U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:18−cv−01643−JRT−HB

CV,PROTO

Jones et al v. Faribault, City of Assigned to: Chief Judge John R. Tunheim Referred to: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff
Thelma Jones

Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alejandro Ortiz 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 646−885−8332 Email: ortiza@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−977−8047 Email: bblakely@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerardo Romo American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St. 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2500 Email: gromo@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie ACLU of MN 709 S Front St Suite 1B Mankato, MN 56001 507 995−6575 Email: ibratlie@aclu−mn.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2690 Email: jcalvo−friedman@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−977−8400 Fax: 612−977−8650 Email: jbalthazor@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 80 South Eighth Street Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−977−8745 Fax: 612−977−8650 Email: sflaherty@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson ACLU of Minnesota P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 651−529−1692 Email: tnelson@aclu−mn.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai American Civil Liberties Union Foundation New York 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2500 Email: amathai@aclu.org TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Racial Justice Program 125 Broad St 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 212−549−2690 Email: jriegel@aclu.org TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter NY 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 646−885−8344 Email: MCarter@aclu.org TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman Protect Democracy

Plaintiff Priyia Lacey

115 Broadway Ste 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 202−997−0599 Email: rgoodman@aclu.org TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019

Plaintiff Faisa Abdi
Plaintiff Ali Ali

represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein

Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address)

Plaintiff David Trotter−Ford

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Somali Community Resettlement Service TERMINATED: 07/02/2018

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson

Plaintiff Lucia Porras

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019

Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc.
V. Defendant Faribault, City of

represented by Alejandro Ortiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Bratlie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
O. Joseph Balthazor , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Flaherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa J Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amreeta Mathai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Brandon Blakely (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2020
Joshua David Riegel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Mark Carter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Rachel Goodman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/24/2019
represented by Andrew A. Wolf Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55438

952−548−7215 Fax: 952−548−7210 Email: andrew@irc−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Kuboushek Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7206 Fax: 952−548−7210 Email: jasonk@irc−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul D Reuvers Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7205 Fax: 952−946−1501 Email: paul@irc−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A Angolkar Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7200 Fax: 952−548−7210 Email: stephanie@irc−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/13/2018
06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC−6166848) filed by David Trotter−Ford, Faisa Abdi, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Priyia Lacey, Ali Ali, Thelma Jones, Rukiya Hussein. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
2 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Rachel Goodman. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6166926 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
3 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jennesa Calvo−Friedman. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6166966 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
4 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Chief Judge John R. Tunheim per 3rd, 4th − Civil Rights: Housing/Accomodations, ADA Other list, referred to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Please use case number 18cv1643 JRT/HB. (AKL) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
5 Summons Issued as to Faribault, City of. (AKL) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
6 TEXT ONLY NOTICE: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's Practice Pointers, which have recently been revised, are available on the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota's website (www.mnd.uscourts.gov). All parties are expected to

06/14/2018
06/15/2018 06/29/2018 07/13/2018 07/18/2018 07/24/2018 07/25/2018
08/07/2018 08/09/2018 09/04/2018
09/05/2018 09/10/2018

be familiar with and adhere to these Practice Pointers, including any variances from the Local Rules. (JMK) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
7 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 2 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Rachel Goodman for Faisa Abdi,Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein,Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Somali Community Resettlement Service and David Trotter−Ford; granting 3 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jennesa Calvo−Friedman for for Faisa Abdi,Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein,Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Somali Community Resettlement Service and David Trotter−Ford. Approved by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 6/14/2018. (AKL) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul D Reuvers on behalf of Faribault, City of. (Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. filed by David Trotter−Ford, Faisa Abdi, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Priyia Lacey, Ali Ali, Thelma Jones, Rukiya Hussein. No summons requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s)) (Goodman, Rachel) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
10 ANSWER to Amended Complaint filed by Faribault, City of. (Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
11 ORDER Setting Pretrial Scheduling Conference: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/17/2018. Pretrial Conference set for 8/24/2018 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 7/18/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (JMK) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
12 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford re: Rescheduling of Pretrial Conference. (Goodman, Rachel) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
13 TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court has reviewed the letter (ECF No. 12), requesting that the Rule 16 pretrial scheduling conference be rescheduled and that certain counsel for Plaintiffs be allowed to appear by telephone. Accordingly, the Rule 16 pretrial scheduling conference will be conducted on September 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. CDT before the undersigned in St. Paul Courtroom 6B. Plaintiffs' counsel, Rachel Goodman and Jennesa Calvo−Friedman, shall be allowed to appear by telephone. The Rule 26(f) report shall be submitted, in the form already provided to counsel, one week prior to the conference and counsel shall include the telephone number(s) where they can be reached for the conference in the report. Chambers will initiate the call when all counsel are present and the Court is ready to begin the conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 7/25/2018. (JMK) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
14 AMENDED ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/4/2018. Pretrial Conference set for 9/10/2018 at 11:00 AM CDT in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/7/2018. (JMK) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
15 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. Regarding September 10 Scheduling Conference. (Goodman, Rachel) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
16 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Attachment A − Plaintiffs' Proposed ESI Protocol, # 2 Exhibit(s) Attachment B − Defendant's Proposed ESI Protocol, ATTACHMENT FILED IN ERROR − WILL REFILE − # 3 Exhibit(s) Attachment C − Stipulated Protective Order)(Goodman, Rachel) Modified text on 9/5/2018 (MMP). (Entered: 09/04/2018)
17 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/5/2018. (JMK) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
18 Minute Entry for Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/10/2018. Discussion of pretrial deadlines and early settlement the parties are continuing to meet and confer regarding an ESI protocol, based on guidance

09/18/2018 09/18/2018 09/25/2018
12/12/2018 12/12/2018 12/12/2018
12/14/2018
12/14/2018
12/17/2018
03/25/2019 03/27/2019 04/04/2019
04/10/2019

provided by the Court during the conference. They will submit a joint update letter on or before September 18, 2018. A Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued. (JMK) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
19 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney for Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (Goodman, Rachel) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
20 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faribault, City of . (Attachments: # 1 Protocol for ESI)(Wolf, Andrew) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
21 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 11/26/2018. Discovery due by 6/19/2019. Motions (non−disp) due 7/3/2019. Motions (disp) due by 10/1/2019. Ready for trial due by 1/2/2020. See the order for additional deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/25/2018. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit: Protocol for Preservation & Discovery of Electronic Stored Information ("ESI"))(JMK) Modified date on 9/26/2018 (lmb). (Entered: 09/25/2018)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Terence Swihart on behalf of Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. (Swihart, Terence) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
23 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority.(Swihart, Terence) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
24 Minute Entry for telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 12/12/2018. The Court will hold another status conference by telephone with counsel at 8:30 a.m. CST on March 27, 2019. Counsel must meet and confer in advance of the call and submit a joint letter on or before March 25, 2019, updating the Court on the parties progress in discovery and when they might be ready for a settlement conference. (JMK) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
25 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Alejandro Agustin Ortiz. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6550897 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
26 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Joshua David Riegel. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6550918 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
27 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 25 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Alejandro Ortiz for Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. and for David Trotter−Ford.; granting 26 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Joshua David Riegel for Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. and for David Trotter−Ford. Approved by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 12/17/2018. (JGK) Modified text on 12/18/2018 (JGK). (Entered: 12/17/2018)
28 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faribault, City of Joint Update Letter. (Kuboushek, Jason) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
29 Minute Entry for telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 3/27/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
30 FILED IN ERROR − MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jennesa Calvo−Friedman. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6785229 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) Modified text on 4/5/2019 (NAH). (Entered: 04/04/2019)
31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

04/10/2019 04/10/2019 04/10/2019
04/10/2019 04/10/2019 04/12/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019
04/17/2019 04/17/2019
04/17/2019 04/17/2019 04/17/2019 04/23/2019 04/25/2019 04/25/2019

32 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 31 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 4/25/2019 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
33 MEMORANDUM in Support re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
34 AFFIDAVIT of Alejandro Ortiz in SUPPORT OF 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E)(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
35 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 31 Motion to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
36 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Alejandro Ortiz on behalf of Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
38 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Amreeta Susy Mathai. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6809132 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
39 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 38 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Amreeta Mathai for Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., and for David Trotter−Ford. Approved by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 4/15/2019. (NAH) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott M Flaherty on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Flaherty, Scott) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
41 FILED IN ERROR − MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Mark Joseph Carter. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6814648 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) Modified text on 4/17/2019 (NAH). (Entered: 04/17/2019)
42 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
43 DECLARATION of Andrew Wolf in Opposition to 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
44 AFFIDAVIT of Deanna Kuennen in OPPOSITION TO 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by O. Joseph Balthazor, Jr on behalf of Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by Brandon Blakely on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Blakely, Brandon) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer: Motion Hearing held on 4/25/2019 re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by David Trotter−Ford, Thelma Jones, Lucia Porras, Faisa Abdi, Somali Community Resettlement Services,

04/26/2019 04/26/2019
04/29/2019 05/06/2019 05/06/2019 05/10/2019
05/10/2019
05/13/2019 05/13/2019
05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019

Inc., Rukiya Hussein, Priyia Lacey, Ali Ali. Motion GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and HELD IN ABEYANCE in part. See minute entry for details. (Court Reporter Erin Drost) (BDB) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
47 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Mark Joseph Carter. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−6836042 filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, David Trotter−Ford. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
49 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 47 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Mark Carter for Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., and for David Trotter−Ford. Approved by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 4/26/2019. (NAH) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
50 ORDER ESTABLISHING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND PROTOCOL FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BASED ON ATTORNEY−CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR WORK−PRODUCT DOCTRINE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 4/29/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
51 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for a COPY OF TRANSCRIPT 48 Motion Hearing, to Court Reporter Erin Drost. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
52 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford re in camera review. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
53 BRIEF re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
54 Second AFFIDAVIT of Alejandro Ortiz in SUPPORT OF 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s))(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
55 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated with it. (EDD) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
56 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 4−25−19 before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. (75 pages). Court Reporter: Erin Drost. For a copy of the transcript, please file a Transcript Request under Other Filings/Other Documents.
For information on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. Redaction Request due 6/3/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/13/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/12/2019. (EDD) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
57 SEALED MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant City of Faribault. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
58 Redacted Document for 57 Sealed Supplemental Response Brief in Opposition to Motion to Compel filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
59 AFFIDAVIT of Andrew Wolf in OPPOSITION TO 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 3, # 2 Exhibit(s) 4, # 3 Exhibit(s) 5, # 4 Exhibit(s) 6)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
60 SEALED DECLARATION of Robert Alsop in Opposition to 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant City of Faribault.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
61 Redacted Document for 60 Sealed Declaration of Robert Alsop filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 05/17/2019 06/04/2019 06/05/2019
06/05/2019 06/06/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019 06/28/2019
06/28/2019 07/01/2019
08/01/2019
08/01/2019 08/02/2019 08/09/2019 08/13/2019

62 SEALED DECLARATION of Scott Riggs in Opposition to 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant City of Faribault.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
63 Redacted Document for 62 Sealed Declaration of Scott Riggs filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
64 SEALED AFFIDAVIT of Melissa Manderschied in OPPOSITION TO 31 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant City of Faribault.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
65 Redacted Document for 64 Sealed Affidavit of Melissa Manderschied filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
66 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Compel. See the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 6/4/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
67 STIPULATION by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. Jointly Signed by Jennesa Calvo−Friedman, Mark Carter, Joshua Riegel, Teresa Nelson, Ian Bratlie, Scott Flaherty, Brandon Blakely, O. Joseph Balthazor, Paul D. Reuvers, and Jason J. Kuboushek. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
68 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 67 Stipulation,. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
69 ORDER on 67 Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline. Fact Discovery due by 6/28/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 6/6/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
70 First NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney Rachel Goodman (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
71 First NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney Mark Carter (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
72 STIPULATION by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. Jointly Signed by Jennesa Calvo−Friedman, Joshua Riegel, Teresa Nelson, Ian Bratlie, Scott Flaherty, Brandon Blakely, O. Joseph Balthazor, Paul D. Reuvers, Jason J. Kuboushek, and Andrew Wolf. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
73 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 72 Stipulation,. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
74 ORDER on second 72 Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline. Fact Discovery due by 8/2/2019. Motions (non−disp) due 8/2/2019. See the order for additional deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 7/1/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
75 STIPULATION Regarding the Authenticity of Documents by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. Jointly Signed by Thelma Jones et al. and City of Faribault. (Riegel, Joshua) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
76 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 75 Stipulation,. (Riegel, Joshua) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
77 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney Joshua David Riegel (Riegel, Joshua) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
78 ORDER on 75 Stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/9/2019. (KLL) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
79 TEXT ONLY ORDER: Defendant's counsel has provided the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of a Restricted Order issued in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Because the order is identified as restricted, Defendant designated it Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the Protective Order in this case. Plaintiffs and Defendant have indicated their intention to approach the court in Puerto

08/13/2019
08/14/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 08/19/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019
09/09/2019 09/09/2019

Rico to seek a modification of the order. The making of such a request will not be deemed a violation of the Protective Order in this case provided that in filing that request they comply with all restrictions relating to the Restricted Order imposed by the issuing court in Puerto Rico, and that in all other respects they continue to treat the Restricted Order as Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Protective Order in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/13/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
81 Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/13/2019. The Court and counsel discussed the implications for the completion of expert discovery and dispositive motion practice under the scheduling order in view of a recent order from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. (JMK) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
80 First NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney Amreeta Mathai (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
82 Minute Entry for Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/15/2019. The Court and counsel discussed recent developments regarding Defendant's expert and implications for upcoming expert depositions and the scheduling order. (JMK) Modified text on 8/16/2019 (kt). (Entered: 08/16/2019)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie A Angolkar on behalf of Faribault, City of. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
98 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/16/2019. The Court and counsel discussed recent developments regarding Defendant's expert and implications for upcoming depositions and the scheduling order. (JMK) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
84 TEXT ONLY ORDER: The conference call with counsel, scheduled for August 19, 2019 at 1:00 p.m., regarding expert discovery and dispositive motion practice, is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 8/19/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
85 MOTION for Extension of Time (Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order) filed by Faribault, City of. (Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
86 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 85 Motion for Extension of Time (General) filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
87 MEMORANDUM in Support re 85 MOTION for Extension of Time (Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order) filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
88 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 85 MOTION for Extension of Time (Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order) filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
(Text−Only) NOTICE − Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's Practice Pointers, which have been recently revised, are available on the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota's website. All parties are expected to be familiar with and adhere to these Practice Pointers, including any variances from Local Rules. (JMK) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
89 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 85 MOTION for Extension of Time (Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order) filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
90 ORDER granting 85 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. Expert discovery, including depositions, shall be completed by 1/17/2020. Non−dispositive motion deadline related to experts filed and served by 1/31/2020. All dispositive motions and supporting documentation (notice of motion, motion, exhibits, affidavits, memorandum of law, and proposed order) shall be served and filed by the moving party on or before 3/2/2020. Ready for jury trial on 7/2/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/9/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019
09/09/2019
09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/16/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019
09/20/2019
09/23/2019

91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
92 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order : Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. (Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
93 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 91 Motion to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document, filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
94 MEMORANDUM in Support re 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
95 Declaration of O. Joseph Balthazor Jr. in Support of 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit(s) Exhibit E)(Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
96 EXHIBIT Sealed Exhibit D to Declaration of O. Joseph Balthazor Jr. [Dkt. 95] re 95 Declaration in Support,, filed by Jones et al.(Balthazor, O.) Modified restriction and text on 12/3/2019 (JME). (Entered: 09/09/2019)
97 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
100 RESPONSE re 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faribault, City of.(Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
101 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford . (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
102 TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court has reviewed the letter from Plaintiffs' counsel dated September 18, 2019 (ECF No. 101), requesting permission to file a reply to Defendant's response (ECF No. 100) to the Motion to De−Designate Restricted Order (ECF No. 91). Permission is granted and Plaintiffs shall file their response on or before September 20, 2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/18/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
103 REPLY re 100 Response, 102 Order in Response to Letter/Request/E−mail, 91 MOTION to Unseal Pleading/Motion/Other Document De−Designate Restricted Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
104 TEXT ONLY ORDER/NOTICE TO ATTORNEY. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to De−Designate Restricted Order [Doc. No. 91] is CANCELED. The Court will take the motion under advisement on the papers and issue an order in due course. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/23/2019. (ALM) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

10/02/2019
10/10/2019 10/31/2019 11/01/2019

105 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE with Attachments of District of Puerto Rico Order and Letter filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford regarding an Order. (Flaherty, Scott) Modified text on 10/7/2019 (KNK). Modified text on 10/7/2019 (KNK). (Entered: 10/02/2019)
106 JOINT MOTION REGARDING CONTINUED SEALING re 96 Exhibit filed by Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Balthazor, O.) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
107 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Faribault, City of . (Wolf, Andrew) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
108 ORDER granting 91 Plaintiffs' Motion to De−Designate Restricted Order ; granting 106 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing of Document Filed Under Temporary Seal.

Document Number(s) to be UNSEALED: 96. ( Order on continued sealing becomes final on 12/2/2019 unless further timely submissions are filed.

11/22/2019 11/22/2019 11/22/2019
11/22/2019 11/22/2019 11/26/2019 12/17/2019

) Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 11/1/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
109 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
110 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 109 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
111 MEMORANDUM in Support re 109 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
112 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 109 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
113 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 109 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
114 ORDER granting 109 Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. See the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 11/26/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
115 STIPULATION to Amend Complaint by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. Jointly Signed by Thelma Jones, Pryia Lacey, Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Lucia Porras, David Trotter−Ford, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., and City of Faribault. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s), # 7 Exhibit(s), # 8 Exhibit(s), # 9 Exhibit(s), # 10 Exhibit(s),

12/17/2019 12/18/2019 12/18/2019
01/02/2020 03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/13/2020
03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/16/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020

# 11 Exhibit(s), # 12 Exhibit(s), # 13 Exhibit(s), # 14 Exhibit(s), # 15 Exhibit(s))(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
116 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 115 Stipulation,,. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
117 ORDER on 115 Joint Stipulation to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs may file their Second Amended Complaint, in the form attached to the Joint Stipulation (ECF No. 115−1) within five days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 12/18/2019. (JMK) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
118 AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Faribault, filed by David Trotter−Ford, Lucia Porras, Faisa Abdi, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Priyia Lacey, Ali Ali, Thelma Jones, Rukiya Hussein. No summons requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6 Exhibit(s) F, # 7 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 9 Exhibit(s) I, # 10 Exhibit(s) J, # 11 Exhibit(s) K, # 12 Exhibit(s) L, # 13 Exhibit(s) M) (Ortiz, Alejandro) Modified text on 12/18/2019 (lmb). (Entered: 12/18/2019)
119 ANSWER to Amended Complaint filed by Faribault, City of. (Reuvers, Paul) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
120 Joint MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
121 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 120 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
122 Memorandum in Suppport re 120 Joint MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Ortiz, Alejandro) Modified text on 3/16/2020 (kt). (Entered: 03/13/2020)
123 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 120 Joint MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
124 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 120 Joint MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders filed by Faisa Abdi, Ali Ali, Rukiya Hussein, Thelma Jones, Priyia Lacey, Lucia Porras, Somali Community Resettlement Service, Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc., David Trotter−Ford.(Ortiz, Alejandro) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
125 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Blakely, Brandon) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
126 ORDER granting 120 Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. Fact discovery due by 5/1/2020. Expert discovery due by 5/1/2020. See the order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 3/13/2020. (JMK) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
127 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 21 Scheduling Order, 69 Order on Stipulation filed by Faribault, City of. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
128 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 127 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/19/2020)

03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/20/2020
03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/23/2020 04/09/2020

129 MEMORANDUM in Support re 127 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 21 Scheduli filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
130 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 127 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 21 Scheduli filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
131 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 127 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 21 Scheduli filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
132 Letter re: withdrawal of motion re 129 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 131 Proposed Order to Judge, 128 Meet and Confer Statement, 127 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 21 Scheduli, 130 Proposed Order to Judge, from Stephanie Angolkar. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
133 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 69 Order on Stipulation filed by Faribault, City of. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
134 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 133 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
135 MEMORANDUM in Support re 133 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 69 Order on filed by Faribault, City of. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
136 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 133 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 69 Order on filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
137 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE (Red−lined version) re 133 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders 74 Order on Stipulation, 90 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 114 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 126 Order on Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Other Orders, 69 Order on filed by Faribault, City of.(Angolkar, Stephanie) Modified text on 3/23/2020 (JMK). (Entered: 03/20/2020)
138 ORDER granting 133 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Fact discovery due by 8/3/2020. Expert discovery due by 8/3/2020. Dispositive motions due by 9/2/2020. The case will be ready for trial by 1/4/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 3/23/2020. (JMK) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
139 TEXT ONLY ORDER regarding IDR conferences: To the extent the Pretrial Scheduling Order or Case Management Order in this case includes a process for Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR), that order and the process described therein are hereby AMENDED as follows: The parties' letters with regard to the IDR must be filed on CM/ECF in addition to being emailed to chambers. All other procedures and terms set forth in the Court's pretrial scheduling order or case management order with regard to the IDR process remain in effect. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 4/9/2020. (JMK) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

05/14/2020 05/15/2020

140 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Gerardo Romo. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−7722628 filed by Thelma Jones. (Bratlie, Ian) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
141 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 140 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Gerardo Romo for Thelma Jones. Approved by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 5/15/2020. (NAH) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

 
 CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 68

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

THELMA JONES, PRIYIA LACEY, FAISA ABDI, ALI ALI, RUKIYA HUSSEIN, DAVID TROTTER-FORD, AND SOMALI COMMUNITY RESETTLEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF FARIBAULT,
Defendant.

