ILNews

Lawsuit alleges city violated Fair Housing Act

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United States has filed a lawsuit against the city of Columbus accusing it of violating the Fair Housing Act because it refused to grant a permit to a nonprofit group that wanted to operate a group home for men recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

The Department of Justice on Wednesday filed the suit, United States of America v. The City of Columbus, Ind., No. 1:09-CV-1225, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

In the civil complaint, the federal government says the Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals refused to grant a special use application to Bethesda House in 2007 because of discriminatory attitudes toward recovering addicts among neighboring property owners. The house would hold up to 11 men at a time who are considered "handicapped" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 3602(h).

Bethesda House filed timely complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. HUD referred the cases to the Department of Justice after conducting an investigation.

The United States is asking the court to enjoin Columbus from violating the Fair Housing Act and refusing to allow the operation of Bethesda House. It also asks for monetary damages against each person aggrieved by the city's discriminatory housing practices and a civil penalty.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT