 |
|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, 02 Civ-5359 --against--
Defendant. The People of the State of New York, by and through their attorney, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, as and for their complaint, allege, upon information and belief, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1. This is a case about the Village of Freeport's ("the Village" or "Defendant") unconstitutional and discriminatory inspections of the homes of its residents. Village housing inspectors routinely have entered Latino residents' homes and conducted inspections for housing code violations without first obtaining consent to search or a search warrant, and without the presence of exigent circumstances -- while the Village itself has condoned and facilitated those unlawful home inspections and has discriminated against Latino residents by targeting homes for inspection based on the national origin of their occupants. Seeking to enjoin this unlawful conduct and to protect the rights of the Village's residents, the Attorney General of the State of New York, on behalf of the People of the State of New York ("Plaintiffs"), brings this action pursuant to federal and state law. 2. Village inspectors' illegal entry into and searches of residents' homes has taken many forms, including (i) entering despite residents' outright refusal to consent; (ii) informing residents that they had no choice but to consent,- and (iii) misrepresenting to residents that they had obtained consent from the homes' owners.. These unlawful practices have been directed primarily at Latino households. 3. The Village's policies and customs have condoned intrusive warrantless inspections of the homes of residents, directly and proximately causing the inspectors' continuing pattern and practice of unlawful conduct. The Village has known about the inspectors' conduct for many years, yet it has tolerated and, promoted that conduct through (i) its failure to supervise and monitor the inspectors; (ii) its failure to investigate and act upon allegations of misconduct; (iii) its failure to discipline inspectors who are guilty of misconduct, and (iv) its attempts to suppress public complaints about the inspectors' conduct. 4. The Village's targeting of the homes of its Latino residents for inspections also has a long history. Responding to complaints from long-time Village residents about an influx of Latino immigrants into the Village starting in the late 1980's, the Village, through its Building Department, commenced and continued a program to inspect Latino residents' homes, over inspecting homes of Latino residents as compared to homes of non-Latino residents living in blocks with similar housing conditions. 5. The Attorney General brings this action to vindicate the rights of all Village residents who have been subject to or may in the future be subject to illegal searches of their homes. The Attorney General also brings this action to protect Latino residents in particular, whose right to be secure in their homes is being violated and is at risk of being violated in the future by the Village of Freeport's practice of targeting their homes for inspections and use of unlawful means to gain entry to conduct those inspections. 6. Plaintiffs' federal claims arise under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, and regulations promulgated thereunder, 24 C.F..R. § 100.400. Plaintiffs' New York State claim arises under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c. JURISDICTION AND VENUE7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343(3) for claims brought under the United States Constitution and federal laws and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for Plaintiffs' state law claim. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). PARTIES9. Plaintiffs, the People of the State of New York, are represented by their chief legal officer, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York. Where, as here, the interests and well being of the people of the State of New York as a whole are implicated, the Attorney General possesses parens patriae authority to commence legal actions in federal court for violations of federal and state laws. 10. The State of New York has a quasi-sovereign interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that municipalities operate within the bounds of the law and do not violate the constitutional or statutory rights of local residents. The State further has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting all of its citizens from the harmful effects of housing discrimination. 11. The Attorney General also possesses parens patriae authority to protect residents of the State of New York who currently live in the Village of Freeport (as well as those who may move into the Village) from unlawful entry into their homes and Latino residents whose homes have been unlawfully targeted for inspections. Absent action by the Attorney General, such persons will be unable meaningfully and promptly to vindicate their rights and will, collectively, suffer irreparable harm. While individual residents may seek to vindicate their rights after they have been targeted for inspections and subjected to unlawful entry into their homes, such post-hoc vindication is not a sufficient remedy for the constitutional and statutory violations that have occurred and that, upon information and belief, will continue to occur in the future. Additionally, some Latino residents, many of whom are new immigrants to this country and many of whom have limited financial resources, are either unaware of the legal remedies available to them or are unable to secure representation to enforce their legal rights. For these and other reasons, complete relief cannot be obtained through a private lawsuit by individual plaintiffs. 12. Defendant Village of Freeport is a municipality located within Nassau County on Long Island in the State of New York. Its primary office is located at 46 North Ocean Avenue, Freeport, New York. It is governed by a Board of Trustees, which includes the mayor, deputy mayor, and three other trustees. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONSA. Background Facts 13. In 1979, the Village adopted the Code of the Village of Freeport, which compiled local laws, ordinances and resolutions previously enacted into one governing body of law. This Code included, inter alia, Building Construction, Plumbing, . Electricity, and Housing Standards Codes (collectively referred to as "the Codes"). The Village Building Department was charged with the primary responsibility for enforcing the Codes, as well as parallel state laws, the New York Uniform Fire Protection and Building Codes. 14. The Building Department's primary enforcement mechanism is through the issuance of summonses for criminal violations. These violations are subject to discretionary penalties up to a maximum of $1000 per violation. 15. Commencing in or around 1993 and continuing to the present, the Village adopted and implemented a set of policies and practices designed to increase the numbers of inspections of Village residents' homes and the numbers of summonses issued to residents. These inspection and summons-issuance policies and practices were designed to respond to complaints from various civic associations and Village residents directed at homes occupied by Latinos and blocks with a substantial proportion of Latino households from Central American countries, and, according to the United States Decennial Census, its Latino population rose from 20% of the total Village population in 1990 to 34% in 2000. 17. In the early 1990's, the Village began receiving complaints from various neighborhood associations and Village residents about homes of Latino residents. Particularly, these complaints alleged "over-occupancy", i.e. violation of the Village Housing Standards Code's provisions concerning the permissible number of units in each residence, the minimum space required per person living in each residence, and/or the Code's ban on basement rentals. 18. In response, in or around 1993, the Village established an Over-Occupancy Team ("the Team") within the Building Department. The stated mission of the Team was to enforce the Housing Standards Code's provisions concerning over occupancy, as well as other corollary provisions in the Codes. The Village hired new inspectors to work on the Team, added a night shift for these inspectors, and authorized the Team to develop new strategies to gain entry into residents' homes to conduct inspections. The Village also set up a hotline dedicated to over-occupancy complaints. 19. Also in or around 1993, the Village assigned Team inspectors to patrol predominantly Latino neighborhoods and to conduct, ongoing surveillance of Latino homes. 20. Also in or around 1993, the Village changed its policies on the issuance of summonses. Prior to 1993, as a matter of practice, residents cited for violations of the Codes were routinely granted notice of and an opportunity to cure alleged violations before facing penalties. In or around 1993, the Village instituted a new policy of issuing summonses seeking penalties immediately following an inspection. The Village also began to issue multiple summonses and to levy higher fines. In many cases, the penalties assessed were several thousand dollars, often for violations that easily could have been cured had an opportunity to do so been granted. In addition, rather than issuing summonses for violations to landlords in order to induce them to improve conditions for their tenants, the Village more frequently began issuing summonses to tenants instead. 21. Also in or around 1993, upon information and belief, Village officials instructed the Village police department, fire department, and other Village employees to look for over-occupancy violations in residents' homes whenever answering an emergency services call and to call inspectors to the scene whenever discovering evidence of over-occupancy. The Village maintained this policy even though, upon information and belief, it knew that inspectors were unlawfully abusing the policy as a means of gaining entry to conduct searches that exceeded the geographical scope of these other officers' plain view. 22. The Village's current administration, which took office in April 1997, specifically continued the inspection and summons-issuance policies and practices begun in 1993 and- retained the Over-Occupancy Team with its same complement of inspectors to implement those policies and practices.