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES

INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges the City of Faribault, Minnesota’s illegal and unconstitutional Rental Licensing Ordinance, Ord. No. 2017-13, aimed at reducing the number of people of color living in rental housing within its borders. The Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. In order to rent out residential property in Faribault, every landlord must secure a rental license. To secure and maintain this license, the City of Faribault requires that landlords give police enormous control over their tenants through Faribault’s codified Crime Free Housing Program. 3. The City of Faribault (“Faribault” or “the City”) enacted its Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program in order to target Black Somali tenants living in downtown Faribault, whom some in the community perceived to be engaging in crime and, by their very physical presence on streets and sidewalks, creating a “negative perception” of Faribault.
1

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 68
4. Faribault first enacted the scheme in 2014 despite the fact that its own Chief of Police, Andrew Bohlen, stated in a memorandum to the City Council that there was no downtown crime problem and that “fears and cultural clashes” were to blame for the community concerns. Faribault’s Black Somali population had surged in the years leading up to passage of the Ordinance.
5. Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that landlords use leases that allow police to order all members of a household evicted if any household member or guest engages in what police deem to be criminal activity. Police can order evictions even when there has been no arrest and no prosecution.
6. Before re-enacting the Ordinance with minor revisions, City officials made public statements concerning the Crime Free Housing Program’s success at “get[ting] rid of” residents who are “undesirable[].” One member of the City Council stated that Faribault needed to attract higher income residents or it would “flip like Detroit in a few years.”
7. The Rental Licensing Ordinance also requires that landlords screen potential tenants for criminal history. Faribault instructs landlords to refuse to rent to potential tenants with criminal records, including convictions for minor crimes, without regard to whether a criminal record indicates a present risk for property or safety. Because Black Minnesotans are vastly more likely to have a criminal record than are white Minnesotans, this policy has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect.
8. Finally, the Rental Licensing Ordinance limits the occupancy of every rental unit to two people per legal bedroom plus one, regardless of the size of the bedrooms or the availability of additional rooms for sleeping. Because Faribault Somali
2

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 68
families tend to be large, such that Faribault Somali households are significantly larger than non-Somali households, this occupancy restriction has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect on people of Somali national origin, who are often evicted upon the birth of a child.
9. These discriminatory policies violate the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the equal rights guarantees provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Minnesota Constitution.
10. This lawsuit seeks to end the many harms wrought by the Rental Licensing Ordinance on tenants and potential tenants, as well as on the health of the broader Faribault community.
PARTIES Plaintiffs
10. Plaintiff Thelma Jones currently resides in rental housing in Faribault, where she has lived since 2008. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Jones and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the CrimeFree Housing Program after the Faribault Police Department threatened Ms. Jones’ landlord with criminal prosecution unless she evicted Ms. Jones and her family.
11. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is actively seeking rental housing in Faribault. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Lacey is Ms. Jones’ daughter. She, too, lost her home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
12. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2010. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family are currently
3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 68
threatened with loss of their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
13. Plaintiff Ali Ali has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2006. He is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their prior home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction and are at risk of losing their current home as their family expands.
14. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2002. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
15. Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford currently resides in rental housing in Faribault, where he has lived since 2010. He is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the CrimeFree Housing Program.
16. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, with its primary places of business in Rochester and Faribault, Minnesota. The Rental Licensing Ordinance interferes with its mission to promote the welfare and well-being of members of the Somali community and forces it to divert resources to ameliorate the harms caused to that community by the Ordinance.
Defendant 17. Defendant City of Faribault, Minnesota is a municipality capable of being
sued under Minnesota law. The city is the legal entity responsible for the Faribault Police Department (“FPD”), a law enforcement agency. Plaintiffs base all applicable and
4

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 68
appropriate claims as to Defendant City of Faribault on the doctrines of respondeat superior or vicarious liability and municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. This action arises under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601– 3619, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 19. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court may award Plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, and this Court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction. 20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota state law claim, which forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory, injunctive, and other relief as necessary or proper under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”),1 Minn. Stat. § 555.01 et seq., and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65. 21. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the events giving rise to the claims made in this complaint have occurred or will occur in this district and because Defendant City of Faribault is located in this district.
1 The UDJA is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed and administered to “settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” Minn. Stat. § 555.12. 5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 68
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Faribault Context: Demographic Change
22. In the years leading up to the 2014 passage of the first Rental Licensing Ordinance, Faribault’s Black population had risen rapidly, and the trend continues.
23. In 2000, according to the United States Census, just 2.7% of Faribault’s population was Black. By 2010, that figure stood at 7.6%. In 2016, the Census’s American Community Survey estimated Faribault’s population to be 9.2% Black.
24. This growth includes considerable growth in Faribault’s population of people of Somali national origin. In 2009, the American Community Survey estimated that there were 175 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, composing about 0.8% of Faribault’s population. By 2016, that population figure had risen by a factor of nearly ten. The American Community Survey estimated that there were 1,036 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, now composing about 4.4% of Faribault’s population.
25. Faribault’s Black residents, including those of Somali national origin, are concentrated in rental housing.
26. According to the 2010 Census, which provides the most recent statistics available, just 0.5% of owner-occupied households in Faribault were Black households, whereas 8.4% of renter households were Black households. Put differently, nearly 90% of Black households in Faribault lived in rental housing in 2010. By contrast, just 28% of non-Hispanic white households lived in rental housing the same year.
27. A recent draft of the forthcoming 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted that homeownership “by minority groups in Rice County is staggeringly low,” and that “over 98 percent of households are owned by white
6

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 68
Americans.” The study also estimates that, although 19% of Faribault’s population is composed of racial minorities, 2% of its housing units are owned by racial minorities.
28. In Rice County, where Faribault is located, there are approximately three hundred low-income families receiving federally-funded Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, to assist them in paying rent in private market housing. Threequarters of the families receiving this assistance live in Faribault.
29. Two-thirds of the Rice County families receiving Section 8 are Black or African-American. When adults in households receiving Section 8 in Rice County were asked about languages spoken, 390 reported speaking Somali, three times more than the 130 who reported speaking English (some respondents marked more than one language). Thus, a majority of Section 8 recipients in Rice County are of Somali national origin.
Somali Presence and Misperceptions of Downtown Crime 30. Between 2000 and 2014, the total number of crimes in Faribault dropped
significantly. According to Faribault Police Department data reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system, the overall number of property crimes fell by more than a third, even as Faribault’s population grew. Faribault did not consistently report all categories of violent crime data during the period, but the total number of reported violent crimes in 2014 was essentially the same as it had been in 2000.
31. Nonetheless, some Faribault residents reported concerns with crime and safety, especially downtown. Tenants “loitering” on downtown sidewalks were the locus of this concern—particularly if they were Somali.
32. A 2011 Downtown Faribault Market Analysis (“2011 Market Analysis”), funded in part by the state of Minnesota, reported that visitors to the downtown had
7

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 68
mentioned safety as one of their top two concerns. However, the same report noted that police “indicated there is little crime in the downtown, and certainly no more than the community at large.” Later, the report noted that “relating to the negative perception of the safety of downtown are the low income residents residing in second floor apartments who are loitering and/or congregating during peak and off-peak hours along the retail corridor.”
33. A large proportion of renters living downtown were people of color. 34. In March 2013, the Faribault Daily News noted that complaints of drug activity and theft downtown had become a hot button issue, but that, once again, police records did not corroborate this concern. A quoted resident said that the perception of downtown as unsafe exists “because people drive up and down the street and see groups of people standing in the sidewalks. But that’s not a bad thing. Times are changing, and it’s a matter of people getting used to the new look.” 35. Later that spring, a letter to the editor of the Faribault Daily News explicitly stated that the writer was in fear of Somalis “loitering” around town, and that she did not “understand why our beautiful city permits this activity.” 36. In October 2013, the Faribault Daily News ran an article about a duallanguage video created by the FPD in an attempt to communicate with Faribault’s Somali-speaking community. That article interviewed Asher Ali, the head of the Faribault Diversity Coalition, who discussed the need to address “cultural differences” between downtown businesses and the Somali-American residents who live around them or above them. He noted that Americans deem it “loitering” when Somalis stand around
8

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 68
on the street, a regular practice in a culture that places more emphasis on face-to-face interactions.
37. Thus, concerns about “loitering” in downtown Faribault had become a clear code for concerns about the visible presence of Black Somali people downtown.
Events Leading to the Enactment of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance 38. On October 15, 2013, the Faribault City Council’s Joint Committee held a
“Discussion Regarding Downtown.” (Although notes for most 2013 Joint Committee meetings are publicly available on Defendant City of Faribault’s website, no notes from the October 15, 2013 Joint Committee meeting are posted.)
39. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen of the FPD wrote a memorandum to then-City Administrator Brian Anderson discussing “ongoing police efforts to work with the downtown community on Central Avenue to alleviate some of the fears and cultural clashes taking place.” (The Bohlen Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) This memorandum began by noting the proximity of the business community to a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups” and the fact that business owners had recently raised concerns about people on the sidewalks, including “alleged criminal activity and open drug transactions.” Chief Bohlen then noted that he had examined police records and concluded that there had been no increase in downtown crime, including drug crime. See Ex. B.
40. The Bohlen Memorandum also mentioned the “increased discussion of a revised loitering ordinance.” He noted that he had discussed the issue with the city attorney and recognized that a loitering ordinance might be “problematic and unenforceable” in many circumstances. See id.
9

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 68
41. Chief Bohlen was correct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that loitering for innocent purposes is part of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53 (1999).
42. The Memorandum segued directly from discussion of this unconstitutional proposal to discussion of plans to improve the relationship between the FPD and the Somali community. Chief Bohlen wrote:
I believe building trusting relationships with the diverse downtown culture is vital to improve police and community relations, cooperatively work towards common goals, establish enforceable laws and make genuine progress. The Somali culture is here to stay and I have personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city and it is not solely a problem with one ethnic group. They are a vital part of the Faribault economy, rent apartments downtown, and communicate differently than the long time residents. The new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street. See Ex. B. 43. The Bohlen Memorandum demonstrates the City of Faribault’s awareness that (1) concerns about downtown safety were not borne out by facts about crime; (2) these concerns were a product of community animus directed at Somali residents of downtown Faribault; and (3) the City could not legally keep its Somali residents from innocently “loitering” on city sidewalks. 44. Six months later, on March 18, 2014, the Joint Committee discussed a “Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program.” 45. As part of this discussion, according to the notes, “[t]he Chief of Police and City Attorney stated that a loitering ordinance may only lead to legal issues when the real issues are more closely related to nuisance violations.” Thus, the discussion once
10

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 11 of 68
again explicitly positioned the draft rental licensing ordinance as a substitute for the unconstitutional loitering ordinance that had been proposed. See Nicole Stelle Garnett, Relocating Disorder, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1075, 1090 –01 (2005) (arguing that municipalities increasingly turn to property regulation tools in an effort to avoid legal challenges to policing policies aimed at controlling low-income populations).
46. In advance of this meeting, Community Development Director Peter Waldock prepared a memorandum for then-City Administrator Brian Anderson, attaching a draft ordinance substantially similar to the rental licensing ordinance that was subsequently enacted. (The Waldock Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The Waldock Memorandum explicitly linked the Ordinance to the October discussion of purported crime downtown for which the Bohlen Memorandum had been prepared, stating:
At the City Council Joint Committee meeting last October, the City Council heard concerns expressed regarding housing conditions in some rental units downtown and concerns with problem tenants in the community. The City Council directed staff to review the issues and recommend ways in which the City could address the issues. As a follow up to this discussion, staff presented a number of ideas for the City Council to consider addressing the concerns. Among these was participation in a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program. See Ex. C. 47. The Waldock Memorandum demonstrates that the City of Faribault viewed the Crime-Free Housing Program and the Ordinance as a means to address ongoing “concerns” about downtown—concerns which Chief Bohlen and the City had recognized were motivated by animus and not borne out by facts about crime. See id.
11

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 12 of 68
48. Moreover, the Crime-Free Housing Program that the Joint Committee discussed, and that the City eventually adopted, follows a model created by the Arizonabased International Crime Free Association. The proposed Crime-Free Housing Program, far from being tailored to respond to the realities of crime in Faribault, was an off-therack solution to a problem that did not exist.
49. The Joint Committee again discussed the draft ordinance at its April 29, 2014 meeting. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen and Peter Waldock prepared another memorandum to the Joint Council Committee. This memorandum contained no discussion of any recent increase in crime or calls for police service in Faribault. Nonetheless, the memorandum stated:
By not addressing problematic tenants through a CFMH program, quality tenants will vacate problem properties, increasing calls for service to PD staff and ultimately change the landscape of tenants renting within Faribault. The city will continue to experience lower quality rental housing. The police department will not have a route to address problem tenants as calls for service and complaints increase, taxing existing staff. 50. The draft ordinance had a first and second reading before the City Council in June, and it was published on June 27, 2014. City of Faribault, Ord. No. 2014-009, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 7 and Repealing Chapter 21 of the Faribault City Code (“the 2014 Ordinance”). It passed unanimously and went into effect on January 1, 2015. 51. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi, who had voted to enact the 2014 Ordinance, told the Faribault Daily News in a video interview that she had been trying to get the City Council to address the issue of loitering downtown for more than three years. She acknowledged the racial dynamics of her concern repeatedly. In response to a reporter’s prompt about the large Somali presence downtown as “the elephant in the
12

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 13 of 68
room,” she stated: “[H]ere’s the thing, you know, I’ve got a lot of friends that are Somali, okay. So I would not have one problem going up to any of them and saying what are you doing, you can’t be sitting on that guy’s car.” She also stated that she has “seen a change firsthand” over the last eighteen years—during the period when Faribault’s Black and Somali population expanded rapidly—and continued, “yes, I want to kumbaya and embrace everyone, and yaa,” but that she believes business is harmed by the loitering.
City Officials’ Statements About Enforcement of the 2014 Ordinance 52. In January 2016, then-City Manager Anderson and then-Mayor John
Jasinski discussed the Ordinance on a City-produced Faribault Community Connections video. In that video, Anderson touted the fact that 31 families had lost their homes as a result of the Ordinance’s Crime Free Housing Program. The following exchange then took place:
CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: [I]f you want to know you know why are we putting more officers out on the streets; it’s to help fund programs like this, the Crime Free Multi Housing, and it’s to help get rid of some of the some of the, you know, what would you say, the residents that normally are – MAYOR JASINSKI: Undesirable? CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: The undesirable ones [ . . . ] 53. This group of “undesirables” includes not only adults who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime, but also children living in households targeted for eviction. 54. In that video, the then-Mayor, who served from 2008 until 2016, again linked unsupported concerns about downtown crime to passage of the Ordinance and further affirmed that community animus motivated the Ordinance. He stated:
13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 14 of 68
[T]hat’s something that we had heard as a council that we know the downtown, the housing stock, the crime, and things like that that we wanted to get out. . . . you know, it makes it a little bit difficult on the property owners, the rental property owners. It’s a little bit more in-depth and they have to do a few more things. But again to clean up our housing stock, and residents, and things like that. 55. Faribault City Council Member Janna Viscomi, who voted to enact both the 2014 and 2017 versions of the Ordinance, used coded racial terms to describe her views on City housing policy in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. Council Member Viscomi stated that the City needed to develop policies to attract “higher income people” to balance the “lower-income people” in Faribault “or we are going to flip like Detroit in a few years.”
Passage of the 2017 Ordinance 56. In 2017, Faribault revised the Rental Licensing Ordinance, but the core
purpose and intent of the Ordinance remained unchanged. 57. In March 2017, the Faribault Daily News ran a series of articles discussing
the first two years of enforcement of the Crime-Free Housing Program. Sergeant Mark Krenik, who runs the Program for the FPD, told the paper that he and city staff would be revisiting certain areas within the ordinance in order to “one, make it easier to understand, and, two, make it easier to enforce.” Gunnar Olson, Mixed emotions: Landlords, officials measure success differently for Crime-Free Multi-Housing program, Faribault Daily News, Mar. 29, 2017.
58. These ideas were repeated throughout the formal revision process. In May 2017, Chief Bohlen and Deanna Kuennen, now Director of Community and Economic Development, presented the City Council Joint Committee with a memorandum outlining
14

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 15 of 68
proposed changes to the Ordinance. The memorandum stated “Staff has worked with legal counsel to update the Rental Dwelling Licenses ordinance to ensure that the ordinance continues to serve its intended purpose.” An August version of that memorandum stated that the revisions would provide the City with tools “to effectively meet the expressed objectives of the City as well as more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance.”
59. Similar language appears in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the first reading of the revised ordinance was approved. A second reading followed on September 26, 2017. It passed unanimously and was published on September 29, 2017. City of Faribault, Ordinance No. 2017-13, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Sec. 7-36 Through Sec. 7-45 of Article V of Chapter 7 of the Faribault City Code, Ex. A (the “2017 Ordinance” or the “Ordinance”).
60. The 2014 Ordinance and the 2017 Ordinance describe the purpose of the Rental Licensing Ordinance in identical language. See 2014 Ordinance § 7-36; 2017 Ordinance § 7-36.
61. These statements, combined with the lack of significant changes to the substance of the Ordinance with the 2017 revisions, make clear that the animus involved in the passage of the 2014 Ordinance infects the current Rental Licensing Ordinance.
62. The City of Faribault’s budget document for the 2018 fiscal year, adopted on December 12, 2017, estimated that the Crime Free Housing Program had led to 90 evictions of “problem tenants.”
15

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 16 of 68
The Rental License Ordinance is Part of a Plan to Remove Low-Income Black Residents From Faribault’s Downtown
63. The City enacted and deployed the Rental License Ordinance as one component of a broader effort to replace affordable housing downtown, occupied disproportionately by low-income people of color, with more expensive housing, as a means of forcing current residents to vacate.
64. Former Mayor John Jasinski addressed these issues in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. He discussed the “inflow” of a “nationality” to Faribault, and the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize downtown.” Then-Mayor Jasinski voted in favor of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance.
65. In another 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television, Council Member Rowan, who voted in favor of both the 2014 Ordinance and the 2017 Ordinance, suggested that a lack of “quality rental properties. . . for the millennials” was one of the most pressing issues facing Faribault, caused by not “enforcing existing laws.” He described Crime-Free Multi-Housing as a “step[]” in that direction. He also stated that Faribault is “going to have to make changes” to become appealing to the “millennial generation that’s coming out of college” and getting “good paying jobs.”
66. Since at least 2011, plans for downtown have included replacing its current low-income Black residents with more affluent tenants.
67. The 2011 Market Analysis performed for downtown noted that a majority of tenants downtown are low- and very-low-income households, and observed that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the
16

