/2010
08/10/2010

25 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability by United States of America. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
26 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−List of Properties, # 2 Exhibit B−Deposition of Chandi Biswas, # 3 Exhibit C−Deposition of Kenneth R. Scott, # 4 Exhibit D−Deposition of Frankie Lenn Roberson, # 5 Exhibit E−Deposition of Mark Markley, # 6 Exhibit−F Audio Recording, # 7 Exhibit G−Deposition of Michael Aucoin, # 8 Exhibit H−Audio Recording of Michael Aucoin, # 9 Exhibit I−Inventory, # 10 Exhibit J−Deposition of Mark Markley, # 11 Exhibit K−Audio Recording of Mark Markley and Frank Roberson, # 12 Exhibit L−Declaration of Michael B. Goldstein)(jg, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
27 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Chandi Biswas. (Bush, Anthony) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2010: # 1 Corrected Certificate of Service) (jg, ). (Entered: 07/23/2010)
28 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Chandi Biswas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Bush, Anthony) Edited to restrict access ton personal information pursuant to the E−Government Act. (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2010: # 9 Redacted Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 10 Redacted Exhibit A, # 11 Redacted Exhibit C) (jg, ). (Entered: 07/23/2010)
29 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Frankie L. Roberson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defedant Roberson's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exh A − Roberson Dep, # 3 Exhibit Exh B − Briggs Trans., # 4 Exhibit Exh C − Markley Trans., # 5 Exhibit Exh D − Halsey Trans., # 6 Exhibit Exh E − Plaintiff's Interrogatory Responses)(Guillot, Joseph) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Frankie L. Roberson. No pdf for this docket entry. See 29 motion for summary judgment Exhibit 1. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
30 NOTICE of Correction re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Notice of Correction is being filed this date to advise that the referenced document was filed on 7/23/2010 and did not have a corrected certificate of service attached listing all the attorneys of record. The corrected certificate of service is attached to this notice. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Certificate of Service)(jg, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
31 ORDER; Upon consideration of the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 27 &29 filed on July 23, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions be submitted without oral argument on August 17, 2010. It is further ORDERED that the government file a response which shall include a brief and any evidentiary materials on or before August 10, 2010. The defendants may file a reply brief on or before August 17, 2010. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/27/2010. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
32 ORDER; Upon consideration of the government's Motion for Summary Judgment 25 filed on July 23, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be submitted without oral argument on August 17, 2010. It is further ORDERED that the defendant file a response which shall include a brief and any evidentiary materials on or before August 10, 2010. The government may file a reply brief on or before August 17, 2010. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/27/2010. (jg, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
33 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability filed by Frankie L. Roberson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exh A − Roberson Dep. Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit Exh B − Biswas Dep. Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit Exh C − Markley Trans. Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit Exh. D − Briggs Trans. Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Exh E − Plaintiff Answers to Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit Exh. F − Halsey Trans. Excerpts)(Guillot, Joseph) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 5 of 6

08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 12/07/2010
12/07/2010 12/08/2010 12/08/2010 12/22/2010 12/22/2010
12/27/2010 12/28/2010
12/28/2010

