The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on June 3, 1999, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. Riga (3rd Cir.) A federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. The Division's brief argues that the Townships' commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.Īlexander v. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township.

N.J.) On July 20, 2007, the court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. The court agreed, finding that the failure to provide “unimpeded access” to the front door to persons who use wheelchairs, including not just those who live in the unit but also a “neighbor, friend, or family member, a political candidate, or a repairman,” is “in effect, to send them away as if unwelcome,” and “precisely the discrimination the FHAA forbids.”Īlbanian Associated Fund, Inc.

The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that, under the Act, the front doors and walkways are “public use and common use portions” of covered dwellings and therefore required to be accessible, regardless whether there is another accessible route into the unit.

Defendants argued that their only obligation was to provide an accessible route into the unit, which, they alleged, they had done by providing an accessible route through the garage. At issue was whether, under the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility requirements for newly-constructed multifamily dwellings, the front door and walkway leading to a covered unit are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

On August 10, 2020, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in Ability Center, et al.

Deleted by Ruth Mitchell