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 17 of 68
downtown district.” The same analysis states that “the Somalis . . . are often low income, seeking work, looking for affordable housing.”
68. In 2014, Faribault engaged in a community planning process called Community Vision 2040, with an outside consultant. Among the strategic priorities identified in the Community Vision 2040 report was “A Vibrant Downtown.”
69. Goals listed under that heading included both “[e]stablish[ing] market rate and high-end residential [units] in the downtown” and “[e]nhanc[ing] the appearance of downtown buildings and the streetscape.” To accomplish that latter goal, the report suggested enforcing, among other things, the recently-passed “rental ordinances.”
70. The report noted that “Faribault has become significantly more diverse. Faribault was 96 percent white in 1990. It is approximately 75 percent white today. There are approximately ten times more persons of color in Faribault today than 25 years ago, and Faribault has approximately 50 percent more persons of color, as a percentage, than the average Minnesota community.” Nonetheless, the report exclusively employs images of white people to illustrate Faribault. Not a single person of color is depicted in Faribault’s “vision” of its future.
71. Faribault subsequently established a “Downtown Housing Improvement Program,” through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which provides loans “to encourage the development and redevelopment of high-quality market-rate housing.”
72. Specifically, the program notes the goal of “renovating substandard housing on upper floors into high-quality market-rate housing.” In order to participate in the program, a residential developer must pledge, among other things: (1) to comply with the requirements of the Crime-Free Multi Housing Program; (2) to bar all tenants who
17

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 18 of 68
use a subsidy to pay their rent for at least ten years; and (3) to charge rents above a minimum threshold, so that rents do not fall below city-dictated levels.
73. Among the improvements eligible for city funding are “cabinets, molding, and countertops,” as well as “amenities that add exceptional value,” such as fitness rooms and “pet spas.” The addition of these amenities is intended to attract higher-income tenants.
74. The Downtown Housing Improvement Program aims to subsidize the conversion of affordable rental housing downtown, currently inhabited disproportionately by low-income people of color, into housing that would not be affordable to this population. In order to ensure this effect, the City bars recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers—who are overwhelmingly of Somali ancestry in Rice County—from living in the units it subsidizes, although their vouchers might enable them to afford the units.
75. Per the City of Faribault website, this program continues to solicit applications to encourage the creation of more expensive housing.
76. These statements and policies make clear that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was enacted as part of a broader plan by the City of Faribault to push lowincome residents of color out of the downtown area. At the same time, the City has done nothing to increase the stock of affordable and subsidized housing elsewhere in Faribault.
The Rental Licensing Ordinance: A Summary 77. The Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that any person operating a
rental dwelling in Faribault obtain a rental license, § 7-38(a)(1), and sets out numerous requirements for procuring and maintaining such a license, as well as criminal penalties for landlords who fail to comply with those requirements.
18

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 19 of 68
78. The Rental Licensing Ordinance exempts just two categories of occupied rental dwellings from its coverage: Owners who rent a single dwelling to a relative and “snowbird[s]” who rent out their homes for fewer than 120 days each year while residing outside of Minnesota. § 7-38(a)(1)(a)–(b).
79. Licensees must file complete applications with the city, pay registration fees, stay current on taxes, fines, and penalties, and remain in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws. §7-38(c)–(e). A license is generally valid for two years, §7-38(b), although a provisional license of shorter duration is available in certain circumstances, § 7-39.
80. The Ordinance also requires that landlords who do not live in designated nearby Minnesota counties register a local agent with the City. § 7-40(a).
81. The Ordinance requires licensees to keep a “register of occupancy for each dwelling unit,” containing among other things: its address, “legal names and date of birth of adult occupants,” dates on which renters occupied and vacated the unit, and a “chronological list of complaints and requests for repair” by tenants, along with responses. § 7-40(g). This register “shall be made available for viewing or copying by the City of Faribault at all reasonable times.” Id.
82. The Ordinance also limits the maximum number of occupants in a rented home to two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2)(b). This number can be increase by one person if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c). This requirement will be discussed in further detail below.
83. The Rental Licensing Ordinance prohibits “disorderly conduct,” defined broadly, and determined in most instances by a single police officer, in licensed rental
19

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 20 of 68
dwellings. § 7-41(a)–(d). Criminal charges need not be brought for a finding of disorderly conduct, and a dismissal or acquittal of charges does not bar police from instructing a landlord to take action. § 7-41(c). After three instances of disorderly conduct stemming from the same tenancy, the City may order the licensee to evict all occupants of the unit. § 7-41(b)(3). This section will be discussed in further detail below.
84. Licensees must also participate in Faribault’s “Crime free housing program,” modeled on the “Minnesota Crime Prevention Association’s Crime Free Multi Housing Program.” § 7-42 (the “Crime Free Housing Program”).
85. In detailing the purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program, the Ordinance states the City Council’s finding that “repeated police calls to rental dwelling units in the city related to disturbances or criminal activity have taxed law enforcement resources.” § 7-42(a). On information and belief, no evidence supporting this finding was before the City Council when it enacted the Ordinance, or its predecessor, the 2014 Ordinance.
86. The Crime Free Housing Program requires all Faribault landlords to comply with three basic components:
(1) Attend a certified eight-hour crime-free housing course presented by police, fire, public housing and others.
(2) Use a written lease which includes the crime-free/drug free housing lease addendum.
(3) Conduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of third-party background check procedures for tenants.
20

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 21 of 68
§ 7-42(b). The FPD can require a landlord to evict an entire household when the FPD believes the terms of the lease addendum have been violated. § 7-42(f)(1). The requirements of the Crime Free Housing Program are discussed in more detail below.
87. The Ordinance makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, to violate any of its requirements. § 7-42(f)(5).
88. The Rental Licensing Ordinance provides for required inspections of rental housing and a process for issuance and appeal of orders when properties do not fully comply with City Code and other requirements. § 7-43. It also sets out the process for dwellings found unfit for human habitation. Id.
89. Finally, the Ordinance details the circumstances in which the City can deny, suspend, non-renew, or revoke a license, and describes the process provided to landlords in such circumstances. § 7-44.
The Tenant Control Policies 90. The Rental Licensing Ordinance and its Crime Free Housing Program,
taken together, grant the City tremendous control over the lives of Faribault renters. By exerting pressure on their landlords, the Rental Licensing Ordinance provides Defendants with tools to harass and evict entire families for allegeded criminal conduct that does not even necessitate criminal prosecution. Several distinct pieces of the Rental Licensing Ordinance work in tandem to provide Defendants with these tools.
91. As part of the Crime Free Housing Program, all Faribault landlords are required to include extremely broad and vague contract language adopted by the City, “or language that is contractual and legal equivalent [sic]” in each of their private lease agreements with tenants. § 7-42(e). This language, the “Crime Free/Drug Free Lease
21

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 22 of 68
Addendum” (“the Lease Addendum”), makes a single violation of its requirements a “material violation of the lease and good cause for termination of tenancy.” § 7-42(e)(6).
92. The Lease Addendum makes it a violation of the lease for not only members of the household to engage in the prohibited activities, but also for guests or people “under the resident’s control,” without further definition, to engage in these activities. § 7-42(e).
93. Prohibited activities range from drug sale and manufacture, to possession of drug paraphernalia, to “acts of violence or threats of violence.” § 7-42(e)(1)–(5). That last category is a loosely-defined catchall, including but not limited to “unlawful discharge of firearms, prostitution, criminal street gang activity, intimidation, or any other breach of the rental agreement that otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of the landlord, his agents, or tenants.” § 7-42(e)(5).
94. The Lease Addendum prohibits most of these activities “on or near the said premises,” but it prohibits certain crimes involving illegal drugs, including felony possession, “at any locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit premises or otherwise.” § 7-42(e)(4). Because that provision, like the others, applies to guests and other people “under the resident’s control,” it allows eviction purely based upon association: if someone who has been a tenant’s guest engages in drug crime anywhere, whether in Faribault or elsewhere, the tenant can be punished.
95. If the FPD determines by a preponderance of the evidence that someone has engaged in felony-level conduct violating the Lease Addendum on the rental property, they must require the landlord to evict the entire family residing in the unit. § 742(f)(1). If the FPD determines that someone has engaged in misdemeanor-level conduct
22

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 23 of 68
on the property that violates the Lease Addendum and “threatens the peaceful enjoyment or safety of any other resident or neighbor to the premises,” the Police Department has discretion to determine whether to order the eviction of the entire family. Id.
96. The FPD can order eviction on either of these bases without even bringing criminal charges, and even a dismissal or acquittal on the relevant charges is not a bar to ordering eviction. § 7-42(f)(2).
97. According to public records, on one occasion in 2016, the FPD issued a lease termination demand notice targeting a household based on a March 22 search of the home for drugs. The officers’ reports describe the execution of the search warrant without mentioning that any drugs were found, and the tenant was never convicted for a crime related to drugs found in the home. The tenant had, however, been charged with possession of marijuana in his car the week before. Accordingly, it appears that although law enforcement was unable to find drugs in the home, the FPD nonetheless opted to force the tenant’s eviction.
98. The vagueness of the Lease Addendum language, combined with its extraordinary breadth, lends itself to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
99. There is no exemption in the Ordinance when the felony-level conduct was an act of domestic violence, meaning that its text allows for the eviction of a victim of domestic violence and the rest of her family along with the individual alleged to have committed the crime.
100. While the Ordinance provides for a hearing for a landlord who wishes to contest an eviction order, there is no such provision of process for the impacted tenants. § 7-42(f)(2).
23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 24 of 68
101. The disorderly conduct provisions of the Ordinance, § 7-41, create an additional framework for forcing landlords to evict tenants, this time after three incidents of “disorderly conduct” within twelve months, § 7-41(c)(3).
102. Disorderly conduct is defined here with exceptional breadth. Thirty-three separate categories of crime can constitute disorderly conduct, including underage drinking, possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, and disturbing the peace and quiet of neighbors. §§ 7-41(b)(7), (5), (1), (10). Moreover, the Ordinance specifically states that disorderly conduct is not limited to these enumerated categories. § 7-41(b).
103. The Ordinance explicitly permits the FPD to issue disorderly conduct notices without bringing criminal charges, and explicitly allows the disorderly conduct determination to stand even if a tenant is acquitted of a related criminal charge. § 7-41(c).
104. A first instance of disorderly conduct results in a notice to the landlord instructing the landlord to take steps to prevent further violations; a second instance results in a notice requiring the landlord to provide information about the steps they have taken. § 7-41(c)(1)–(2). After a third instance, the landlord is directed to evict the entire household, and/or the City will act to suspend, revoke, or decline to renew the landlord’s rental license. § 7-41(c)(3).
105. The Ordinance provides no process through which tenants can contest these determinations. Landlords can contest the first and second notices only by requesting reconsideration from the police officer who made the disorderly conduct determination; they can contest the third notice with the City Council. § 7-41(d). These deficits in process enhance the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
24

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 25 of 68
106. For example, police have tremendous discretion to force the eviction of an entire family as a result of several noise complaints. First and second disorderly conduct notices also force landlords to take action to discipline their tenants, even where the landlord does not see the underlying conduct as an issue affecting the landlord-tenant relationship.
107. The Ordinance also allows the City to revoke a landlord’s rental license altogether (or to deny, suspend, or not renew that license) if, among other reasons, a landlord fails “to actively pursue the eviction of a tenant or otherwise terminate the lease with a tenant” who has violated the disorderly conduct provisions or the Lease Addendum or who has “otherwise created a public nuisance” in violation of the law. § 744(c)(6).
108. In sum, the Ordinance allows the FPD to inject itself into the relationship between landlord and tenant from the inception of the lease. It allows police to order eviction of an entire family based upon allegations of criminal conduct by them or others, even without charging anyone with a crime.
109. By providing the FPD with this tremendous discretion, the Ordinance significantly expands the impact of any bias in policing decisions.
110. For example, public records demonstrate that, in 2016, police responded to eight separate complaints involving a white household before issuing a first disorderly conduct notice for a noise violation. In contrast, Police issued a first disorderly conduct notice that year to the household of a Black man who had been in a single loud verbal argument with another Black man outside of his building. The same year, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to the household of a Latina woman who had been home
25

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 26 of 68
alone and screaming in grief over her aunt’s recent death, despite no prior incidents noted.
111. In 2017, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to a household consisting of a Black mother and her two children after a neighbor called in a noise complaint, which the police report describes as having to do with the reaction to a moth trapped in the house. Police issued this notice on the very same day that they issued an eviction demand aimed at excluding from the unit a man who had stabbed the mother in the throat a month prior.
112. Under the Ordinance, aggressive or bias-based policing can result in entire families unjustly losing their homes. In 2016, the FPD sent a notice demanding eviction of an entire household after a fifteen-year-old living there was arrested for the petty misdemeanor of possession of a small amount of marijuana.
113. Tenants who lose their homes because of an eviction demand from the FPD sometimes leave Faribault, believing that no landlord will house them and risk a conflict with police.
The Criminal Records Screening Policy 114. The Ordinance requires Faribault landlords to conduct criminal records
checks for all potential tenants. The City supplements this language with instructions to landlords telling them not to house anyone with a criminal record. These instructions, combined with the Ordinance text and Faribault’s enforcement practices, constitute Defendants’ Criminal Records Screening Policy.
115. The Ordinance requires licensees to “[c]onduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of
26

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 27 of 68
third party background check procedures for tenants.” § 7-42(b)(3); see also § 7-42(d) (“All licensees will conduct criminal background checks on all prospective tenants eighteen (18) years and older.”)
116. According to the Ordinance, the criminal background check must cover “at least the last three (3) years” and be a “statewide” check. § 7-42(d)(1). This check “must be done ‘in person’ or by utilizing the most recent update of the state criminal history files.” Id. If potential tenants have not lived in Minnesota for at least three years, the Ordinance requires searching tenants’ previous states of residence. § 7-42(d)(2)–(3).
117. The criminal background check requirements in the current Ordinance differ in only one respect from those in the 2014 Ordinance: whereas the 2014 Ordinance made it mandatory for landlords to provide written screening criteria to potential tenants, the current Ordinance says only that landlords “should” have such criteria. Compare Ord. No. 2014-009, § 7-44(4)(e) with Ord. No. 2017-13, § 7-42(d)(5).
118. The City’s website contains a Frequently Asked Questions document concerning the Crime Free Housing Program. This document describes the required background check in terms that contradict the text of the Ordinance. It requires that landlords must conduct a national criminal background check on all prospective tenants who are eighteen years old or older, and that such a check be conducted by a “reputable agency that utilizes the national database.” It states that “[c]riminal background checks conducted by the Faribault Police Department no longer meet the ordinance requirements.”
119. The Frequently Asked Questions document does not suggest any limit on how far into the past a national criminal background check should extend.
27

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 28 of 68
120. The Frequently Asked Questions document makes clear that Defendants’ implementation of the Criminal Records Screening Policy is not limited by the text of the Ordinance.
121. The City of Faribault’s website also contains a page on “Crime Free Multi-Housing.” This webpage provides “Resources,” which it describes as “good resources for rental owners, managers, and residents.”
122. Among the four documents listed as resources is a document entitled “The Importance of Screening, attached hereto as Exhibit D. This document cautions landlords that, given the costs of eviction, “it is more important than ever to do a thorough job of tenant screening.” It then provides suggested screening criteria, including “denying applicants who: […] Have a criminal history.” It also instructs landlords to ask potential tenants if they have “ever been convicted of a crime, including a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, anywhere in the United States.” Ex. D.
123. The “Importance of Screening” document places no limitation on what kinds of criminal records should bar potential tenants from housing. It does not exempt arrests, old convictions, or low-level crimes. See id.
124. According to the Ordinance, landlords must retain the results of the background check for at least one year, or “if the subject of the check becomes a tenant of the licensed premises, one year after the subject of the check has ceased to be a tenant.” § 7-42(d)(4). This information “shall be available for inspection upon request by the city.” Id.
125. While the 2014 Ordinance was in force, the FPD repeatedly cited landlords for failure to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance related to criminal
28

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 29 of 68
record screening and retention of criminal record screening information. According to public records, on eight separate occasions between 2015 and August of 2017, landlords received criminal citations for failing to conduct criminal record screening. Upon information and belief, this practice continues under the current Ordinance.
126. The FPD also contacts the landlords of individuals whom police know to have criminal records to ask questions about their decisions to allow these individuals to move in. These police “compliance check[s],” sometimes initiated with “rental information demand notices,” can result in misdemeanor prosecutions for landlords. Police have even targeted landlords for enforcement when they learn from a probation officer that an individual on probation is residing in a landlord’s property. These contacts serve as a further reminder to landlords that police prohibit them from renting to people with criminal records.
127. In every single case in which public records show that the FPD affirmatively contacted a landlord to ask questions about the landlord’s compliance with the Ordinance, that landlord was currently housing a tenant with a criminal record. In a number of these cases, the tenant’s criminal conviction was more than three years old.
The Occupancy Restriction 128. The Ordinance also introduced into the Faribault code an Occupancy
Restriction Policy that results in evictions for renting families. For Faribault’s large families, disproportionately Somali as a group, it can mean that there are simply no rental homes in Faribault in which they may legally live as a household.
129. The Ordinance states that a rented home cannot house a family numbering more than two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2)(b). For
29

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 30 of 68
example, that no more than five people can legally live in a two-bedroom apartment. That figure increases by one person only if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c). This Occupancy Restriction does not allow for additional occupants even when bedrooms are very large or when an additional room, such as a living room, could be used as a bedroom.
130. Under the Occupancy Restriction, because landlords want to maintain their licenses in good standing, a Faribault family consisting of two adults and three small children will be evicted from a two-bedroom apartment when they have another baby. Eviction is similarly required when a baby is born to a two-parent family with five older children living in a three-bedroom apartment or a family with seven existing children living in a four-bedroom apartment.
131. Although Minnesota statute provides that no residential tenant may be evicted “on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six months prior notice in writing,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 504B.315, the text of the Ordinance makes no mention of this law and therefore purports to override it. Moreover, on information and belief, none of the information provided to landlords about the Ordinance acknowledges the state law. Faribault landlords, unfamiliar with the nuances of preemption doctrine, regularly apply the Occupancy Restriction to require eviction upon the birth of a child.
132. Plaintiffs Rukiya Hussein and Ali Ali were each forced to leave their homes upon the birth of a child as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, as described in more detail below. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has been threatened with eviction under the
30

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 31 of 68
Occupancy Restriction. Numerous clients of Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services have had the same experience. In fact, SCRS serves approximately five families each week who are facing this exact situation.
133. The Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“RCHRA”) administers the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Rice County. Through the program, some low-income Faribault families receive a housing subsidy to help them pay rent in private housing units. Under RCHRA’s Section 8 program, six people can live in a two-bedroom unit, eight people can live in a three-bedroom unit, and ten people can live in a four-bedroom unit. As a result, the Ordinance forces the evictions of families from apartments that RCHRA would allow them to stay in.
134. According to the 2016 American Community Survey the average renter household nationally contains 2.53 people. Given that Somali households compose less than one tenth of one percent of renter households nationally, the figure for non-Somali household size is substantially the same. By contrast, for the population of Somali ancestry, the average renter-occupied household contains 3.62 people, making Somali renter households nearly 50% larger than non-Somali renter households generally.
135. The average family size for households receiving Section 8 in Rice County is 4 people. Given that a significant majority of Section 8 recipients are of Somali national origin, this suggests that Somali families in Rice County are even larger than this national statistic suggests. Moreover, one-quarter of Rice County’s Section 8 households are composed of six or more people.
136. There are at least 71 Somali families in Faribault consisting of six people or more who are actively seeking housing, representing at minimum 40% of all persons
31

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 32 of 68
of Somali ancestry in Faribault. Many Somali families have households of ten, eleven, or twelve members.
137. In contrast, the average renter household in Faribault contains 2.37 people, indicating that non-Somali households in Faribault are far smaller than Somali households.
138. There is a severe shortage of rental housing available for large families in Faribault. A recent draft of the 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted the limited availability of four-bedroom rental units and the nonexistence of available five-bedroom units.
139. In 2015, when local social service agency Three Rivers Community Action opened Prairiewood Townhomes, an affordable housing development in Faribault containing nineteen three-bedroom units and six four-bedroom units, every single unit had been leased before it was built. There is currently a long waiting list for those units. As a result, a large family evicted because of the Ordinance and its occupancy standards may be unable to find any legal housing in Faribault at all.
140. Because large Faribault families are disproportionately Somali, Somali families are disproportionately likely to lose their homes, and sometimes to lose their residency in Faribault altogether, as a result of the Occupancy Restriction.
Intentional Discrimination in the Passage of the Ordinance 141. The Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with the express intent and
purpose to discriminate against Somali and Black people on the basis of their race and national origin.
32