B. The Village Inspectors' Pattern and Practice of Unlawful' 23. Since in or around 1993, and continuing to the present date, Village inspectors (particularly those on the Over-Occupancy Team) have engaged in a pattern and practice of gaining entry into Latino residents' homes through unlawful means and then unlawfully conducting searches of their homes. 24. These unlawful entries and searches have taken a variety of different forms. Common to all is the fact that inspectors routinely have entered private homes without either valid consent, search warrants, or the existence of exigent circumstances -- in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 25. First, Village inspector have entered Latino residents' homes and conducted searches, without having warrants or the presence of exigent circumstances, even when the residents (many of whom were minors), flatly refused to consent to their entry and/or search. The following recent examples illustrate this practice: a. In or around the winter of 2000, Village inspectors waited outside a Latino family's home until its ten-year-old son came home from school. The inspectors asked the boy for permission to enter the house, and he said "no." Ignoring him, they pushed past him and conducted an inspection of his parents' home.
c. In or around the fall of 2001, a Latino teenager returned home to his parents' apartment. As he opened the door, Village inspectors were exiting the apartment of his next door neighbor, and they asked him if they could come in. The teenager refused them entry, telling them that his parents were not home. The inspectors responded that his parents didn't need to be home, and they walked in the door and conducted a search. 26. Second, Village inspectors regularly have entered Latino residents' homes, without having warrants or the presence of exigent circumstances, and without obtaining permission, either unlawfully entering through unlocked doors or moving past residents at the door, without seeking permission or obtaining consent. In many cases, confronted by residents when already inside their homes, the inspectors informed them that the inspections were mandatory. These practices are illustrated below by the following recent examples: a. In or around the summer. of 2000, Village inspectors entered a Latino family's home through the kitchen door, rather than knocking and waiting for someone to come to the door. When a Latina resident thereafter discovered them already inside her house, she felt that she had no choice but to allow them to continue with the inspection. b. In or around the fall of 2000, Village inspectors banged loudly on the screen door of a Latina resident's home and shouted "Village of Freeport!" When the resident went downstairs to investigate, she saw two men in the vestibule. The inspectors told her they "had to" inspect her residence because it was a rental. They then proceeded to search her home. e. In or around the spring of 2001, a Village inspector followed a Latina resident into her home as she was opening the door. He never asked her for permission to enter or to search. After identifying himself as an inspector, he proceeded to search her entire house. d. In or around the spring of 2001, Village inspectors walked through an unlocked door of a Latino family's home and proceeded to conduct an inspection. When they came upon the first Latina resident, in her living room, they asked her where the thermostat was. They did not identify themselves, and she assumed that they were utility department employees. After looking at the thermostat, they proceeded toward her basement; she then asked why they were entering the basement, but they ignored her. Her son-in-law followed them into the basement, confronted them and asked who they were, and it was only then that they identified themselves. He told the inspectors that they should have a court order to enter the home and should not have entered it illegally; the inspectors then exited the basement. e. In or around the summer of 2001, Village inspectors knocked on the door of a Latino family's home, and the door was answered by a 7-year-old girl, the daughter of the owner. The inspectors followed her into the home, rather than asking to speak to an adult with authority to consent to their entry. Encountering the child's father inside the-home, the inspectors told him that they "had to" search the home and then proceeded to do so. f. In or around the winter of 2002, Village inspectors showed up at the door of a Latino family's home. The inspectors told a Latina resident that they "had to" inspect her home. Without receiving permission to enter, they walked inside the house and proceeded to search. 27. Third, Village inspectors regularly have made false statements that they had obtained consent to search in order to deceive Latino families and thereby gain entry into their homes to conduct inspections. They had no search warrants, nor were there exigent circumstances. These practices are illustrated below by the following recent examples: a. In or around the spring of 2000, Village inspectors entered a Latino resident's home through its basement and proceeded to conduct an inspection. Encountering the home's resident, they claimed that a friend who was cleaning the basement had given consent. The friend denied on the spot that he had consented. The inspectors then claimed that they had tried to ring the upstairs door bell, but it was broken. When asked where the door bell was, the inspectors did not know. b. In or around the summer of 2000, Village inspectors arrived at the home of a Latino family. They did not have a search warrant. They spoke to the owner's cousin, who was fixing the kitchen floors, and told him that the owner had consented to an inspection. This was false; the owner had never even spoken to them, let alone consented to an inspection of her home. On the