34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1: Deposition of Frankie L. Roberson, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2: Deposition of Kenneth R. Scott)(Yi, Daniel) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Chandi Biswas. (Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
36 REPLY to Response to Motion re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability filed by United States of America. (Yi, Daniel) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Frankie L. Roberson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Exhibits)(Guillot, Joseph) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
38 REPLY to Response to Motion re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Chandi Biswas. (Bush, Anthony) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
39 ORDER; that this case is set for a pretrial hearing, as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, on January 7, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. in the Chambers of the undersigned, United States Courthouse, One Church Street, A−300, Montgomery, Alabama as further set out; TRIAL TERM COMMENCES: January 31, 2011 in Montgomery, Alabama. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/7/2010. (jg, ) . (Main Document 39 replaced on 12/8/2010 and edited to add trial term date) (jg, ). (Entered: 12/07/2010)
Set: Jury Trial set for 1/31/2011 trial term before Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller in Montgomery, AL pursuant to 39 order. (No pdf for this docket entry) (jg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
40 NOTICE of Correction re 39 Order: Notice of Correction is being filed this date to advise that the referenced document was filed on 12/7/2010 and did not have a correct pdf attached. The corrected pdf is attached to this notice. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Order)(jg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
41 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; that Defendant Biswas's 27 , Defendant Roberson's 29 , and Plaintiff United States' 25 Motions for Summary Judgment are hereby DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/8/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, ) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline Sections 9, 10, and 11 of October 5, 2010 Scheduling Order by Chandi Biswas, Frankie L. Roberson, Kenneth R. Scott, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Yi, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
43 ORDERED that the 42 Joint MOTION to Suspend 15 Scheduling Order is GRANTED with respect to Section 9 of the Scheduling Order relating to the filing and exchanging of witness information, and DENIED in all other respects; further ORDERED that a Telephone Status Conference is set for 12/28/2010 at 10:00 AM, to be arranged by counsel for Plf, before Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/22/2010. (furn: Calendar, kg)(wcl, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
44 Joint MOTION To Enter Consent Decree Resolving Litigation by Chandi Biswas, Frankie L. Roberson, Kenneth R. Scott, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Consent Decree)(Yi, Daniel) (Main Document 44 and (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/28/2010 to reflect the correct certificate of service and style of case) (jg, ). (Entered: 12/27/2010)
45 NOTICE of Correction re 44 Joint MOTION To Enter Consent Decree Resolving Litigation: Notice of Correction is being filed this date to advise that the referenced documents were filed on 12/27/2010 and did not have a correct certificate of service attached and style of case. The corrected pdfs are attached to this notice. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Joint Motion, # 2 Corrected Proposed Order)(jg, ) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
46 ORDER; that 1. All deadlines and hearings previously set, including the trial and the pretrial, are CONTINUED GENERALLY. 2. On or before January 28, 2011,

Case: 2:09-cv-683 As of: 11/30/2011 09:18 PM CST 6 of 6

12/28/2010 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/11/2011 01/24/2011 02/03/2011 02/07/2011
02/07/2011

the parties shall resubmit their Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order Between Plaintiffs United States and Defendants Chandi Biswis, Kenneth R. Scott, and Frankie Roberson. The resubmitted motion and proposed consent order shall be manually signed by all parties or their counsel. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/28/2010. (jg, ) TERMINATED; Final Pretrial Conference 01/07/2011; Jury Trial 01/31/2011 (Entered: 12/28/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/28/2010 (No PDF attached). (kcg, ) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
47 NOTICE of Change of Address by United States of America for Defendant Kenneth R. Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted notice of change of address)(jg, ) Document has been edited to restrict access to personal information pursuant to the E−Government Act. Modified on 1/4/2011 (jg, ). (Entered: 01/04/2011)
48 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order Between Plaintiffs United States and Defendants Chandi Biswas, Kenneth R. Scott, and Frankie L. Roberson by Chandi Biswas, Frankie L. Roberson, Kenneth R. Scott, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(jg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. 43 order sent by CMRRR to Kenneth R. Scott returned with notation "return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward". (jg, ) Modified on 1/24/2011 to clarify text (jg, ). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. 43 order sent by regular mail to Kenneth R. Scott returned with notation "return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward." (jg, ) Remailed to new address. Modified on 1/26/2011 to reflect that it was resent by regular mail (jg, ). (Entered: 01/24/2011)
49 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/3/2011. (jg, ) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
50 FINAL JUDGMENT; Pursuant to the Consent Decree 49 filed by the parties and signed by the undersigned on February 3, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket sheet as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and close this file. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/7/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, ) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. 46 order dated 12/28/2010 sent to Kenneth R. Scott, 4B Rolling Oaks Apartments, 700 Eight Street North, Clanton, AL 35045 returned with notation "return to sender." (jg, ) (Entered: 02/07/2011)


The lawsuit was based on fair housing testing that DOJ had conducted between July 2008 and January 2009, in which rental agents made a series of racialized remarks, steering white testers away from certain locations, and implying that black applicants were more likely to fail criminal background checks.  On July 21, 2009, the United States Department of Justice filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601, against operators of the Rolling Oaks Apartments, seeking injunctive and monetary relief for race discrimination.  After the court (Judge Mark Fuller) denied cross-motions for summary judgment, the matter settled.   In February 2011, the Court entered a four-year consent decree enjoining the Defendants from discriminating on the basis of race in the operation of the Rolling Oaks Apartments and ordering  $15,500 in civil penalties. 