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 33 of 68
Direct Evidence 142. There was a specific and articulated link between animus against Black Somali residents of Faribault and the passage of the Ordinance. 143. The October 2014 Bohlen Memorandum, part of the City Council’s legislative record, stated that community concerns about downtown crime were not borne out by an examination of police records, and explicitly linked these concerns to “fears and cultural clashes taking place” as well as the proximity of a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups.” See Ex. B. 144. Chief Bohlen went on to explain that “[t]he Somali culture is here to stay and [he had] personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city.” He noted that these “new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street.” Id. 145. According to the Waldock Memorandum, drafted by the City’s Community Development Director and introduced into the legislative record, “participation in a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program” were City staff’s ideas for addressing the “concerns” about crime downtown, which Chief Bohlen had written were nothing more than manifestations of bias against Somalis. See Ex. C. The first draft of the 2014 Ordinance was put before the City Council explicitly as a response to these “concerns.” 146. There were no facts in the legislative record suggesting an increase in crime downtown, and the Chief of Police had found any such concerns to be unfounded.
33

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 34 of 68
147. That the City Council ignored statements from the Chief of Police that there was no crime problem downtown and that any concerns were attributable to bias, and nonetheless proceeded to enact an Ordinance allegedly aimed at controlling crime downtown represents a relevant departure from a normal substantive conclusion.
148. The 2017 revisions to the Ordinance were intended to allow the City to “more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance,” and did not represent any significant break with the policies or purpose of the 2014 Ordinance. The 2017 Ordinance therefore incorporates the animus that fueled the passage of the 2014 Ordinance.
Discriminatory Effects 149. There are also ample additional facts supporting the role that animus played in the passage of the Ordinance. 150. In Faribault, an ordinance targeting rental housing and its occupants will inherently have a starkly disparate impact on Black people. Approximately 90% of Faribault’s Black households are renter households, as compared to just 28% for nonHispanic white households. 151. The fact that the ordinance targets people with criminal records causes it to have a further discriminatory effect on Black people, who are more than ten times as likely as white Minnesotans to be incarcerated in Minnesota’s prisons. These disparities are explored further below with respect to the disparate impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy. 152. Moreover, the fact that the Ordinance creates housing consequences for tenants after police make note of their allegedly criminal conduct further suggests that there will be a disparate impact on Black people. One study showed that in Rice County,
34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 35 of 68
Black people are 3.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites for marijuana possession. Minnesota 2020, Collateral Costs: Racial Disparities and Injustice in Minnesota’s Marijuana Laws 4, 16 (April 2014).2 This is despite studies which show Black people and white people use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4 (2013). The 2003 Minnesota Racial Profiling Report, submitted to the Minnesota Legislature as required by statute, found that Black drivers in Faribault were stopped by police at rates “considerably higher than would be expected” based on estimates of the driving population, while whites and American Indians were stopped at lower than expected rates. The Council on Crime and Justice & Institute on Race & Poverty, The Minnesota Racial Profiling Report – Faribault Police Department 4, 14 (Sept. 22, 2003).3
153. The Occupancy Restriction Policy ensures yet another discriminatory effect of the Ordinance. Because large families inevitably lose their homes as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, and because those families in Faribault are disproportionately Somali Black families, the Occupancy Restriction adversely impacts Somali Black families. Moreover, because of the known shortage of rental units available for large families in Faribault, evictions due to the Occupancy Restriction Policy result in forcing some Somali Black families out of Faribault altogether.
2 https://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/article/collateral_costs_web.pdf. 3 https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2003/mandated/030508/www.crimeandjustice.org/ Pages/Publications/Reports/Racial%20Profiling%20Study/Faribault-Final.pdf.
35

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 36 of 68
Explicit and Coded Expressions of Animus by City Officials 154. Legislators and city staff repeatedly used coded expressions of discrimination in discussion of the Ordinance and of downtown Faribault leading up to the 2017 revisions. 155. In a 2016 City-produced video, then-City Manager Anderson and thenMayor Jasinski, a voting member of the City Council when the 2014 Ordinance passed, referred to the tenants that the Crime-Free Housing Program had helped to “get rid of” as “undesirables.” 156. In 2016, then-Mayor Jasinksi, in a separate interview, discussed the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize” downtown. 157. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi discussed on video the need for a loitering ordinance and increased police presence downtown because of men standing on the sidewalk, and noted she had “seen a change first hand” over the last 18 years, the period during which Faribault’s Black and Somali population grew significantly. In a 2016 video interview, she stated that the City needed to attract higher-income people to balance the lower-income people, “or we’re going to flip like Detroit in a few years.” Community Animus and Historical Background of the Decision 158. Moreover, community animus targeted at Black Somali residents, in the form of unsubstantiated “concerns” about downtown crime, motivated the passage of the Ordinance. Memoranda in the legislative record make that clear. 159. Community animus against Black Somalis downtown also forms a crucial part of the historical background of the decision. A 2011 report noted the “negative
36

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 37 of 68
perception” of downtown safety was due in part to “low income residents . . . loitering and/or congregating” downtown. That report suggested that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the downtown district.”
160. 2013 statements in the Faribault Daily News also demonstrate community animus. The newspaper reported that downtown business owners were complaining about drug activity and theft, although police statistics did not corroborate that concern. One resident quoted explicitly referred to the “new look” of downtown’s population when speculating about why some feel downtown is unsafe. That same year, a letter to the editor discussed the writer’s fear of loitering Somalis, and suggested that Faribault should not “permit[] this activity.”
161. The creation and administration of the Downtown Housing Improvement Program is also part of the relevant historical background. With that Program, the City explicitly funds developers to transform downtown housing affordable to low-income people—and populated disproportionately by Black people—to housing including, for example, “pet spas” for wealthier people. To ensure that this program will result in the right kind of residents, the City requires that developers receiving funding charge rents above City-dictated thresholds and prohibit anyone who receives a housing subsidy from living in their units.
162. Moreover, there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance. As a result, the enactment of the Ordinance constitutes prohibited intentional discrimination.
37

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 38 of 68
Disparate Impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy 163. Because the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory
impact on the basis of race and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
164. Through the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Defendants instruct landlords to reject potential tenants with any criminal record whatsoever. Defendants require landlords to make records of their criminal records checks available to police at any time, and they follow up with landlords who have nonetheless housed tenants that police know to have criminal records.
165. Because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Faribault landlords reject people looking for housing when a member of the household has a criminal record. Landlords, even those who used to be flexible about accepting tenants with criminal records, have changed their policies for fear of retribution from the City if they accept these tenants now.
166. In April 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) released “Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real EstateRelated Transactions”4 (“HUD Guidance”). That guidance notes that 100 million adults, nearly one-third of the U.S. population, have a criminal record of some kind. Id. at 1. It makes clear that because people of color are disproportionately likely to have criminal records, using criminal records to restrict housing opportunities can have a racially disparate impact prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. Id. at 2.
4 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF. 38

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 39 of 68
167. As a result, a screening policy that “fails to take into account the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction,” as well as its recency, is unlikely to satisfy the Fair Housing Act. HUD Guidance 7. Individualized consideration of people seeking housing opportunities presents a less discriminatory alternative to barring individuals who have been convicted of crimes on any kind of blanket basis. Id.
168. The HUD Guidance also makes clear that barring an individual from housing based on a record of arrest, as opposed to conviction, will always violate the Fair Housing Act, because arrest records “do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct.” Id. at 5.
169. Despite the existence of the HUD Guidance, the Ordinance does not alert landlords to the risk that they incur Fair Housing Act liability by excluding tenants based upon criminal records.
170. In fact, one of the questions in the Frequently Asked Questions Document is “Doesn’t the ordinance promote discrimination or profiling?” The response provided by the City begins: “No. The Federal Fair Housing Act . . . has seven protected classes. A person’s behavior is not a protected class.” This instruction, that complying with the Crime-Free Ordinance cannot create Fair Housing Act liability, runs directly counter to the HUD Guidance and the law.
171. Because—both nationally and within Minnesota—Black people are significantly more likely than white people to have criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has an adverse disparate impact on Black people.
39

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 40 of 68
172. Because criminal record statistics broken down by race are not available, incarceration and arrest rates can be used as proxies. The HUD Guidance takes this approach. HUD Guidance 3–4.
173. Nationally, Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate more than 5 times higher than the rate for white people. Ashley Nellis, The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons 3 (2016) (“Color of Justice”).5 The Minnesota disparity is even starker. Minnesota is one of just five states in which the Black incarceration rate is more than ten times higher than the white incarceration rate. Id.
174. As of July 1, 2017, 34.4% of Minnesota’s inmate population was Black, yet Black or African Americans comprised only 6.2% Minnesota’s population; thus, Black people in Minnesota are incarcerated at over 5.5 times their proportion of the population. See Minnesota Department of Corrections, Adult Inmate Profile as of 07/01/2017 3 (July 2017); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Minnesota (last updated July 1, 2017).
175. Much of this disparity can be attributed to the disparity in rates of arrest for drug possession. Nationally, in 2010, a Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4 (2013).6 In Minnesota, according to the same analysis, the disparity was even worse: a Black person was 7.81 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Id. at 18, 49.
5 http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-JusticeRacial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf.
6 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf. 40

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 41 of 68
176. The FPD arrest data for the years 2014–2017 shows that Black people in Faribault, like Black people across Minnesota and nationally, are arrested at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. For example, in 2015, the year the Ordinance went into effect, Black people made up just 8.1% of the Faribault population but 44.8% of the arrests for “Disorderly Conduct” were of Black people.
177. In sum, both in Minnesota and in the country as a whole, people with criminal records are disproportionately Black, and Black people are far more likely than whites to have criminal records. As a result, Black people are much more likely than whites to be barred from rental housing in Faribault because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
178. The Criminal Records Screening Policy is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
179. The ostensible purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program is to “preserve and protect the city’s neighborhoods and to promote public safety.” Ordinance § 7-42(a). If “preserv[ing] and protect[ing] neighborhoods” means keeping people of color out of Faribault, that discriminatory goal cannot save the policy.
180. Instructing landlords to exclude anyone with a criminal record, without limitation, is not necessary to achieve these goals. Instructing landlords instead to give individualized consideration to each potential tenant, and advising landlords of the need to comply with the Fair Housing Act and the HUD Guidance, is a less discriminatory alternative to the Criminal Records Screening Policy. Such a policy would serve public safety equally well.
41

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 42 of 68
181. Specifically, Defendant could inform landlords that, if they choose to perform criminal records screening on potential tenants, they must consider indvidualized factors like the nature of the conviction, the amount of time since conviction or release, rehabilitation and good conduct, including good tenancy, and current support from household and community. HUD Guidance 7. They can exclude potential tenants only where this evaluation shows that the potential tenant presents a demonstrable risk to resident safety or property. HUD Guidance 6. This approach would continue to protect public safety while reducing the number of people of color who are barred from housing in Faribault as a result of Defendants’ policy.
182. The discriminatory effect of the Criminal Records Screening Policy is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against Black people. The City of Faribault fully understands the effect that the Criminal Records Screening Policy has on the racial make-up of Faribault’s tenant population. It nonetheless intentionally implemented and continues to pursue the policy for the express purpose of limiting the number of Black people in Faribault.
Disparate Impact of the Occupancy Restriction 183. Because the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on
the basis of national origin and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
184. The Occupancy Restriction requires Faribault landlords to evict tenants when the birth of an additional child means that the number of household members
42

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 43 of 68
exceeds two times the number of bedrooms plus one, regardless of the square footage of the unit or the availability of additional sleeping spaces.
185. In the context of claims of family status discrimination against landlords, HUD guidelines addressing occupancy restrictions note numerous factors relevant to determining whether an occupancy restriction is reasonable. See Fair Housing Enforcement—Occupancy Standards Notice of Statement of Policy, 63 Fed. Reg. 70256. These factors include the size of bedrooms and unit, the age of children, and the availability of additional sleeping areas. The Occupancy Restriction considers none of these factors.
186. HUD guidelines also note that occupancy policies may be found to be pretextual where there is evidence of discriminatory statements. Id.
187. Because, as detailed above, Somali families are significantly larger than non-Somali families, this policy has a prohibited disparate impact on families of Somali national origin. The disparate impact of Occupancy Restriction is enhanced by the extremely limited availability of rental units with enough bedrooms to legally house large families under the Ordinance.
188. In sum, Somali families are far more likely than non-Somali families to be evicted from their homes based upon the size of their families. They are also much more likely than non-Somalis to be forced out of rental housing in Faribault altogether as a result of the Ordinance, because their families are too large to live in any available rental units legally.
189. The Occupancy Restriction is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
43

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 44 of 68
190. Although no purpose for the Occupancy Restriction is given in the Ordinance, Faribault would likely claim that it is necessary to protect the health or safety of tenants.
191. However, an Occupancy Restriction that fails to take into account the total square footage of the unit or its bedrooms, and that fails to account for additional available sleeping spaces—like living rooms—that are not legal bedrooms, cannot be necessary to protect health or safety. A policy that takes these factors into account is a less discriminatory alternative to the Occupancy Restriction.
192. Moreover, allowing three occupants in a bedroom only in situations when all of those occupants are under two years old is not justified by health or safety. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control recommend that infants share a room with their parents for the first year of life. Additionally, a bedroom shared by three elementary-school-age children is not an inherent health or safety hazard. Raising this age for additional occupants is another less discriminatory alternative to the Occupancy Restriction.
193. The discriminatory effect of the Occupancy Restriction is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against people of Somali national origin. Defendant fully understands the effect that the Occupancy Restriction has on the make-up of Faribault’s tenant population and nonetheless intentionally implemented the Occupancy Restriction for the express purpose of limiting the number of people of Somali ancestry in Faribault.
44

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 45 of 68
Individual Plaintiffs Thelma Jones 194. Thelma Jones is a Black woman and U.S. citizen. She is the mother of
Plaintiff Priyia Lacey. 195. Ms. Jones moved to Faribault in 2008, in search of a small city which
would be a better environment in which to raise her children. 196. Ms. Jones worked as a home health aide for many years. Most recently,
she worked for five years at Milestone Senior Living as a Certified Nursing Assistant in the memory care unit, until health issues forced her to stop working in October 2017.
197. In the fall of 2016, Ms. Jones was told by her landlord that she had two weeks to move out of the five-bedroom house she had lived in for five years, along with her children.
198. Prior to this, Ms. Jones had always paid her rent on time and had a good relationship with her landlord.
199. Public records show that about this same time, the FPD charged Ms. Jones’ landlord with the criminal misdemeanors of “Rental Dwelling Registration/Fail to Register” and “C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing]-Fail to Attend Training.” Police noted that Ms. Jones had told them that she was a “regular renter with a lease” living in the home, making the landlord’s failure to register the property and attend training violations of the Ordinance.
200. The landlord told Ms. Jones that police had made clear Ms. Jones would testify against her on criminal charges if she did not remove Ms. Jones from the house.
45

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 46 of 68
201. Ms. Jones and her family were forced to leave their home. The landlord was never convicted of the charges.
202. In discussing the charges against the landlord, police records also state that “The C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing] Ordinance is designed to deter criminal activity and, if necessary, to remove problem tenants from rental properties in order to preserve order in a neighborhood,” before going on to discuss why Ms. Jones and her family constituted “problem tenants.”
203. The records state that police had “responded to complaints at this home 82 times” and characterized Ms. Jones’ home as the site of “ongoing criminal activity.” The records do not note any criminal convictions that would support this assertion.
204. The records also state that the property itself was “often found to be unsightly and unkempt” without any support for this assertion.
205. Rather than being based on any actual “ongoing criminal activity” at Ms. Jones’ home, police focused on her and her children as a result of repeated and harassing calls to the police by her neighbors, all of whom were white. Ms. Jones remembers calls to the police from neighbors with no legitimate basis when she hosted barbecues outside for her large Black family and when she hosted children’s birthday parties. She even recalls visits from the police prompted by calls when her children were outside playing on the trampoline.
206. On one occasion, one of her white neighbors told Ms. Jones that she should “go back to where [she] came from.”
46

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 47 of 68
207. The City of Faribault labelled Ms. Jones and her family as problem tenants not as a result of confirmed criminal activity on her property, but as a result of harassing calls to the police from her white neighbors.
208. When Ms. Jones’ landlord told her that she had to leave, Ms. Jones was able to negotiate for some additional time to search for a new home for her family. After extensive searching, Ms. Jones was only able to find a much smaller two bedroom apartment. As a result, two of her older children can no longer live with her, as they were previously doing in the five-bedroom house. She was also forced to give up her family’s dog because it is not allowed in the new apartment.
209. The move itself was incredibly stressful, and Ms. Jones had to stay in a hotel for three days because she could not move into the new home right away. She was also forced to rent a U-Haul for three days and put her belongings in storage.
210. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family.
211. Two of Ms. Jones’ children, who no longer have bedrooms in their mother’s home, are struggling to find places to live. Neither has been able to find stable housing in Faribault. One of those children, Plaintiff Priyia Lacey, is further discussed below.
212. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Jones and her family lost their home and have been separated from each other.
213. In addition to being too small, the new apartment is on the second floor. Climbing the stairs is difficult for Ms. Jones, who has sarcoidosis and uses oxygen.
47

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 48 of 68
214. Ms. Jones’ current lease includes the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also subjected to the required criminal record screening when she applied for the apartment, and she paid the cost of that screening.
215. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Jones and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
216. In her new home, Ms. Jones is constantly nervous about making noise, which could result in disorderly conduct violations or other penalties from the police. Ms. Jones has small grandchildren, one of whom lives with her, and they run around like children do. Although the apartment underneath them is currently vacant, Ms. Jones is constantly worried that someone will move in and complain to the police, leading to eviction.
217. Because of the size of the apartment combined with her concerns that a family gathering could lead to noise complaints and eviction, Ms. Jones has had to rent out other spaces to host family events like Easter. She has decided that she will not host children’s birthday parties at home because of her fear of receiving noise complaints.
218. Ms. Jones and her family are at risk of losing their home again as a result of the Ordinance.
Priyia Lacey 219. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. She is the daughter of Plaintiff Thelma Jones. She is twenty-one years old.
48

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 49 of 68
220. Priyia works during the day at Inisfail, a residential facility as a Recipient Caregiver for people with mental illness. She also works nights at Cannon Valley Printing.
221. Ms. Lacey resided with her mother, Ms. Jones, before her family was forced out of their home.
222. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Lacey and her family lost their home and have been separated from each other.
223. Ms. Lacey was pregnant at the time she lost her home. She had never lived on her own before and could not afford to pay rent on her own. She wished that she could continue to live with her mother who provided her both emotional and financial support. This time was stressful for Ms. Lacey and she struggled.
224. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family.
225. Ms. Lacey has a nine-month-old baby. She has actively sought, and continues to seek, housing in Faribault without success. Ms. Lacey wants to live in Faribault to be close to her family.
226. In 2016, Ms. Lacey applied to the Faribault H.R.A. for public housing. She finally made it to the number two slot on the waiting list and filled out her paperwork for an apartment, which would allow her to be close to her family and would be affordable. Faribault H.R.A. sent her a letter dated February 9, 2018 stating that she is “INELIGIBLE” for an apartment owned by the Faribault H.R.A. because “Criminal background check shows 2015 Assault warrant, 2017 Judgement Assault. HRA policy states that the HRA may deny admission to an applicant if any household member has
49

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 50 of 68
engaged in any violent criminal activity within the last five years.” She appealed this decision, but was immediately denied, without any further explanation, on February 13, 2018.
227. Ms. Lacey was never convicted of this misdemeanor charge, which was based on an incident that took place away from her mother’s home. Her case was closed as of May 18, 2017.
228. Ms. Lacey feels concerned that she will continue to be denied housing in Faribault as a result of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
229. As Ms. Lacey continues to seek housing in Faribault, the criminal background check required by the Ordinance makes her substantially likely to be denied housing again on the basis of an arrest alone or as a result of an erroneous background check.
230. The error in the H.R.A’s background check gives Ms. Lacey reason to be concerned that landlords’ future criminal record screening of her will result in the denial of housing.
231. As Ms. Lacey continues to apply for housing in Faribault, she will be forced to pay the costs of the required criminal record screening for each application.
Faisa Abdi 232. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 233. Ms. Abdi and her husband have resided with their children in the same three-bedroom apartment for over four years. The apartment also has a living room. 234. They have seven children, all of whom are age twelve or younger. Four of their children attend Faribault public schools.
50