basis of the inspectors' false statement, her cousin allowed the inspection to take place. c. In or around the spring of 2001, Village inspectors arrived at a two-family .house. They knocked on the owner's door, and they told a Latina resident who answered that they needed to inspect the house to update their records. She refused entry and asked why they hadn't called before they came, to which they responded that "it would be very difficult for us to call." They then asked if the other people were home and if they could go to the entrance to the apartment in the back of the house. She said that she didn't know if they were home but that they could go to the back apartment and inquire. The inspectors then spoke to several members of the Latino family in the back apartment and misrepresented that the owner had instructed them to inspect their apartment. That family's son let them into the apartment, and they proceeded to inspect it. 28, Fourth, after being invited into-Latino families' homes by police officers on emergency calls, and without having search warrants or being presented by exigent circumstances, Village inspectors routinely conducted searches beyond the geographic scope of the plain view of those officers. This practice is illustrated below by the following recent examples: a. In or around the fall of 2001, a Latino family called the Village police department because of a domestic dispute. Several police officers responded. While they were inside the house, the police officers radioed Village inspectors, who arrived shortly thereafter. The inspectors entered ''the home and then went past the geographical scope of the police officers' plain view: the officers were only in the first-floor kitchen, but the inspectors proceeded upstairs to conduct an inspection. b. In or around the winter of 2001, police officers responded to a medical call in a Latina household. While in the home, they called Village inspectors. The inspectors proceeded to inspect the entire home, beyond the area of the police officers' plain view, and even took a picture of the resident's teenage foster daughter coming out of the shower wearing only a towel. C. The Village's Targeting of Homes of
Latino Residents 1. Targeting of Homes of Latino Residents for Inspection 29. As described above, starting in the early 1990's, the Village began a program to inspect Latino households and Latino blocks for over-occupancy and other Code violations. In targeting Latino households and blocks for home inspections, the Village discriminatorily stereotyped Latinos as the primary perpetrators of over occupancy and other Code violations, and thereby intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of their national origin. 30. More specifically, during the period from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001, the Village inspected Latino households and Latino blocks at a rate that was disproportionate to their representation in the Village and not explained by the housing conditions in these households and blocks. 31. The Village's discriminatory targeting of Latino households and blocks for home inspections is evidenced by a study conducted by economists and commissioned by the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG"). The expert study examined: the Village's housing inspections for the period January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001. The study determined that Latino households were inspected during that period at a disproportionately high rate relative to their representation in the Village; that the disproportionality was statistically significant; and that this disproportionality could not be explained by objective, nondiscriminatory factors. 32. Out of 13,591 total households in the Village, 3221, or 23.7%, were Latino (based on the 2000 United States. Decennial Census). The expert study found that Latino households were disproportionately inspected, i.e. they received an excess" number of inspections, relative to their representation in the Village: Latino households comprised 30.7% of all households that were inspected. 33. This disproportionality was statistically significant, translating into a t-statistic of 3.95 standard deviations and thereby signifying to a near certainty that the results were not due to chance. (A t-statistic of 2.00 means that it is 95% certain that the results were not due to chance; this t-statistic is significantly higher and therefore the possibility that the results were due to chance is much lower than 5%). 34. The disproportionality persisted even within smaller geographic areas - Census tracts and Census block groups - with potentially similar housing conditions. Within Census tracts (median size 1700 households), the disproportionality translated into a t-statistic of 4.06 standard deviations, while within Census block groups (median size 175 households), it translated into a t-statistic of 4.02 standard deviations. These t-statistics are statistically significant and almost certainly not the result of chance. 35. The expert study further found that the disproportionality of the Village's inspections of Latino households could not be explained by household attributes that could be considered nondiscriminatory indicators of inferior housing conditions or over-occupancy. Specifically, high average household size, high rental occupancy rates, and receipt of fire calls were tested as possible nondiscriminatory explanations of the disproportionality, and none explained the disproportionality. 36. Rather, even among Census blocks with those indicators (in other words, similarly situated Census blocks that should have received inspections at comparable rates), households in heavily Latino blocks still received a disproportionate number of inspections as compared to households in less Latino blocks; for each characteristic, the disproportionality was statistically significant. Specifically:
c. Households that received fire calls in heavily Latino Blocks were inspected at a higher rate than households that received fire calls in less Latino blocks. The difference in inspection rates was 5.8%, which was statistically significant (with a t-statistic of 2.19 standard deviations). 37. Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that the disproportionately high inspection rate of Latino households was not attributable to objective, measurable, non-discriminatory factors, and therefore was attributable to national origin discrimination. 2. Discriminatory Treatment of Latino Households Inspected 38. As described above, Village inspectors have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of Latino households through unlawful entries into and searches of their homes. This pattern and practice of unlawful entries and searches has specifically affected the Village's Latino residents. Non-Latino white residents of the Village have not been subjected to a similar pattern and practice of unlawful entries and searches when their homes have been visited by Village inspectors. 39. Moreover, Village inspectors routinely and discriminatorily have assumed that the presence of a large number of persons in a Latino family's home at the time of an inspection indicated a multiple occupancy violation and therefore automatically have issued summonses in those situations. In numerous cases, Latino residents have informed inspectors, inter alia, that all persons present were members of their immediate family or that other family members or friends were staying temporarily with them as guests. Although neither circumstance would have supported an over-occupancy violation, the inspectors issued summonses nonetheless, many of which later were dismissed by the Village Court. C. The Village's Policies, Procedures and Customs that Caused the Inspectors' Unlawful Conduct 40. Over the course of many years, and continuing to the present date, the Village's policies, procedures and customs directly and proximately have caused the inspectors' pattern and practice of unlawful entries into and searches of Latino residents' homes and discriminatory treatment of Latino residents during inspections. As described below, despite knowledge of the inspectors' unlawful conduct, the Village's policies, procedures and customs have demonstrated through deliberate indifference and inaction that the Village condoned that conduct and have facilitated that conduct. 1. Village Knowledge of Misconduct by Village Inspectors 41. During at least the last several years, the Village has been fully aware of the frequency and nature of unlawful entries and searches by Village inspectors. The Village also has been aware of the inspectors' discriminatory treatment of Latino residents. 42. Specifically, starting at least as early as 1995, and continuing to the present date, attorneys representing Latino residents cited for Code violations have made numerous, successful motions to suppress evidence based on Village inspectors' unlawful entries into and searches of these residents' homes. Such attorneys have also had numerous conversations with Village attorneys (including the current Village Attorney and Deputy Village Attorney) about this conduct by building inspectors during this time period. Upon information and belief, the Mayor and Village Board were informed about the inspectors' conduct and the existence of these successful motions to suppress. In addition, the Village Attorneys themselves have been policymakers with respect to inspectors' inspection practices, having transmitted legal advice and given direction concerning the requirements of the Fourth Amendment directly to Village inspectors. 43. Further, starting in the early 1990's and continuing at least until 2001, at meetings open to the public held by the Village Board, numerous complaints have been lodged by Latino residents about unlawful entries into and searches of their homes and about their homes being disproportionately selected for inspection. 44. Latino residents' complaints of being targeted for inspections of their homes and of unlawful entries into and searches of their homes have been reported in the press, including New York Newsday, starting in the early 1990's and at least until 2001. Many of these press accounts have quoted Village officials denying that there was any problem with the Village inspectors' practices. 45. Numerous community meetings also have been held at which Latino residents voiced their concerns about the inspectors' practices to Village officials. One such meeting was held in November 2000. 46. The Village's clear knowledge of the unlawful practices of inspectors is reflected, in part, in its efforts to suppress public discourse on the subject. Prior to the November 2000 meeting, a Village official tried to convince one Latino community leader to cancel the meeting. Specifically, a week prior to the meeting, a Village Trustee offered a community leader money and space for his organization, to be provided by the Village, if the meeting were cancelled. The community leader refused, and the meeting took place as scheduled. 47. In January 2001, another community meeting was called by Latino residents of the Village to protest the practices of the Village Buildings Department. The meeting was attended by the Deputy Mayor and other Village officials: Other Village officials were invited but failed to attend. 48. At the January 2001 meeting, several Latino residents described their specific experiences with Village inspectors' unlawful entry into and searches of their homes. At the meeting, the Deputy Mayor, inter alia, said that she preferred not to hear about people's experiences regarding illegal entries and stated that anyone with complaints should instead bring them to the Village Attorney's office or the Building Department.
