Facts

In the course of advocacy work for people protected under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), plaintiff the National Fair Housing Alliance and several of its related organizations became aware of a large number of apartment complexes designed by defendant A.G. Spanos Construction Inc. that were alleged to be in violation of the FHA. As a result, plaintiffs conducted site tests at 35 properties in 2006 and 2007.

National Fair Housing Alliance Inc., Fair Housing of Marin Inc., Fair Housing Napa Valley Inc., Metro Fair Housing Services Inc. and Fair Housing Continuum Inc. sued A.G. Spanos Construction Inc., A.G. Spanos Development Inc., A.G. Spanos Land Company Inc., A.G. Spanos Management Inc., and The Spanos Corporation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that, through investigation, they discovered all 35 apartment complexes throughout California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Georgia and Florida failed to meet the accessibility requirements under the FHA, which require that apartment buildings and common use areas within them be fully accessible to people with disabilities. In an action styled as a defendant class action, they alleged violations of the FHA and claimed the defendants had engaged in a continuous pattern of discrimination against people with disabilities by designing and constructing properties that were not accessible to them.

Specifically, they alleged that these complexes included features such as passageways too narrow for a wheelchair to pass through and walkways too steep for a wheelchair to use. Many apartments did not feature sufficient bathroom space for wheelchair users and featured electrical sockets and environmental controls out of the reach of wheelchair users. Through discovery, plaintiffs identified a total of 123 apartment complexes in 14 states (totaling approximately 18,000 units subject to the FHA accessibility requirements) that contained inaccessible features.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending Fair Housing lacked standing to sue under FHA, and also arguing the statute of limitations had barred claims against certain properties. A.G. Spanos further contended that dismissal was necessary because Fair Housing failed to name parties that subsequently bought the properties.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought to require the defendants to bring all covered units into compliance with the FHA. They also sought punitive damages, costs and fees.

Result

The parties agreed to a pretrial settlement valued at approximately $14.75 million, on a non-class basis. The stipulated judgment embodying the settlement requires Spanos to retrofit 12,300 covered units in 82 apartment complexes in 11 states (at an estimated cost of more than $7.3 million). In addition, defendants agree that Spanos will provide plaintiffs nearly $5 million to support efforts to expand accessibility in single family homes and apartments not designed and constructed by defendants, pay nearly $1 million in damages to plaintiffs, provide $140,000 to fund positive media messages and coalition building on accessibility issues, and pay attorneys' fees of $1.325 million.