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 51 of 68
235. Ms. Abdi’s landlord has threatened that her family will be evicted due to the size of her household.
236. The landlord first made this threat shortly after Ms. Abdi’s secondyoungest child was born in June 2015.
237. The landlord informed Ms. Abdi that her family would have to find somewhere else to live or reduce their household size.
238. Since then, Ms. Abdi has searched without success for a new apartment. 239. Ms. Abdi feels extremely stressed that her landlord has threatened that she and her family will be evicted from their home. 240. The Abdis have always paid their rent on time and, other than this household size issue, have not had any conflict with the landlord. 241. Ms. Abdi is desperate for her family to keep the home. She is even considering taking two of her U.S. citizen children, born in Faribault, to Africa so that her family can remain in their home despite the Occupancy Restriction, as she has heard other Somali-American families have done. 242. Ms. Abdi told her landlord about this plan and that she needed to apply for passports. On information and belief, it is on that condition that she has been allowed to stay in her home so far. 243. Ms. Abdi feels that the only way she will be able to stay in Faribault is if her family is separated and members of her family move to a different place. 244. She does not want to take her children to Africa, where they will not have the same opportunities that they would have in the United States. She would not do so but for the Occupancy Restriction.
51

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 52 of 68
245. Ms. Abdi and her family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together.
246. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Abdi and her family are substantially likely to lose their home. Ms. Abdi has suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
247. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Abdi and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
248. Ms. Abdi and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Ali Ali 249. Plaintiff Ali Ali is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 250. Mr. Ali works at the Viracon glass factory in Owatonna, Minnesota. 251. Mr. Ali and his wife have six children, all of whom are age nine or younger. Three of their children attend Faribault public schools. 252. Mr. Ali and his family were forced to move out of their home in February 2018 because his family had a new baby. 253. Mr. Ali’s landlord sent a letter on May 10, 2017, a month before his youngest child was born, stating that their family had to move out by August 31, 2017. 254. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in their family, brought the number of people in the Alis’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction.
52

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 53 of 68
255. Before they were forced to move, the Alis had lived in the same apartment for three years.
256. Mr. Ali was able to negotiate for extra time to try to find a place to live. 257. It was very difficult to find for a new home for him and his family and he had to spend a lot of time searching online and visiting apartments. 258. Mr. Ali was eventually able to find a new apartment to move into, which is where his family lives now. 259. The new home, however, is significantly more expensive and it is more difficult for Mr. Ali to pay the rent. 260. Additionally, during the move, he was forced to throw away furniture due to the cost of moving it. Moreover, his previous landlord is alleging that he owes money for alleged damage to the apartment that existed before the Ali family moved in. The former landlord is threatening to send this alleged debt “to collection,” which has been stressful for Mr. Ali. 261. As a result of the Ordinance, Mr. Ali and his family lost their home, and Mr. Ali suffered emotional distress. 262. Mr. Ali and his family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together. 263. The eight people in Mr. Ali’s family now live in a four-bedroom apartment. Mr. Ali’s wife is expecting a baby. If Mr. Ali and his wife have another child after this baby, as they plan to, their family will exceed the number of people allowed to live there under the Ordinance. As a result, he remains at risk of losing his home again as a result of the Ordinance.
53

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 54 of 68
264. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Mr. Ali and his family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
265. Mr. Ali and his family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Rukiya Hussein 266. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 267. Ms. Hussein works for Essential Home Health Care as a personal care assistant. Her husband is the lead supervisor on the night shift at the Jennie-O Turkey factory. 268. In late June of 2015, Ms. Hussein gave birth by caesarean section to a baby girl. 269. Her daughter was born with a thyroid problem and needed medication every day. 270. When her baby was just a month old, Ms. Hussein received a letter from her landlord stating that her family would have to move out of her apartment and return the keys within sixty days. 271. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in the family, brought the number of people in the Husseins’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction. 272. The Husseins had lived in the apartment since October 2010. On the date they received notice of their eviction, their six children were all age ten or younger. There was a girls’ bedroom, a boys’ bedroom, and a room for Ms. Hussein and her husband.
54

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 55 of 68
273. The apartment was large enough for the Husseins to live in safely. 274. The landlord was aware the Husseins had a newborn baby. 275. On previous occasions, the landlord had asked Ms. Hussein if she was pregnant. 276. The Husseins always paid their rent on time and never had a complaint from the landlord. 277. The landlord was compelled to evict the Husseins to comply with Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Hussein and her family lost their housing. 278. When Ms. Hussein received the notice of eviction she was extremely distraught. She was required not to engage in physical activity as she recovered from the caesarian section surgery. Additionally, her newborn daughter was sick and she had to put her energy into caring for her baby. 279. Moreover, she knew it was extremely difficult to find rental housing in Faribault. Family and friends had been forced to leave Faribault after they were unable to find homes to rent. 280. Despite these challenges, Ms. Hussein had no choice but to try to find a new home very quickly. 281. Because her husband worked the night shift, she had to look for a new home daily, in spite of having just come home with a sick newborn. Ms. Hussein took her baby with her every day to look for housing. 282. Ms. Hussein was anxious that her family would not be able to find a place to live in Faribault. The whole family was worried. Her children asked her to explain why
55

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 56 of 68
the landlord had evicted them. They could not understand why they would have to leave their home just because their family had a newborn baby.
283. Both Ms. Hussein and her husband were extremely sad to lose their home of over five years. Ms. Hussein cried in front of the landlord.
284. Ms. Hussein found it physically painful and stressful to look for a new home for her family in these circumstances. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
285. Ms. Hussein loves Faribault, which is home to her. The Husseins now have seven children, five of whom attend Faribault public schools.
286. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Hussein and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
287. Ms. Hussein’s current lease includes the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also forced to submit to the required criminal record check, and to cover the costs of this screening for her and her husband.
288. Ms. Hussein and her family plan to continue to live in Faribault. 289. Ms. Hussein and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future. David Trotter-Ford 290. Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. 291. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée live and co-parent eight children together. Mr. Trotter-Ford is the primary caregiver for the children that reside with the couple.
56

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 57 of 68
292. Mr. Trotter-Ford takes pride in how he raises all of his children, irrespective of whether they are biologically related. He is a father to all of the children he and his fiancée co-parent together, although three of them are his fiancée’s biological children. For Mr. Trotter-Ford, his family is his priority.
293. In the fall of 2015, Mr. Trotter-Ford, his now-fiancée, and their children, were evicted from their home at the behest of the Faribault Police Department after a warrant for Mr. Trotter-Ford’s arrest was issued.
294. On August 28, 2015, Mr. Trotter Ford spanked two of the children with a belt several times.
295. On September 10, 2015, before Mr. Trotter-Ford had been convicted of any crime and before charges had even been filed against him, the FPD sent an “Eviction Demand Notice” to the landlord of the home where Mr. Trotter-Ford, his fiancée, and their children resided together.
296. The letter stated that “Law enforcement responded on 8/28/2015 to 1520 Western Ave. for a disorderly violation warranting removal proceedings for all occupants of the residence. At this point I am requesting that you move forward with steps to have the tenant vacate the unit.”
297. The letter cites “MN Statutes, Section 609.221 through Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.2231, which prohibit assault” as the basis for the Eviction Demand Notice. Mr. Trotter-Ford was never charged with or convicted of a crime in this portion of the criminal code, although his entire family lost their home on this ground.
298. When a criminal complaint was later filed against Mr. Trotter-Ford, it charged him with the gross misdemeanor of Malicious Punishment of a Child in violation
57

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 58 of 68
of Minnesota Statute 609.377.1. That charge was eventually dismissed. On February 16, 2016, he pled guilty to Neglect of a Child in violation of Minnesota Statute 609.378.1(a)(1), a gross misdemeanor. He was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days of electronic home monitoring and two years of probation.
299. The Social Services Department took custody of the couple’s children as a result of the criminal charge. Mr. Trotter-Ford continued to have visitation with his biological children.
300. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée were forced to move out of their home under threat of eviction. They could find nowhere else to go, and had to stay in a lowquality hotel for approximately two months before they were able to find a new place to live.
301. Mr. Trotter-Ford suffered emotional distress as a result. 302. It was very difficult for Mr. Trotter-Ford to find a new home for his family. 303. Mr. Trotter-Ford applied for several units and had his application denied, at least in part because of the criminal background check required by the Faribault Rental Licensing Ordinance. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s criminal record shows that he has several convictions for misdemeanors, but no felony convictions. 304. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée did everything possible to get their children back into their custody—including participating in parenting classes and working closely with their case worker. They were deeply concerned that being unable to secure housing would prevent them from being reunited with their children.
58

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 59 of 68
305. Full custody rights were restored as a result of their cooperation with the intense scrutiny of the Social Services Department.
306. The family has now been reunited and lives together in a five-bedroom, two-car garage home. Mr. Trotter-Ford, his fiancée, and four of their children (including a baby born in 2017) reside together. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s other four children spend weekends and some vacations with them. Mr. Trotter-Ford has returned to his role as the primary full-time caretaker of the children who reside with them.
307. Mr. Trotter-Ford knows that calls to police by neighbors, regardless of whether they result in criminal prosecutions or convictions, could result in his family losing their home again as a result of the Ordinance. He remains at risk of being harmed again by the Ordinance.
Organizational Plaintiff 308. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a
nonprofit organization that has been providing services to the refugee population in southeastern Minnesota since 1999.
309. SCRS has two offices: one in Faribault, Minnesota and one in Rochester, Minnesota. Nine staff members work in SCRS’s Faribault office.
310. SCRS’s mission is to promote and advance the social well-being and the welfare of its members by providing community and resettlement services. SCRS assists refugee families to secure basic needs and resources for self-sufficiency and to acclimate to a new way of life.
59

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 60 of 68
311. Defendants have interfered with SCRS’s mission to assist refugee families to secure their basic needs by making it considerably more difficult for members to find and keep housing in Faribault.
312. The Ordinance has also forced SCRS to divert significant organizational resources from other planned activities. Because members of the Somali community seek help from SCRS when threatened with the loss of housing due to the birth of a new baby, SCRS has redirected and continues to redirect staff time, office space, and emergency assistance funds to assist these members with housing issues created by the Ordinance.
313. SCRS staff provides interpretation, transportation and other assistance to members who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction. SCRS assists approximately five families each week who are at risk of losing their homes because of the addition of a new baby to their family.
314. Two of SCRS’s thirteen staff members now work exclusively on housing issues, at a cost to the organization of approximately $70,000 per year. Together, they spend about seventy hours each week assisting families who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction.
315. For example, when a family comes to SCRS with an eviction notice because of the birth of a new baby, SCRS employees help by: translating documents; providing interpretation services that allow clients to communicate with landlords and lawyers from Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services; filling out forms; negotiating with landlords; printing, faxing, and mailing documents, and paying for printing supplies and postage; and hand-delivering documents, including traveling to the surrounding area where landlords or management companies might be located.
60

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 61 of 68
316. Although two staff members work specifically on housing issues, in reality all nine staff members must spend time dealing with housing issues that arise because of the Ordinance.
317. In part as a result of the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction, SCRS has also expended resources to create an emergency assistance program for families who are at risk of losing their homes or who have lost their homes. This emergency assistance program began in November 2017 with $53,000 and was supposed to last a full year, but due to the depth of the need for this funding, SCRS ran out of funding for emergency assistance by April 2018. Approximately 90% of the funding in this program was used to secure new housing for families whose housing was in jeopardy due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction. Specifically, the emergency assistance fund was used to help evicted families pay the upfront costs of renting a new home, such as deposits or last month’s rent required upfront.
318. As a result of the resources SCRS has diverted to addressing housing needs created by the Ordinance, SCRS has fewer resources to devote to other priorities critical to its mission, including resettlement services, civic engagement, education, health, employment, and programs for youth and the elderly.
319. For example, SCRS has had to curtail its employment services. Employment is an area of great need, and SCRS would have prioritized it in the last few years had it not been for the Ordinance. Instead, SCRS has been forced to stop driving community members to job orientations and to their first week of work, as SCRS had previously done. As a result, community members now miss out on job opportunities because they cannot afford transportation before receiving a first paycheck.
61

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 62 of 68
320. SCRS has also been forced to divert resources from its youth programming. SCRS would like to provide tutoring and recreation opportunities for youth, but it can do only a very limited amount of this work because of the volume of housing work created by the Ordinance. SCRS had hired a staff member with the title of Youth Program Administrator, but that staff member now works exclusively on housing issues.
321. SCRS will continue to divert resources to stem the housing crisis facing the Somali-American community in Faribault for as long as the Ordinance continues to cause Somali-American families to lose their homes in Faribault.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 322. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 323. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 324. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Fair Housing Act because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to make unavailable and deny dwellings in Faribault to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin. 325. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the
62

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 63 of 68
passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 326. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 327. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 328. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin. 329. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF § 1981 – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 330. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 331. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all
63

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 64 of 68
laws . . .” Making and enforcing contracts “includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” § 1981(b).
332. Section 1981 protects these rights from “impairment under color of State law.” § 1981(c).
333. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates § 1981 because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to deny the equal right to make and enforce contracts for rental housing to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or ancestry.
334. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – CRIMINAL HISTORY POLICY 335. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 336. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 337. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-
64

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 65 of 68
discriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means.
338. By causing potential tenants to be barred from housing based upon their criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory impact on the basis of race and national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION (art. V, § 7-40(h)) 339. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 340. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 341. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means. 342. By barring families from residing in otherwise-suitable housing based on family size, and by causing tenants to be evicted from housing upon the birth of
65

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 66 of 68
additional children, the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on persons of Somali national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(RACE DISCRIMINATION) 343. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 344. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1. 345. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates Minnesota equal protection because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin. 346. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(ANIMUS AGAINST RENTERS) 347. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above.
66

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 67 of 68
348. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1.
349. In order to survive rational basis scrutiny under the Minnesota Constitution, a policy must satisfy three requirements: (1) the distinctions separating those included within a classification from those excluded must be genuine and substantial rather than arbitrary or fanciful; (2) there must be an evident connection between needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; and (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the government can legitimately attempt to achieve.
350. The Rental Licensing Ordinance explicitly treats renters differently from homeowners and those residing in owner-occupied housing. Renters’ private information, including their dates of residency, are available to the City of Faribault at all times; renters can lose their homes as a consequence of contact with the police; and renters are responsible if guests or others “under the resident’s control” engage in criminal conduct. None of these requirements apply to homeowners or those who reside in owner-occupied homes. There is no evident connection between this classification and any legitimate government purpose, and there is evidence that the Ordinance was adopted with animus toward renters.
351. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
67

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 68 of 68

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and their officials, employees, and agents from implementing or enforcing the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program;
B. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law, Minn. Stat. § 555.01, that the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program, is unlawful and invalid;
C. Compensatory damages, including “garden variety” emotional distress damages, for the Plaintiffs;
D. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and
E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

Dated: June 13, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
Rachel Goodman* Jennesa Calvo-Friedman* American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.549.2500 rgoodman@aclu.org jcalvo-friedman@aclu.org *Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming

/s/ Teresa Nelson Teresa Nelson Ian Bratlie American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: 651.529.1692 tnelson@aclu-mn.org ibratlie@aclu-mn.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

68

 
 CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 72

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

THELMA JONES, PRIYIA LACEY, FAISA ABDI, ALI ALI, RUKIYA HUSSEIN, LUCIA PORRAS, DAVID TROTTER-FORD, AND SOMALI COMMUNITY RESETTLEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF FARIBAULT,
Defendant.

Case No. 18-CV-01643-JRT
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES

INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges the City of Faribault, Minnesota’s illegal and unconstitutional Rental Licensing Ordinance, Ord. No. 2017-13, aimed at reducing the number of people of color living in rental housing within its borders. The Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. In order to rent out residential property in Faribault, every landlord must secure a rental license. To secure and maintain this license, the City of Faribault requires that landlords give police enormous control over their tenants through Faribault’s codified Crime Free Housing Program. 3. The City of Faribault (“Faribault” or “the City”) enacted its Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program in order to target Black Somali tenants living in downtown Faribault, whom some in the community perceived to be engaging in crime and, by their very physical presence on streets and sidewalks, creating a “negative perception” of Faribault.
1

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 72
4. Faribault first enacted the scheme in 2014 despite the fact that its own Chief of Police, Andrew Bohlen, stated in a memorandum to the City Council that there was no downtown crime problem and that “fears and cultural clashes” were to blame for the community concerns. Faribault’s Black Somali population had surged in the years leading up to passage of the Ordinance.
5. Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that landlords use leases that allow police to order all members of a household evicted if any household member or guest engages in what police deem to be criminal activity. Police can order evictions even when there has been no arrest and no prosecution.
6. Before re-enacting the Ordinance with minor revisions, City officials made public statements concerning the Crime Free Housing Program’s success at “get[ting] rid of” residents who are “undesirable[].” One member of the City Council stated that Faribault needed to attract higher income residents or it would “flip like Detroit in a few years.”
7. The Rental Licensing Ordinance also requires that landlords screen potential tenants for criminal history. Faribault instructs landlords to refuse to rent to potential tenants with criminal records, including convictions for minor crimes, without regard to whether a criminal record indicates a present risk for property or safety. Because Black Minnesotans are vastly more likely to have a criminal record than are white Minnesotans, as are Latino Minnesotans, this policy has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect.
8. Finally, the Rental Licensing Ordinance limits the occupancy of every rental unit to two people per legal bedroom plus one, regardless of the size of the
2

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 3 of 72
bedrooms or the availability of additional rooms for sleeping. Because Faribault Somali families tend to be large, such that Faribault Somali households are significantly larger than non-Somali households, this occupancy restriction has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect on people of Somali national origin, who are often evicted upon the birth of a child.
9. These discriminatory policies violate the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the equal rights guarantees provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Minnesota Constitution.
10. This lawsuit seeks to end the many harms wrought by the Rental Licensing Ordinance on tenants and potential tenants, as well as on the health of the broader Faribault community.
PARTIES Plaintiffs
11. Plaintiff Thelma Jones currently resides in rental housing in Faribault, where she has lived since 2008. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Jones and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the CrimeFree Housing Program after the Faribault Police Department threatened Ms. Jones’ landlord with criminal prosecution unless she evicted Ms. Jones and her family.
12. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is actively seeking rental housing in Faribault. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Lacey is Ms. Jones’ daughter. She, too, lost her home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 4 of 72
13. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2010. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family are currently threatened with loss of their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
14. Plaintiff Ali Ali has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2006. He is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their prior home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction and are at risk of losing their current home as their family expands.
15. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2002. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
16. Plaintiff Lucia Porras has lived in Faribault for most of her life. She is a Latina woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Porras is actively seeking rental housing in Faribault after she and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
17. Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford currently resides in rental housing in Faribault, where he has lived since 2010. He is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the CrimeFree Housing Program.
18. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, with its primary places of business in Rochester and Faribault, Minnesota. The Rental Licensing Ordinance interferes with its mission to promote the
4

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 5 of 72
welfare and well-being of members of the Somali community and forces it to divert resources to ameliorate the harms caused to that community by the Ordinance.
Defendant 19. Defendant City of Faribault, Minnesota is a municipality capable of being
sued under Minnesota law. The city is the legal entity responsible for the Faribault Police Department (“FPD”), a law enforcement agency. Plaintiffs base all applicable and appropriate claims as to Defendant City of Faribault on the doctrines of respondeat superior or vicarious liability and municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This action arises under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601– 3619, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 21. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court may award Plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, and this Court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction. 22. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota state law claim, which forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory, injunctive, and other relief
5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 6 of 72
as necessary or proper under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”),1 Minn. Stat. § 555.01 et seq., and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
23. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the events giving rise to the claims made in this complaint have occurred or will occur in this district and because Defendant City of Faribault is located in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Faribault Context: Demographic Change
24. In the years leading up to the 2014 passage of the first Rental Licensing Ordinance, Faribault’s Black population had risen rapidly, and the trend continues.
25. In 2000, according to the United States Census, just 2.7% of Faribault’s population was Black. By 2010, that figure stood at 7.6%. In 2016, the Census’s American Community Survey estimated Faribault’s population to be 9.2% Black.
26. This growth includes considerable growth in Faribault’s population of people of Somali national origin. In 2009, the American Community Survey estimated that there were 175 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, composing about 0.8% of Faribault’s population. By 2016, that population figure had risen by a factor of nearly ten. The American Community Survey estimated that there were 1,036 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, now composing about 4.4% of Faribault’s population.
27. Faribault’s Black residents, including those of Somali national origin, are concentrated in rental housing.
1 The UDJA is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed and administered to “settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” Minn. Stat. § 555.12. 6

