Feds Charge Housing Discrimination In Texas Case

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/U-S-government-sues-Texas-RV-park-for-alleged-4879379.php?cmpid=htx

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

If there is a problem, the Feds should go after the judge who allowed it. They are going after someone for winning a civil case. If the judge had said it was illegal to evict, which was his job, there wouldn't be an issue. Laws aren't about who's a jerk. It should have never been allowed to happen and it is the court's fault.

[Drea]

If there is a problem, the Feds should go after the judge who allowed it. They are going after someone for winning a civil case. If the judge had said it was illegal to evict, which was his job, there wouldn't be an issue. Laws aren't about who's a jerk. It should have never been allowed to happen and it is the court's fault.

I don't really agree.

The feds don't get involved in what would correctly be a more local proceeding about eviction. The eviction case, and I am only guessing here, was probably based upon the specific facts relevant to eviction such as the landlords right to simply not renew a lease. After all they weren't told they had to leave before the end of the month but were offered payment of unused time if they left earlier.

There may have also been other basis such as not having signed the agreement, or if they hadn't paid for the next month as part of the dispute over the agreement.

On the other hand, fact that the agreement may not have been enforceable and/or that there was dispute over the agreement may in fact been good solid grounds to prevent eviction, but with a month to month lease, as long as they were allowed to stay till the end of the term (that month) the defendants didn't have any grounds to fight in that venue as the landlord had met all their obligations. Furthermore this judge, in this cause could be properly applying tenant/landlord law as applies in the specific facts of the eviction case.

The fed lawsuit comes from a different venue and in this case the two are the plaintiff rather than defendant. Even if the landlord has the legal right to not renew the lease beyond the end of the month, and thus the eviction being legitimate, it doesn't necessarily protect the landlord from the POV of the fed lawsuit. If the agreement was in fact a violation of federal law (which it seems), or was applied prejudicially, or selectively (which if only ones evicted or not renewed), there can be a good case here.

The above is all supposition but isn't far off from what I seen happen legally.

I do find it pretty odd that the person would "ask permission" to wear female clothing. Since that comes from the plaintiff (the tenants) in the fed lawsuit, it is probably accurate. The only thing I can guess is that for the person wearing female clothes was a part time thing. The article doesn't say what the exact discriminatory practice was however. Was it because of sex or gender identity of the tenant? Was it because the landlord required signing a agreement that violated federal law? I dunno, but I am interested in hearing how it plays out.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Rereading it I'm not sure if the judge was trying to tell them they had a fed case or telling them to shut up.

I do wonder if not signing the rental agreement could have been the reason for 'legally' getting tossed even though the agreement itself wasn't legal-one can't sign away federally protected rights.

I'm more interested in what happened in the eviction hearing.

[Guest Jenn348]

But rather than see this for what it is, the wingnuts will see this as an Obama-directed attack on their freedom.

[Guest Mia J]

If the landlord had just refused to renew the lease it would have been done and over with.

By putting out a new tenant agreement that left out fair housing sections the landlord opened himself up for judgement by the feds.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Mia