2. Village Deliberate Indifference Toward 49. Despite knowledge of the inspectors' unlawful and discriminatory conduct, the Village has condoned that conduct through its deliberate indifference to it. The Village's deliberate indifference is demonstrated, inter alia, by its inaction in response to that knowledge and its continuation of the policies that gave rise to the complaints. Specifically, despite such knowledge, the Village has retained all of the inspectors responsible for this unlawful conduct and has failed to supervise and monitor them properly. Further, upon information and belief, the Village has failed to investigate complaints about these Village inspectors, discipline these inspectors, or even conduct any remedial training for them. 50. Indeed, Village officials have evidenced deliberate indifference to the inspectors' pattern and practice of unlawful and discriminatory entries and searches by trying to suppress public complaints about these practices -- by, for example, trying to have the November 2000 community meeting cancelled and trying to divert Latino residents' complaints at the January 2001 meeting. 51. Moreover, the Village's policies, procedures and customs facilitated unlawful and discriminatory conduct by Village inspectors. By, inter alia, establishing the Over Occupancy Team, failing to require search warrants or other procedural protections against Fourth Amendment violations in non-exigent circumstances, authorizing the patrolling and surveillance of Latino residents' homes in particular, and pressuring Over Occupancy Team inspectors to maximize the numbers of summonses issued, the Village effectively encouraged Village housing inspectors to seek entry into residents' homes -- even if the only way to gain entry and search was to violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the Village's policies, procedures and customs effectively encouraged inspectors to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Latinos in order to gain entry into their homes in particular and to issue summonses against Latinos for over-occupancy violations based on stereotypical views of Latino families. D. The Impact of the Village's Policies and Practices52. The Village's unlawful and discriminatory conduct toward Latino residents has interfered significantly with Latino residents' enjoyment of living in the Village, such that many Latino families have moved out of the Village, -and many more are seriously contemplating doing so. 53. Unlike white, non-Latino residents of the Village, many Latino residents have come to expect harassment by Village inspectors, have lost their sense of privacy in their homes, and are unable to host family members and friends as guests without fear of over-occupancy fines. 54. Further, the Village's policy and practice of using its police department and other emergency services personnel to gain entry for Village inspectors into Latino residents' homes has imposed additional costs for using such services on Latino residents, including, inter alia, being subjected to unconstitutionally wide-ranging searches of their homes by inspectors. 55. These policies and practices have caused the Latino community in the Village irreparable harm.
FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION -- FOURTH AMENDMENT OF 56. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. 57. Inspectors within the Village of Freeport Building Department, under color of law, have engaged in a pattern and practice of conducting unlawful entries and searches of Latino residents of the Village, without lawfully obtaining consent, having a search warrant, or being presented with evidence of exigent circumstances, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 58. Despite knowledge of the inspectors' pattern and practice of unlawful conduct, the Village's policies, procedures and customs have demonstrated deliberate indifference to and have facilitated that conduct. 59. The Village's policies, procedures and customs directly and proximately caused these violations of the Fourth Amendment. 60. The Village has thereby violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION - FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF 61. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of race or national origin. 62. The Village of Freeport's deliberate policy has been to target the homes of Latino residents for inspection based on the national origin of their occupants. For the period from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001, the Village disproportionately inspected Latino households relative to their representation in the Village and in each Census tract and Census block group. This disproportionate inspection rate was not attributable to objective factors indicative of over-occupancy or poor housing conditions, and therefore was attributable to discrimination. 63. Further, individual Village inspectors have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of intentional national origin discrimination in carrying out their official duties, by subjecting Latino residents, but not non-Latino white residents, to a pattern of unlawful searches and by assuming that visitors and guests in Latino homes were tenants. 64. Despite knowledge of the inspectors' pattern
and practice of intentional national 65. The Village's policies, procedures and customs directly and proximately caused these violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. 66. The Village has thereby violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -
FAIR HOUSING ACT,
|
|