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 7 of 72
28. According to the 2010 Census, which provides the most recent statistics available, just 0.5% of owner-occupied households in Faribault were Black households, whereas 8.4% of renter households were Black households. Put differently, nearly 90% of Black households in Faribault lived in rental housing in 2010. By contrast, just 28% of non-Hispanic white households lived in rental housing the same year.
29. Latino residents also disproportionately reside in rental housing. In 2010, more than 40% of Latino households in Faribault lived in rental housing
30. A recent draft of the forthcoming 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted that homeownership “by minority groups in Rice County is staggeringly low,” and that “over 98 percent of households are owned by white Americans.” The study also estimates that, although 19% of Faribault’s population is composed of racial minorities, 2% of its housing units are owned by racial minorities.
31. In Rice County, where Faribault is located, there are approximately three hundred low-income families receiving federally-funded Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, to assist them in paying rent in private market housing. Threequarters of the families receiving this assistance live in Faribault.
32. Two-thirds of the Rice County families receiving Section 8 are Black or African-American. When adults in households receiving Section 8 in Rice County were asked about languages spoken, 390 reported speaking Somali, three times more than the 130 who reported speaking English (some respondents marked more than one language). Thus, a majority of Section 8 recipients in Rice County are of Somali national origin.
Somali Presence and Misperceptions of Downtown Crime
7

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 8 of 72
33. Between 2000 and 2014, the total number of crimes in Faribault dropped significantly. According to Faribault Police Department data reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system, the overall number of property crimes fell by more than a third, even as Faribault’s population grew. Faribault did not consistently report all categories of violent crime data during the period, but the total number of reported violent crimes in 2014 was essentially the same as it had been in 2000.
34. Nonetheless, some Faribault residents reported concerns with crime and safety, especially downtown. Tenants “loitering” on downtown sidewalks were the locus of this concern—particularly if they were Somali.
35. A 2011 Downtown Faribault Market Analysis (“2011 Market Analysis”), funded in part by the state of Minnesota, reported that visitors to the downtown had mentioned safety as one of their top two concerns. However, the same report noted that police “indicated there is little crime in the downtown, and certainly no more than the community at large.” Later, the report noted that “relating to the negative perception of the safety of downtown are the low income residents residing in second floor apartments who are loitering and/or congregating during peak and off-peak hours along the retail corridor.”
36. A large proportion of renters living downtown were people of color. 37. In March 2013, the Faribault Daily News noted that complaints of drug activity and theft downtown had become a hot button issue, but that, once again, police records did not corroborate this concern. A quoted resident said that the perception of downtown as unsafe exists “because people drive up and down the street and see groups
8

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 9 of 72
of people standing in the sidewalks. But that’s not a bad thing. Times are changing, and it’s a matter of people getting used to the new look.”
38. Later that spring, a letter to the editor of the Faribault Daily News explicitly stated that the writer was in fear of Somalis “loitering” around town, and that she did not “understand why our beautiful city permits this activity.”
39. In October 2013, the Faribault Daily News ran an article about a duallanguage video created by the FPD in an attempt to communicate with Faribault’s Somali-speaking community. That article interviewed Asher Ali, the head of the Faribault Diversity Coalition, who discussed the need to address “cultural differences” between downtown businesses and the Somali-American residents who live around them or above them. He noted that Americans deem it “loitering” when Somalis stand around on the street, a regular practice in a culture that places more emphasis on face-to-face interactions.
40. Thus, concerns about “loitering” in downtown Faribault had become a clear code for concerns about the visible presence of Black Somali people downtown.
Events Leading to the Enactment of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance 41. On October 15, 2013, the Faribault City Council’s Joint Committee held a
“Discussion Regarding Downtown.” (Although notes for most 2013 Joint Committee meetings are publicly available on Defendant City of Faribault’s website, no notes from the October 15, 2013 Joint Committee meeting are posted.)
42. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen of the FPD wrote a memorandum to then-City Administrator Brian Anderson discussing “ongoing police efforts to work with the downtown community on Central Avenue to alleviate some of
9

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 10 of 72
the fears and cultural clashes taking place.” (The Bohlen Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) This memorandum began by noting the proximity of the business community to a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups” and the fact that business owners had recently raised concerns about people on the sidewalks, including “alleged criminal activity and open drug transactions.” Chief Bohlen then noted that he had examined police records and concluded that there had been no increase in downtown crime, including drug crime. See Ex. B.
43. The Bohlen Memorandum also mentioned the “increased discussion of a revised loitering ordinance.” He noted that he had discussed the issue with the city attorney and recognized that a loitering ordinance might be “problematic and unenforceable” in many circumstances. See id.
44. Chief Bohlen was correct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that loitering for innocent purposes is part of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53 (1999).
45. The Memorandum segued directly from discussion of this unconstitutional proposal to discussion of plans to improve the relationship between the FPD and the Somali community. Chief Bohlen wrote:
I believe building trusting relationships with the diverse downtown culture is vital to improve police and community relations, cooperatively work towards common goals, establish enforceable laws and make genuine progress. The Somali culture is here to stay and I have personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city and it is not solely a problem with one ethnic group. They are a vital part of the Faribault economy, rent apartments downtown, and communicate differently than the long time residents. The new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street.
10

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 11 of 72
See Ex. B. 46. The Bohlen Memorandum demonstrates the City of Faribault’s awareness
that (1) concerns about downtown safety were not borne out by facts about crime; (2) these concerns were a product of community animus directed at Somali residents of downtown Faribault; and (3) the City could not legally keep its Somali residents from innocently “loitering” on city sidewalks.
47. Six months later, on March 18, 2014, the Joint Committee discussed a “Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program.”
48. As part of this discussion, according to the notes, “[t]he Chief of Police and City Attorney stated that a loitering ordinance may only lead to legal issues when the real issues are more closely related to nuisance violations.” Thus, the discussion once again explicitly positioned the draft rental licensing ordinance as a substitute for the unconstitutional loitering ordinance that had been proposed. See Nicole Stelle Garnett, Relocating Disorder, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1075, 1090 –01 (2005) (arguing that municipalities increasingly turn to property regulation tools in an effort to avoid legal challenges to policing policies aimed at controlling low-income populations).
49. In advance of this meeting, Community Development Director Peter Waldock prepared a memorandum for then-City Administrator Brian Anderson, attaching a draft ordinance substantially similar to the rental licensing ordinance that was subsequently enacted. (The Waldock Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) The Waldock Memorandum explicitly linked the Ordinance to the October discussion of purported crime downtown for which the Bohlen Memorandum had been prepared, stating:
11

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 12 of 72
At the City Council Joint Committee meeting last October, the City Council heard concerns expressed regarding housing conditions in some rental units downtown and concerns with problem tenants in the community. The City Council directed staff to review the issues and recommend ways in which the City could address the issues. As a follow up to this discussion, staff presented a number of ideas for the City Council to consider addressing the concerns. Among these was participation in a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program.
See Ex. C.
50. The Waldock Memorandum demonstrates that the City of Faribault
viewed the Crime-Free Housing Program and the Ordinance as a means to address
ongoing “concerns” about downtown—concerns which Chief Bohlen and the City had
recognized were motivated by animus and not borne out by facts about crime. See id.
51. Moreover, the Crime-Free Housing Program that the Joint Committee
discussed, and that the City eventually adopted, follows a model created by the Arizona-
based International Crime Free Association. The proposed Crime-Free Housing Program,
far from being tailored to respond to the realities of crime in Faribault, was an off-the-
rack solution to a problem that did not exist.
52. The Joint Committee again discussed the draft ordinance at its April 29,
2014 meeting. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen and Peter Waldock prepared
another memorandum to the Joint Council Committee. This memorandum contained no
discussion of any recent increase in crime or calls for police service in Faribault.
Nonetheless, the memorandum stated:
By not addressing problematic tenants through a CFMH program, quality tenants will vacate problem properties, increasing calls for service to PD staff and ultimately change the landscape of tenants renting within Faribault. The city will continue to experience lower quality rental
12

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 13 of 72
housing. The police department will not have a route to address problem tenants as calls for service and complaints increase, taxing existing staff. 53. The draft ordinance had a first and second reading before the City Council in June, and it was published on June 27, 2014. City of Faribault, Ord. No. 2014-009, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 7 and Repealing Chapter 21 of the Faribault City Code (“the 2014 Ordinance”). It passed unanimously and went into effect on January 1, 2015. 54. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi, who had voted to enact the 2014 Ordinance, told the Faribault Daily News in a video interview that she had been trying to get the City Council to address the issue of loitering downtown for more than three years. She acknowledged the racial dynamics of her concern repeatedly. In response to a reporter’s prompt about the large Somali presence downtown as “the elephant in the room,” she stated: “[H]ere’s the thing, you know, I’ve got a lot of friends that are Somali, okay. So I would not have one problem going up to any of them and saying what are you doing, you can’t be sitting on that guy’s car.” She also stated that she has “seen a change firsthand” over the last eighteen years—during the period when Faribault’s Black and Somali population expanded rapidly—and continued, “yes, I want to kumbaya and embrace everyone, and yaa,” but that she believes business is harmed by the loitering.
City Officials’ Statements About Enforcement of the 2014 Ordinance 55. In January 2016, then-City Manager Anderson and then-Mayor John
Jasinski discussed the Ordinance on a City-produced Faribault Community Connections video. In that video, Anderson touted the fact that 31 families had lost their homes as a
13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 14 of 72
result of the Ordinance’s Crime Free Housing Program. The following exchange then took place:
CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: [I]f you want to know you know why are we putting more officers out on the streets; it’s to help fund programs like this, the Crime Free Multi Housing, and it’s to help get rid of some of the some of the, you know, what would you say, the residents that normally are – MAYOR JASINSKI: Undesirable? CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: The undesirable ones [ . . . ] 56. This group of “undesirables” includes not only adults who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime, but also children living in households targeted for eviction. 57. In that video, the then-Mayor, who served from 2008 until 2016, again linked unsupported concerns about downtown crime to passage of the Ordinance and further affirmed that community animus motivated the Ordinance. He stated: [T]hat’s something that we had heard as a council that we know the downtown, the housing stock, the crime, and things like that that we wanted to get out. . . . you know, it makes it a little bit difficult on the property owners, the rental property owners. It’s a little bit more in-depth and they have to do a few more things. But again to clean up our housing stock, and residents, and things like that. 58. Faribault City Council Member Janna Viscomi, who voted to enact both the 2014 and 2017 versions of the Ordinance, used coded racial terms to describe her views on City housing policy in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. Council Member Viscomi stated that the City needed to develop policies to attract “higher income people” to balance the “lower-income people” in Faribault “or we are going to flip like Detroit in a few years.”
14

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 15 of 72
Passage of the 2017 Ordinance 59. In 2017, Faribault revised the Rental Licensing Ordinance, but the core
purpose and intent of the Ordinance remained unchanged. 60. In March 2017, the Faribault Daily News ran a series of articles discussing
the first two years of enforcement of the Crime-Free Housing Program. Sergeant Mark Krenik, who runs the Program for the FPD, told the paper that he and city staff would be revisiting certain areas within the ordinance in order to “one, make it easier to understand, and, two, make it easier to enforce.” Gunnar Olson, Mixed emotions: Landlords, officials measure success differently for Crime-Free Multi-Housing program, Faribault Daily News, Mar. 29, 2017.
61. These ideas were repeated throughout the formal revision process. In May 2017, Chief Bohlen and Deanna Kuennen, now Director of Community and Economic Development, presented the City Council Joint Committee with a memorandum outlining proposed changes to the Ordinance. The memorandum stated “Staff has worked with legal counsel to update the Rental Dwelling Licenses ordinance to ensure that the ordinance continues to serve its intended purpose.” An August version of that memorandum stated that the revisions would provide the City with tools “to effectively meet the expressed objectives of the City as well as more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance.”
62. Similar language appears in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the first reading of the revised ordinance was approved. A second reading followed on September 26, 2017. It passed unanimously and was published on September 29, 2017. City of Faribault, Ordinance No. 2017-13, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing
15

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 16 of 72
Sec. 7-36 Through Sec. 7-45 of Article V of Chapter 7 of the Faribault City Code, Ex. A (the “2017 Ordinance” or the “Ordinance”).
63. The 2014 Ordinance and the 2017 Ordinance describe the purpose of the Rental Licensing Ordinance in identical language. See 2014 Ordinance § 7-36; 2017 Ordinance § 7-36.
64. These statements, combined with the lack of significant changes to the substance of the Ordinance with the 2017 revisions, make clear that the animus involved in the passage of the 2014 Ordinance infects the current Rental Licensing Ordinance.
65. The City of Faribault’s budget document for the 2018 fiscal year, adopted on December 12, 2017, estimated that the Crime Free Housing Program had led to 90 evictions of “problem tenants.”
The Rental License Ordinance is Part of a Plan to Remove Low-Income Black Residents From Faribault’s Downtown
66. The City enacted and deployed the Rental License Ordinance as one component of a broader effort to replace affordable housing downtown, occupied disproportionately by low-income people of color, with more expensive housing, as a means of forcing current residents to vacate.
67. Former Mayor John Jasinski addressed these issues in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. He discussed the “inflow” of a “nationality” to Faribault, and the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize downtown.” Then-Mayor Jasinski voted in favor of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance.
16

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 17 of 72
68. In another 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television, Council Member Rowan, who voted in favor of both the 2014 Ordinance and the 2017 Ordinance, suggested that a lack of “quality rental properties. . . for the millennials” was one of the most pressing issues facing Faribault, caused by not “enforcing existing laws.” He described Crime-Free Multi-Housing as a “step[]” in that direction. He also stated that Faribault is “going to have to make changes” to become appealing to the “millennial generation that’s coming out of college” and getting “good paying jobs.”
69. Since at least 2011, plans for downtown have included replacing its current low-income Black residents with more affluent tenants.
70. The 2011 Market Analysis performed for downtown noted that a majority of tenants downtown are low- and very-low-income households, and observed that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the downtown district.” The same analysis states that “the Somalis . . . are often low income, seeking work, looking for affordable housing.”
71. In 2014, Faribault engaged in a community planning process called Community Vision 2040, with an outside consultant. Among the strategic priorities identified in the Community Vision 2040 report was “A Vibrant Downtown.”
72. Goals listed under that heading included both “[e]stablish[ing] market rate and high-end residential [units] in the downtown” and “[e]nhanc[ing] the appearance of downtown buildings and the streetscape.” To accomplish that latter goal, the report suggested enforcing, among other things, the recently-passed “rental ordinances.”
73. The report noted that “Faribault has become significantly more diverse. Faribault was 96 percent white in 1990. It is approximately 75 percent white today. There
17

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 18 of 72
are approximately ten times more persons of color in Faribault today than 25 years ago, and Faribault has approximately 50 percent more persons of color, as a percentage, than the average Minnesota community.” Nonetheless, the report exclusively employs images of white people to illustrate Faribault. Not a single person of color is depicted in Faribault’s “vision” of its future.
74. Faribault subsequently established a “Downtown Housing Improvement Program,” through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which provides loans “to encourage the development and redevelopment of high-quality market-rate housing.”
75. Specifically, the program notes the goal of “renovating substandard housing on upper floors into high-quality market-rate housing.” In order to participate in the program, a residential developer must pledge, among other things: (1) to comply with the requirements of the Crime-Free Multi Housing Program; (2) to bar all tenants who use a subsidy to pay their rent for at least ten years; and (3) to charge rents above a minimum threshold, so that rents do not fall below city-dictated levels.
76. Among the improvements eligible for city funding are “cabinets, molding, and countertops,” as well as “amenities that add exceptional value,” such as fitness rooms and “pet spas.” The addition of these amenities is intended to attract higher-income tenants.
77. The Downtown Housing Improvement Program aims to subsidize the conversion of affordable rental housing downtown, currently inhabited disproportionately by low-income people of color, into housing that would not be affordable to this population. In order to ensure this effect, the City bars recipients of Housing Choice
18

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 19 of 72
Vouchers—who are overwhelmingly of Somali ancestry in Rice County—from living in the units it subsidizes, although their vouchers might enable them to afford the units.
78. Per the City of Faribault website, this program continues to solicit applications to encourage the creation of more expensive housing.
79. These statements and policies make clear that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was enacted as part of a broader plan by the City of Faribault to push lowincome residents of color out of the downtown area. At the same time, the City has done nothing to increase the stock of affordable and subsidized housing elsewhere in Faribault.
The Rental Licensing Ordinance: A Summary 80. The Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that any person operating a
rental dwelling in Faribault obtain a rental license, § 7-38(a)(1), and sets out numerous requirements for procuring and maintaining such a license, as well as criminal penalties for landlords who fail to comply with those requirements.
81. The Rental Licensing Ordinance exempts just two categories of occupied rental dwellings from its coverage: Owners who rent a single dwelling to a relative and “snowbird[s]” who rent out their homes for fewer than 120 days each year while residing outside of Minnesota. § 7-38(a)(1)(a)–(b).
82. Licensees must file complete applications with the city, pay registration fees, stay current on taxes, fines, and penalties, and remain in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws. §7-38(c)–(e). A license is generally valid for two years, §7-38(b), although a provisional license of shorter duration is available in certain circumstances, § 7-39.
19

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 20 of 72
83. The Ordinance also requires that landlords who do not live in designated nearby Minnesota counties register a local agent with the City. § 7-40(a).
84. The Ordinance requires licensees to keep a “register of occupancy for each dwelling unit,” containing among other things: its address, “legal names and date of birth of adult occupants,” dates on which renters occupied and vacated the unit, and a “chronological list of complaints and requests for repair” by tenants, along with responses. § 7-40(g). This register “shall be made available for viewing or copying by the City of Faribault at all reasonable times.” Id.
85. The Ordinance also limits the maximum number of occupants in a rented home to two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2)(b). This number can be increase by one person if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c). This requirement will be discussed in further detail below.
86. The Rental Licensing Ordinance prohibits “disorderly conduct,” defined broadly, and determined in most instances by a single police officer, in licensed rental dwellings. § 7-41(a)–(d). Criminal charges need not be brought for a finding of disorderly conduct, and a dismissal or acquittal of charges does not bar police from instructing a landlord to take action. § 7-41(c). After three instances of disorderly conduct stemming from the same tenancy, the City may order the licensee to evict all occupants of the unit. § 7-41(b)(3). This section will be discussed in further detail below.
87. Licensees must also participate in Faribault’s “Crime free housing program,” modeled on the “Minnesota Crime Prevention Association’s Crime Free Multi Housing Program.” § 7-42 (the “Crime Free Housing Program”).
20

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 21 of 72
88. In detailing the purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program, the Ordinance states the City Council’s finding that “repeated police calls to rental dwelling units in the city related to disturbances or criminal activity have taxed law enforcement resources.” § 7-42(a). On information and belief, no evidence supporting this finding was before the City Council when it enacted the Ordinance, or its predecessor, the 2014 Ordinance.
89. The Crime Free Housing Program requires all Faribault landlords to comply with three basic components:
(1) Attend a certified eight-hour crime-free housing course presented by police, fire, public housing and others.
(2) Use a written lease which includes the crime-free/drug free housing lease addendum.
(3) Conduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of third-party background check procedures for tenants.
§ 7-42(b). The FPD can require a landlord to evict an entire household when the FPD believes the terms of the lease addendum have been violated. § 7-42(f)(1). The requirements of the Crime Free Housing Program are discussed in more detail below.
90. The Ordinance makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, to violate any of its requirements. § 7-42(f)(5).
91. The Rental Licensing Ordinance provides for required inspections of rental housing and a process for issuance and appeal of orders when properties do not fully comply with City Code and other requirements. § 7-43. It also sets out the process for dwellings found unfit for human habitation. Id.
21

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 22 of 72
92. Finally, the Ordinance details the circumstances in which the City can deny, suspend, non-renew, or revoke a license, and describes the process provided to landlords in such circumstances. § 7-44.
The Tenant Control Policies 93. The Rental Licensing Ordinance and its Crime Free Housing Program,
taken together, grant the City tremendous control over the lives of Faribault renters. By exerting pressure on their landlords, the Rental Licensing Ordinance provides Defendants with tools to harass and evict entire families for allegeded criminal conduct that does not even necessitate criminal prosecution. Several distinct pieces of the Rental Licensing Ordinance work in tandem to provide Defendants with these tools.
94. As part of the Crime Free Housing Program, all Faribault landlords are required to include extremely broad and vague contract language adopted by the City, “or language that is contractual and legal equivalent [sic]” in each of their private lease agreements with tenants. § 7-42(e). This language, the “Crime Free/Drug Free Lease Addendum” (“the Lease Addendum”), makes a single violation of its requirements a “material violation of the lease and good cause for termination of tenancy.” § 7-42(e)(6).
95. The Lease Addendum makes it a violation of the lease for not only members of the household to engage in the prohibited activities, but also for guests or people “under the resident’s control,” without further definition, to engage in these activities. § 7-42(e).
96. Prohibited activities range from drug sale and manufacture, to possession of drug paraphernalia, to “acts of violence or threats of violence.” § 7-42(e)(1)–(5). That last category is a loosely-defined catchall, including but not limited to “unlawful
22

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 23 of 72
discharge of firearms, prostitution, criminal street gang activity, intimidation, or any other breach of the rental agreement that otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of the landlord, his agents, or tenants.” § 7-42(e)(5).
97. The Lease Addendum prohibits most of these activities “on or near the said premises,” but it prohibits certain crimes involving illegal drugs, including felony possession, “at any locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit premises or otherwise.” § 7-42(e)(4). Because that provision, like the others, applies to guests and other people “under the resident’s control,” it allows eviction purely based upon association: if someone who has been a tenant’s guest engages in drug crime anywhere, whether in Faribault or elsewhere, the tenant can be punished.
98. If the FPD determines by a preponderance of the evidence that someone has engaged in felony-level conduct violating the Lease Addendum on the rental property, they must require the landlord to evict the entire family residing in the unit. § 742(f)(1). If the FPD determines that someone has engaged in misdemeanor-level conduct on the property that violates the Lease Addendum and “threatens the peaceful enjoyment or safety of any other resident or neighbor to the premises,” the Police Department has discretion to determine whether to order the eviction of the entire family. Id.
99. The FPD can order eviction on either of these bases without even bringing criminal charges, and even a dismissal or acquittal on the relevant charges is not a bar to ordering eviction. § 7-42(f)(2).
100. According to public records, on one occasion in 2016, the FPD issued a lease termination demand notice targeting a household based on a March 22 search of the home for drugs. The officers’ reports describe the execution of the search warrant without
23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 24 of 72
mentioning that any drugs were found, and the tenant was never convicted for a crime related to drugs found in the home. The tenant had, however, been charged with possession of marijuana in his car the week before. Accordingly, it appears that although law enforcement was unable to find drugs in the home, the FPD nonetheless opted to force the tenant’s eviction.
101. The vagueness of the Lease Addendum language, combined with its extraordinary breadth, lends itself to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
102. There is no exemption in the Ordinance when the felony-level conduct was an act of domestic violence, meaning that its text allows for the eviction of a victim of domestic violence and the rest of her family along with the individual alleged to have committed the crime.
103. While the Ordinance provides for a hearing for a landlord who wishes to contest an eviction order, there is no such provision of process for the impacted tenants. § 7-42(f)(2).
104. The disorderly conduct provisions of the Ordinance, § 7-41, create an additional framework for forcing landlords to evict tenants, this time after three incidents of “disorderly conduct” within twelve months, § 7-41(c)(3).
105. Disorderly conduct is defined here with exceptional breadth. Thirty-three separate categories of crime can constitute disorderly conduct, including underage drinking, possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, and disturbing the peace and quiet of neighbors. §§ 7-41(b)(7), (5), (1), (10). Moreover, the Ordinance specifically states that disorderly conduct is not limited to these enumerated categories. § 7-41(b).
24

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 25 of 72
106. The Ordinance explicitly permits the FPD to issue disorderly conduct notices without bringing criminal charges, and explicitly allows the disorderly conduct determination to stand even if a tenant is acquitted of a related criminal charge. § 7-41(c).
107. A first instance of disorderly conduct results in a notice to the landlord instructing the landlord to take steps to prevent further violations; a second instance results in a notice requiring the landlord to provide information about the steps they have taken. § 7-41(c)(1)–(2). After a third instance, the landlord is directed to evict the entire household, and/or the City will act to suspend, revoke, or decline to renew the landlord’s rental license. § 7-41(c)(3).
108. The Ordinance provides no process through which tenants can contest these determinations. Landlords can contest the first and second notices only by requesting reconsideration from the police officer who made the disorderly conduct determination; they can contest the third notice with the City Council. § 7-41(d). These deficits in process enhance the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
109. For example, police have tremendous discretion to force the eviction of an entire family as a result of several noise complaints. First and second disorderly conduct notices also force landlords to take action to discipline their tenants, even where the landlord does not see the underlying conduct as an issue affecting the landlord-tenant relationship.
110. The Ordinance also allows the City to revoke a landlord’s rental license altogether (or to deny, suspend, or not renew that license) if, among other reasons, a landlord fails “to actively pursue the eviction of a tenant or otherwise terminate the lease with a tenant” who has violated the disorderly conduct provisions or the Lease
25

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 26 of 72
Addendum or who has “otherwise created a public nuisance” in violation of the law. § 744(c)(6).
111. In sum, the Ordinance allows the FPD to inject itself into the relationship between landlord and tenant from the inception of the lease. It allows police to order eviction of an entire family based upon allegations of criminal conduct by them or others, even without charging anyone with a crime.
112. By providing the FPD with this tremendous discretion, the Ordinance significantly expands the impact of any bias in policing decisions.
113. For example, public records demonstrate that, in 2016, police responded to eight separate complaints involving a white household before issuing a first disorderly conduct notice for a noise violation. In contrast, Police issued a first disorderly conduct notice that year to the household of a Black man who had been in a single loud verbal argument with another Black man outside of his building. The same year, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to the household of a Latina woman who had been home alone and screaming in grief over her aunt’s recent death, despite no prior incidents noted.
114. In 2017, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to a household consisting of a Black mother and her two children after a neighbor called in a noise complaint, which the police report describes as having to do with the reaction to a moth trapped in the house. Police issued this notice on the very same day that they issued an eviction demand aimed at excluding from the unit a man who had stabbed the mother in the throat a month prior.
26

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 27 of 72
115. Under the Ordinance, aggressive or bias-based policing can result in entire families unjustly losing their homes. In 2016, the FPD sent a notice demanding eviction of an entire household after a fifteen-year-old living there was arrested for the petty misdemeanor of possession of a small amount of marijuana.
116. Tenants who lose their homes because of an eviction demand from the FPD sometimes leave Faribault, believing that no landlord will house them and risk a conflict with police.
The Criminal Records Screening Policy 117. The Ordinance requires Faribault landlords to conduct criminal records
checks for all potential tenants. The City supplements this language with instructions to landlords telling them not to house anyone with a criminal record. These instructions, combined with the Ordinance text and Faribault’s enforcement practices, constitute Defendants’ Criminal Records Screening Policy.
118. The Ordinance requires licensees to “[c]onduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of third party background check procedures for tenants.” § 7-42(b)(3); see also § 7-42(d) (“All licensees will conduct criminal background checks on all prospective tenants eighteen (18) years and older.”)
119. According to the Ordinance, the criminal background check must cover “at least the last three (3) years” and be a “statewide” check. § 7-42(d)(1). This check “must be done ‘in person’ or by utilizing the most recent update of the state criminal history files.” Id. If potential tenants have not lived in Minnesota for at least three years, the Ordinance requires searching tenants’ previous states of residence. § 7-42(d)(2)–(3).
27

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 28 of 72
120. The criminal background check requirements in the current Ordinance differ in only one respect from those in the 2014 Ordinance: whereas the 2014 Ordinance made it mandatory for landlords to provide written screening criteria to potential tenants, the current Ordinance says only that landlords “should” have such criteria. Compare Ord. No. 2014-009, § 7-44(4)(e) with Ord. No. 2017-13, § 7-42(d)(5).
121. The City’s website contains a Frequently Asked Questions document concerning the Crime Free Housing Program. This document describes the required background check in terms that contradict the text of the Ordinance. It requires that landlords must conduct a national criminal background check on all prospective tenants who are eighteen years old or older, and that such a check be conducted by a “reputable agency that utilizes the national database.” It states that “[c]riminal background checks conducted by the Faribault Police Department no longer meet the ordinance requirements.”
122. The Frequently Asked Questions document does not suggest any limit on how far into the past a national criminal background check should extend.
123. The Frequently Asked Questions document makes clear that Defendants’ implementation of the Criminal Records Screening Policy is not limited by the text of the Ordinance.
124. The City of Faribault’s website also contains a page on “Crime Free Multi-Housing.” This webpage provides “Resources,” which it describes as “good resources for rental owners, managers, and residents.”
125. Among the four documents listed as resources is a document entitled “The Importance of Screening, attached hereto as Exhibit D. This document cautions landlords
28

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 29 of 72
that, given the costs of eviction, “it is more important than ever to do a thorough job of tenant screening.” It then provides suggested screening criteria, including “denying applicants who: […] Have a criminal history.” It also instructs landlords to ask potential tenants if they have “ever been convicted of a crime, including a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, anywhere in the United States.” Ex. D.
126. The “Importance of Screening” document places no limitation on what kinds of criminal records should bar potential tenants from housing. It does not exempt arrests, old convictions, or low-level crimes. See id.
127. According to the Ordinance, landlords must retain the results of the background check for at least one year, or “if the subject of the check becomes a tenant of the licensed premises, one year after the subject of the check has ceased to be a tenant.” § 7-42(d)(4). This information “shall be available for inspection upon request by the city.” Id.
128. While the 2014 Ordinance was in force, the FPD repeatedly cited landlords for failure to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance related to criminal record screening and retention of criminal record screening information. According to public records, on eight separate occasions between 2015 and August of 2017, landlords received criminal citations for failing to conduct criminal record screening. Upon information and belief, this practice continues under the current Ordinance.
129. The FPD also contacts the landlords of individuals whom police know to have criminal records to ask questions about their decisions to allow these individuals to move in. These police “compliance check[s],” sometimes initiated with “rental information demand notices,” can result in misdemeanor prosecutions for landlords.
29

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 30 of 72
Police have even targeted landlords for enforcement when they learn from a probation officer that an individual on probation is residing in a landlord’s property. These contacts serve as a further reminder to landlords that police prohibit them from renting to people with criminal records.
130. In every single case in which public records show that the FPD affirmatively contacted a landlord to ask questions about the landlord’s compliance with the Ordinance, that landlord was currently housing a tenant with a criminal record. In a number of these cases, the tenant’s criminal conviction was more than three years old.
The Occupancy Restriction 131. The Ordinance also introduced into the Faribault code an Occupancy
Restriction Policy that results in evictions for renting families. For Faribault’s large families, disproportionately Somali as a group, it can mean that there are simply no rental homes in Faribault in which they may legally live as a household.
132. The Ordinance states that a rented home cannot house a family numbering more than two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2)(b). For example, that no more than five people can legally live in a two-bedroom apartment. That figure increases by one person only if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c). This Occupancy Restriction does not allow for additional occupants even when bedrooms are very large or when an additional room, such as a living room, could be used as a bedroom.
133. Under the Occupancy Restriction, because landlords want to maintain their licenses in good standing, a Faribault family consisting of two adults and three small children will be evicted from a two-bedroom apartment when they have another baby.
30

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 31 of 72
Eviction is similarly required when a baby is born to a two-parent family with five older children living in a three-bedroom apartment or a family with seven existing children living in a four-bedroom apartment.
134. Although Minnesota statute provides that no residential tenant may be evicted “on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six months prior notice in writing,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 504B.315, the text of the Ordinance makes no mention of this law and therefore purports to override it. Moreover, on information and belief, none of the information provided to landlords about the Ordinance acknowledges the state law. Faribault landlords, unfamiliar with the nuances of preemption doctrine, regularly apply the Occupancy Restriction to require eviction upon the birth of a child.
135. Plaintiffs Rukiya Hussein and Ali Ali were each forced to leave their homes upon the birth of a child as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, as described in more detail below. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has been threatened with eviction under the Occupancy Restriction. Numerous clients of Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services have had the same experience. In fact, SCRS serves approximately five families each week who are facing this exact situation.
136. The Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“RCHRA”) administers the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Rice County. Through the program, some low-income Faribault families receive a housing subsidy to help them pay rent in private housing units. Under RCHRA’s Section 8 program, six people can live in a two-bedroom unit, eight people can live in a three-bedroom unit, and
31

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 32 of 72
ten people can live in a four-bedroom unit. As a result, the Ordinance forces the evictions of families from apartments that RCHRA would allow them to stay in.
137. According to the 2016 American Community Survey the average renter household nationally contains 2.53 people. Given that Somali households compose less than one tenth of one percent of renter households nationally, the figure for non-Somali household size is substantially the same. By contrast, for the population of Somali ancestry, the average renter-occupied household contains 3.62 people, making Somali renter households nearly 50% larger than non-Somali renter households generally.
138. The average family size for households receiving Section 8 in Rice County is 4 people. Given that a significant majority of Section 8 recipients are of Somali national origin, this suggests that Somali families in Rice County are even larger than this national statistic suggests. Moreover, one-quarter of Rice County’s Section 8 households are composed of six or more people.
139. There are at least 71 Somali families in Faribault consisting of six people or more who are actively seeking housing, representing at minimum 40% of all persons of Somali ancestry in Faribault. Many Somali families have households of ten, eleven, or twelve members.
140. In contrast, the average renter household in Faribault contains 2.37 people, indicating that non-Somali households in Faribault are far smaller than Somali households.
141. There is a severe shortage of rental housing available for large families in Faribault. A recent draft of the 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted
32

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 33 of 72
the limited availability of four-bedroom rental units and the nonexistence of available five-bedroom units.
142. In 2015, when local social service agency Three Rivers Community Action opened Prairiewood Townhomes, an affordable housing development in Faribault containing nineteen three-bedroom units and six four-bedroom units, every single unit had been leased before it was built. There is currently a long waiting list for those units. As a result, a large family evicted because of the Ordinance and its occupancy standards may be unable to find any legal housing in Faribault at all.
143. Because large Faribault families are disproportionately Somali, Somali families are disproportionately likely to lose their homes, and sometimes to lose their residency in Faribault altogether, as a result of the Occupancy Restriction.
Intentional Discrimination in the Passage of the Ordinance 144. The Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with the express intent and
purpose to discriminate against Somali and Black people on the basis of their race and national origin.
Direct Evidence 145. There was a specific and articulated link between animus against Black Somali residents of Faribault and the passage of the Ordinance. 146. The October 2014 Bohlen Memorandum, part of the City Council’s legislative record, stated that community concerns about downtown crime were not borne out by an examination of police records, and explicitly linked these concerns to “fears
33

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 34 of 72
and cultural clashes taking place” as well as the proximity of a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups.” See Ex. B.
147. Chief Bohlen went on to explain that “[t]he Somali culture is here to stay and [he had] personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city.” He noted that these “new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street.” Id.
148. According to the Waldock Memorandum, drafted by the City’s Community Development Director and introduced into the legislative record, “participation in a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program” were City staff’s ideas for addressing the “concerns” about crime downtown, which Chief Bohlen had written were nothing more than manifestations of bias against Somalis. See Ex. C. The first draft of the 2014 Ordinance was put before the City Council explicitly as a response to these “concerns.”
149. There were no facts in the legislative record suggesting an increase in crime downtown, and the Chief of Police had found any such concerns to be unfounded.
150. That the City Council ignored statements from the Chief of Police that there was no crime problem downtown and that any concerns were attributable to bias, and nonetheless proceeded to enact an Ordinance allegedly aimed at controlling crime downtown represents a relevant departure from a normal substantive conclusion.
151. The 2017 revisions to the Ordinance were intended to allow the City to “more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance,” and did not represent any
34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 35 of 72
significant break with the policies or purpose of the 2014 Ordinance. The 2017 Ordinance therefore incorporates the animus that fueled the passage of the 2014 Ordinance.
Discriminatory Effects 152. There are also ample additional facts supporting the role that animus played in the passage of the Ordinance. 153. In Faribault, an ordinance targeting rental housing and its occupants will inherently have a starkly disparate impact on Black people. Approximately 90% of Faribault’s Black households are renter households, as compared to just 28% for nonHispanic white households. 154. The fact that the ordinance targets people with criminal records causes it to have a further discriminatory effect on Black people, who are more than ten times as likely as white Minnesotans to be incarcerated in Minnesota’s prisons. These disparities are explored further below with respect to the disparate impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy. 155. Moreover, the fact that the Ordinance creates housing consequences for tenants after police make note of their allegedly criminal conduct further suggests that there will be a disparate impact on Black people. One study showed that in Rice County, Black people are 3.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites for marijuana possession. Minnesota 2020, Collateral Costs: Racial Disparities and Injustice in Minnesota’s Marijuana Laws 4, 16 (April 2014).2 This is despite studies which show Black people and white people use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4
2 https://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/article/collateral_costs_web.pdf. 35

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 36 of 72
(2013). The 2003 Minnesota Racial Profiling Report, submitted to the Minnesota Legislature as required by statute, found that Black drivers in Faribault were stopped by police at rates “considerably higher than would be expected” based on estimates of the driving population, while whites and American Indians were stopped at lower than expected rates. The Council on Crime and Justice & Institute on Race & Poverty, The Minnesota Racial Profiling Report – Faribault Police Department 4, 14 (Sept. 22, 2003).3
156. The Occupancy Restriction Policy ensures yet another discriminatory effect of the Ordinance. Because large families inevitably lose their homes as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, and because those families in Faribault are disproportionately Somali Black families, the Occupancy Restriction adversely impacts Somali Black families. Moreover, because of the known shortage of rental units available for large families in Faribault, evictions due to the Occupancy Restriction Policy result in forcing some Somali Black families out of Faribault altogether.
Explicit and Coded Expressions of Animus by City Officials 157. Legislators and city staff repeatedly used coded expressions of discrimination in discussion of the Ordinance and of downtown Faribault leading up to the 2017 revisions. 158. In a 2016 City-produced video, then-City Manager Anderson and thenMayor Jasinski, a voting member of the City Council when the 2014 Ordinance passed,
3 https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2003/mandated/030508/www.crimeandjustice.org/ Pages/Publications/Reports/Racial%20Profiling%20Study/Faribault-Final.pdf.
36

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 37 of 72
referred to the tenants that the Crime-Free Housing Program had helped to “get rid of” as “undesirables.”
159. In 2016, then-Mayor Jasinksi, in a separate interview, discussed the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize” downtown.
160. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi discussed on video the need for a loitering ordinance and increased police presence downtown because of men standing on the sidewalk, and noted she had “seen a change first hand” over the last 18 years, the period during which Faribault’s Black and Somali population grew significantly. In a 2016 video interview, she stated that the City needed to attract higher-income people to balance the lower-income people, “or we’re going to flip like Detroit in a few years.”
Community Animus and Historical Background of the Decision 161. Moreover, community animus targeted at Black Somali residents, in the form of unsubstantiated “concerns” about downtown crime, motivated the passage of the Ordinance. Memoranda in the legislative record make that clear. 162. Community animus against Black Somalis downtown also forms a crucial part of the historical background of the decision. A 2011 report noted the “negative perception” of downtown safety was due in part to “low income residents . . . loitering and/or congregating” downtown. That report suggested that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the downtown district.” 163. 2013 statements in the Faribault Daily News also demonstrate community animus. The newspaper reported that downtown business owners were complaining about drug activity and theft, although police statistics did not corroborate that concern. One
37

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 38 of 72
resident quoted explicitly referred to the “new look” of downtown’s population when speculating about why some feel downtown is unsafe. That same year, a letter to the editor discussed the writer’s fear of loitering Somalis, and suggested that Faribault should not “permit[] this activity.”
164. The creation and administration of the Downtown Housing Improvement Program is also part of the relevant historical background. With that Program, the City explicitly funds developers to transform downtown housing affordable to low-income people—and populated disproportionately by Black people—to housing including, for example, “pet spas” for wealthier people. To ensure that this program will result in the right kind of residents, the City requires that developers receiving funding charge rents above City-dictated thresholds and prohibit anyone who receives a housing subsidy from living in their units.
165. Moreover, there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance. As a result, the enactment of the Ordinance constitutes prohibited intentional discrimination.
Disparate Impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy 166. Because the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory
impact on the basis of race and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
167. Through the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Defendants instruct landlords to reject potential tenants with any criminal record whatsoever. Defendants require landlords to make records of their criminal records checks available to police at
38

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 39 of 72
any time, and they follow up with landlords who have nonetheless housed tenants that police know to have criminal records.
168. Because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Faribault landlords reject people looking for housing when a member of the household has a criminal record. Landlords, even those who used to be flexible about accepting tenants with criminal records, have changed their policies for fear of retribution from the City if they accept these tenants now.
169. In April 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) released “Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real EstateRelated Transactions”4 (“HUD Guidance”). That guidance notes that 100 million adults, nearly one-third of the U.S. population, have a criminal record of some kind. Id. at 1. It makes clear that because people of color are disproportionately likely to have criminal records, using criminal records to restrict housing opportunities can have a racially disparate impact prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. Id. at 2.
170. As a result, a screening policy that “fails to take into account the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction,” as well as its recency, is unlikely to satisfy the Fair Housing Act. HUD Guidance 7. Individualized consideration of people seeking housing opportunities presents a less discriminatory alternative to barring individuals who have been convicted of crimes on any kind of blanket basis. Id.
171. The HUD Guidance also makes clear that barring an individual from housing based on a record of arrest, as opposed to conviction, will always violate the Fair
4 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF. 39

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 40 of 72
Housing Act, because arrest records “do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct.” Id. at 5.
172. Despite the existence of the HUD Guidance, the Ordinance does not alert landlords to the risk that they incur Fair Housing Act liability by excluding tenants based upon criminal records.
173. In fact, one of the questions in the Frequently Asked Questions Document is “Doesn’t the ordinance promote discrimination or profiling?” The response provided by the City begins: “No. The Federal Fair Housing Act . . . has seven protected classes. A person’s behavior is not a protected class.” This instruction, that complying with the Crime-Free Ordinance cannot create Fair Housing Act liability, runs directly counter to the HUD Guidance and the law.
174. Because—both nationally and within Minnesota—Black and Latino people are significantly more likely than white people to have criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has an adverse disparate impact on Black and Latino people.
175. Because criminal record statistics broken down by race are not available, incarceration and arrest rates can be used as proxies. The HUD Guidance takes this approach. HUD Guidance 3–4.
176. Nationally, Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate more than 5 times higher than the rate for white people. Ashley Nellis, The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons 3 (2016) (“Color of Justice”).5 Latinos are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate 1.4 times higher than the rate for white people. Id. at 4.
5 http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-JusticeRacial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf. 40

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 41 of 72
177. The Minnesota Black-white disparity is even starker. Minnesota is one of just five states in which the Black incarceration rate is more than ten times higher than the white incarceration rate. Id.
178. As of July 1, 2017, 34.4% of Minnesota’s inmate population was Black, yet Black or African Americans comprised only 6.2% Minnesota’s population; thus, Black people in Minnesota are incarcerated at over 5.5 times their proportion of the population. See Minnesota Department of Corrections, Adult Inmate Profile as of 07/01/2017 3 (July 2017); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Minnesota (updated July 1, 2017).
179. Much of this disparity can be attributed to the disparity in rates of arrest for drug possession. Nationally, in 2010, a Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4 (2013).6 In Minnesota, according to the same analysis, the disparity was even worse: a Black person was 7.81 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Id. at 18, 49.
180. As of July 1, 2016, 6.2% of Minnesota’s inmate population was Latino, yet Latinos comprised only 5.2% of Minnesota’s population; thus, Latinos in Minnesota are incarcerated at over 1.2 times their proportion of the population. See Minnesota Department of Corrections, Adult Inmate Profile as of 07/01/2016 2 (July 2016); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Minnesota (updated July 1, 2016).
6 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf. 41

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 42 of 72
181. The FPD arrest data for the years 2014–2017 shows that Black people in Faribault, like Black people across Minnesota and nationally, are arrested at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. For example, in 2015, the year the Ordinance went into effect, Black people made up just 8.1% of the Faribault population but 44.8% of the arrests for “Disorderly Conduct” were of Black people. That same year, Latinos made up 12.7% of the Faribault population, but 26.2% of the arrests for “Disorderly Conduct” were of Latino people.
182. In sum, both in Minnesota and in the country as a whole, people with criminal records are disproportionately Black and Latino, and Black and Latino people are far more likely than whites to have criminal records. As a result, Black and Latino people are much more likely than whites to be barred from rental housing in Faribault because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
183. The Criminal Records Screening Policy is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
184. The ostensible purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program is to “preserve and protect the city’s neighborhoods and to promote public safety.” Ordinance § 7-42(a). If “preserv[ing] and protect[ing] neighborhoods” means keeping people of color out of Faribault, that discriminatory goal cannot save the policy.
185. Instructing landlords to exclude anyone with a criminal record, without limitation, is not necessary to achieve these goals. Instructing landlords instead to give individualized consideration to each potential tenant, and advising landlords of the need to comply with the Fair Housing Act and the HUD Guidance, is a less discriminatory
42

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 43 of 72
alternative to the Criminal Records Screening Policy. Such a policy would serve public safety equally well.
186. Specifically, Defendant could inform landlords that, if they choose to perform criminal records screening on potential tenants, they must consider indvidualized factors like the nature of the conviction, the amount of time since conviction or release, rehabilitation and good conduct, including good tenancy, and current support from household and community. HUD Guidance 7. They can exclude potential tenants only where this evaluation shows that the potential tenant presents a demonstrable risk to resident safety or property. HUD Guidance 6. This approach would continue to protect public safety while reducing the number of people of color who are barred from housing in Faribault as a result of Defendants’ policy.
187. The discriminatory effect of the Criminal Records Screening Policy is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against Black people. The City of Faribault fully understands the effect that the Criminal Records Screening Policy has on the racial make-up of Faribault’s tenant population. It nonetheless intentionally implemented and continues to pursue the policy for the express purpose of limiting the number of people of color in Faribault.
Disparate Impact of the Occupancy Restriction 188. Because the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on
the basis of national origin and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
43

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 44 of 72
189. The Occupancy Restriction requires Faribault landlords to evict tenants when the birth of an additional child means that the number of household members exceeds two times the number of bedrooms plus one, regardless of the square footage of the unit or the availability of additional sleeping spaces.
190. In the context of claims of family status discrimination against landlords, HUD guidelines addressing occupancy restrictions note numerous factors relevant to determining whether an occupancy restriction is reasonable. See Fair Housing Enforcement—Occupancy Standards Notice of Statement of Policy, 63 Fed. Reg. 70256. These factors include the size of bedrooms and unit, the age of children, and the availability of additional sleeping areas. The Occupancy Restriction considers none of these factors.
191. HUD guidelines also note that occupancy policies may be found to be pretextual where there is evidence of discriminatory statements. Id.
192. Because, as detailed above, Somali families are significantly larger than non-Somali families, this policy has a prohibited disparate impact on families of Somali national origin. The disparate impact of Occupancy Restriction is enhanced by the extremely limited availability of rental units with enough bedrooms to legally house large families under the Ordinance.
193. In sum, Somali families are far more likely than non-Somali families to be evicted from their homes based upon the size of their families. They are also much more likely than non-Somalis to be forced out of rental housing in Faribault altogether as a result of the Ordinance, because their families are too large to live in any available rental units legally.
44

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 45 of 72
194. The Occupancy Restriction is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
195. Although no purpose for the Occupancy Restriction is given in the Ordinance, Faribault would likely claim that it is necessary to protect the health or safety of tenants.
196. However, an Occupancy Restriction that fails to take into account the total square footage of the unit or its bedrooms, and that fails to account for additional available sleeping spaces—like living rooms—that are not legal bedrooms, cannot be necessary to protect health or safety. A policy that takes these factors into account is a less discriminatory alternative to the Occupancy Restriction.
197. Moreover, allowing three occupants in a bedroom only in situations when all of those occupants are under two years old is not justified by health or safety. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control recommend that infants share a room with their parents for the first year of life. Additionally, a bedroom shared by three elementary-school-age children is not an inherent health or safety hazard. Raising this age for additional occupants is another less discriminatory alternative to the Occupancy Restriction.
198. The discriminatory effect of the Occupancy Restriction is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against people of Somali national origin. Defendant fully understands the effect that the Occupancy Restriction has on the make-up of Faribault’s tenant population and
45

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 46 of 72
nonetheless intentionally implemented the Occupancy Restriction for the express purpose of limiting the number of people of Somali ancestry in Faribault.
Individual Plaintiffs Thelma Jones 199. Thelma Jones is a Black woman and U.S. citizen. She is the mother of
Plaintiff Priyia Lacey. 200. Ms. Jones moved to Faribault in 2008, in search of a small city which
would be a better environment in which to raise her children. 201. Ms. Jones worked as a home health aide for many years. Most recently,
she worked for five years at Milestone Senior Living as a Certified Nursing Assistant in the memory care unit, until health issues forced her to stop working in October 2017.
202. In the fall of 2016, Ms. Jones was told by her landlord that she had two weeks to move out of the five-bedroom house she had lived in for five years, along with her children.
203. Prior to this, Ms. Jones had always paid her rent on time and had a good relationship with her landlord.
204. Public records show that about this same time, the FPD charged Ms. Jones’ landlord with the criminal misdemeanors of “Rental Dwelling Registration/Fail to Register” and “C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing]-Fail to Attend Training.” Police noted that Ms. Jones had told them that she was a “regular renter with a lease” living in the home, making the landlord’s failure to register the property and attend training violations of the Ordinance.
46

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 47 of 72
205. The landlord told Ms. Jones that police had made clear Ms. Jones would testify against her on criminal charges if she did not remove Ms. Jones from the house.
206. Ms. Jones and her family were forced to leave their home. The landlord was never convicted of the charges.
207. In discussing the charges against the landlord, police records also state that “The C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing] Ordinance is designed to deter criminal activity and, if necessary, to remove problem tenants from rental properties in order to preserve order in a neighborhood,” before going on to discuss why Ms. Jones and her family constituted “problem tenants.”
208. The records state that police had “responded to complaints at this home 82 times” and characterized Ms. Jones’ home as the site of “ongoing criminal activity.” The records do not note any criminal convictions that would support this assertion.
209. The records also state that the property itself was “often found to be unsightly and unkempt” without any support for this assertion.
210. Rather than being based on any actual “ongoing criminal activity” at Ms. Jones’ home, police focused on her and her children as a result of repeated and harassing calls to the police by her neighbors, all of whom were white. Ms. Jones remembers calls to the police from neighbors with no legitimate basis when she hosted barbecues outside for her large Black family and when she hosted children’s birthday parties. She even recalls visits from the police prompted by calls when her children were outside playing on the trampoline.
211. On one occasion, one of her white neighbors told Ms. Jones that she should “go back to where [she] came from.”
47

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 48 of 72
212. The City of Faribault labelled Ms. Jones and her family as problem tenants not as a result of confirmed criminal activity on her property, but as a result of harassing calls to the police from her white neighbors.
213. When Ms. Jones’ landlord told her that she had to leave, Ms. Jones was able to negotiate for some additional time to search for a new home for her family. After extensive searching, Ms. Jones was only able to find a much smaller two bedroom apartment. As a result, two of her older children can no longer live with her, as they were previously doing in the five-bedroom house. She was also forced to give up her family’s dog because it is not allowed in the new apartment.
214. The move itself was incredibly stressful, and Ms. Jones had to stay in a hotel for three days because she could not move into the new home right away. She was also forced to rent a U-Haul for three days and put her belongings in storage.
215. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family.
216. Two of Ms. Jones’ children, who no longer have bedrooms in their mother’s home, are struggling to find places to live. Neither has been able to find stable housing in Faribault. One of those children, Plaintiff Priyia Lacey, is further discussed below.
217. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Jones and her family lost their home and have been separated from each other.
218. In addition to being too small, the new apartment is on the second floor. Climbing the stairs is difficult for Ms. Jones, who has sarcoidosis and uses oxygen.
48

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 49 of 72
219. Ms. Jones’ current lease includes the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also subjected to the required criminal record screening when she applied for the apartment, and she paid the cost of that screening.
220. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Jones and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
221. In her new home, Ms. Jones is constantly nervous about making noise, which could result in disorderly conduct violations or other penalties from the police. Ms. Jones has small grandchildren, one of whom lives with her, and they run around like children do. Although the apartment underneath them is currently vacant, Ms. Jones is constantly worried that someone will move in and complain to the police, leading to eviction.
222. Because of the size of the apartment combined with her concerns that a family gathering could lead to noise complaints and eviction, Ms. Jones has had to rent out other spaces to host family events like Easter. She has decided that she will not host children’s birthday parties at home because of her fear of receiving noise complaints.
223. Ms. Jones and her family are at risk of losing their home again as a result of the Ordinance.
Priyia Lacey 224. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. She is the daughter of Plaintiff Thelma Jones. She is twenty-one years old. 225. Priyia works at Inisfail, a residential facility as a Recipient Caregiver for people with mental illness.
49

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 50 of 72
226. Ms. Lacey resided with her mother, Ms. Jones, before her family was forced out of their home.
227. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Lacey and her family lost their home and have been separated from each other.
228. Ms. Lacey was pregnant at the time she lost her home. She had never lived on her own before and could not afford to pay rent on her own. She wished that she could continue to live with her mother who provided her both emotional and financial support. This time was stressful for Ms. Lacey and she struggled.
229. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family.
230. Ms. Lacey has a nine-month-old baby. She has actively sought, and continues to seek, housing in Faribault without success. Ms. Lacey wants to live in Faribault to be close to her family.
231. In 2016, Ms. Lacey applied to the Faribault H.R.A. for public housing. She finally made it to the number two slot on the waiting list and filled out her paperwork for an apartment, which would allow her to be close to her family and would be affordable. Faribault H.R.A. sent her a letter dated February 9, 2018 stating that she is “INELIGIBLE” for an apartment owned by the Faribault H.R.A. because “Criminal background check shows 2015 Assault warrant, 2017 Judgement Assault. HRA policy states that the HRA may deny admission to an applicant if any household member has engaged in any violent criminal activity within the last five years.” She appealed this decision, but was immediately denied, without any further explanation, on February 13, 2018.
50

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 51 of 72
232. Ms. Lacey was never convicted of this misdemeanor charge, which was based on an incident that took place away from her mother’s home. Her case was closed as of May 18, 2017.
233. Ms. Lacey feels concerned that she will continue to be denied housing in Faribault as a result of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
234. As Ms. Lacey continues to seek housing in Faribault, the criminal background check required by the Ordinance makes her substantially likely to be denied housing again on the basis of an arrest alone or as a result of an erroneous background check.
235. The error in the H.R.A’s background check gives Ms. Lacey reason to be concerned that landlords’ future criminal record screening of her will result in the denial of housing.
236. As Ms. Lacey continues to apply for housing in Faribault, she will be forced to pay the costs of the required criminal record screening for each application.
Faisa Abdi 237. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 238. Ms. Abdi and her husband have resided with their children in the same three-bedroom apartment for over four years. The apartment also has a living room. 239. They have seven children, all of whom are age twelve or younger. Four of their children attend Faribault public schools. 240. Ms. Abdi’s landlord has threatened that her family will be evicted due to the size of her household.
51

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 52 of 72
241. The landlord first made this threat shortly after Ms. Abdi’s secondyoungest child was born in June 2015.
242. The landlord informed Ms. Abdi that her family would have to find somewhere else to live or reduce their household size.
243. Since then, Ms. Abdi has searched without success for a new apartment. 244. Ms. Abdi feels extremely stressed that her landlord has threatened that she and her family will be evicted from their home. 245. The Abdis have always paid their rent on time and, other than this household size issue, have not had any conflict with the landlord. 246. Ms. Abdi is desperate for her family to keep the home. She is even considering taking two of her U.S. citizen children, born in Faribault, to Africa so that her family can remain in their home despite the Occupancy Restriction, as she has heard other Somali-American families have done. 247. Ms. Abdi told her landlord about this plan and that she needed to apply for passports. On information and belief, it is on that condition that she has been allowed to stay in her home so far. 248. Ms. Abdi feels that the only way she will be able to stay in Faribault is if her family is separated and members of her family move to a different place. 249. She does not want to take her children to Africa, where they will not have the same opportunities that they would have in the United States. She would not do so but for the Occupancy Restriction. 250. Ms. Abdi and her family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together.
52

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 53 of 72
251. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Abdi and her family are substantially likely to lose their home. Ms. Abdi has suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
252. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Abdi and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
253. Ms. Abdi and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Ali Ali 254. Plaintiff Ali Ali is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 255. Mr. Ali works at the Viracon glass factory in Owatonna, Minnesota. 256. Mr. Ali and his wife have six children, all of whom are age nine or younger. Three of their children attend Faribault public schools. 257. Mr. Ali and his family were forced to move out of their home in February 2018 because his family had a new baby. 258. Mr. Ali’s landlord sent a letter on May 10, 2017, a month before his youngest child was born, stating that their family had to move out by August 31, 2017. 259. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in their family, brought the number of people in the Alis’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction. 260. Before they were forced to move, the Alis had lived in the same apartment for three years. 261. Mr. Ali was able to negotiate for extra time to try to find a place to live.
53

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 54 of 72
262. It was very difficult to find for a new home for him and his family and he had to spend a lot of time searching online and visiting apartments.
263. Mr. Ali was eventually able to find a new apartment to move into, which is where his family lives now.
264. The new home, however, is significantly more expensive and it is more difficult for Mr. Ali to pay the rent.
265. Additionally, during the move, he was forced to throw away furniture due to the cost of moving it. Moreover, his previous landlord is alleging that he owes money for alleged damage to the apartment that existed before the Ali family moved in. The former landlord is threatening to send this alleged debt “to collection,” which has been stressful for Mr. Ali.
266. As a result of the Ordinance, Mr. Ali and his family lost their home, and Mr. Ali suffered emotional distress.
267. Mr. Ali and his family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together.
268. The eight people in Mr. Ali’s family now live in a four-bedroom apartment. Mr. Ali’s wife is expecting a baby. If Mr. Ali and his wife have another child after this baby, as they plan to, their family will exceed the number of people allowed to live there under the Ordinance. As a result, he remains at risk of losing his home again as a result of the Ordinance.
269. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Mr. Ali and his family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
54

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 55 of 72
270. Mr. Ali and his family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Rukiya Hussein 271. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 272. Ms. Hussein works for Essential Home Health Care as a personal care assistant. Her husband is the lead supervisor on the night shift at the Jennie-O Turkey factory. 273. In late June of 2015, Ms. Hussein gave birth by caesarean section to a baby girl. 274. Her daughter was born with a thyroid problem and needed medication every day. 275. When her baby was just a month old, Ms. Hussein received a letter from her landlord stating that her family would have to move out of her apartment and return the keys within sixty days. 276. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in the family, brought the number of people in the Husseins’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction. 277. The Husseins had lived in the apartment since October 2010. On the date they received notice of their eviction, their six children were all age ten or younger. There was a girls’ bedroom, a boys’ bedroom, and a room for Ms. Hussein and her husband. 278. The apartment was large enough for the Husseins to live in safely. 279. The landlord was aware the Husseins had a newborn baby.
55

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 56 of 72
280. On previous occasions, the landlord had asked Ms. Hussein if she was pregnant.
281. The Husseins always paid their rent on time and never had a complaint from the landlord.
282. The landlord was compelled to evict the Husseins to comply with Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Hussein and her family lost their housing.
283. When Ms. Hussein received the notice of eviction she was extremely distraught. She was required not to engage in physical activity as she recovered from the caesarian section surgery. Additionally, her newborn daughter was sick and she had to put her energy into caring for her baby.
284. Moreover, she knew it was extremely difficult to find rental housing in Faribault. Family and friends had been forced to leave Faribault after they were unable to find homes to rent.
285. Despite these challenges, Ms. Hussein had no choice but to try to find a new home very quickly.
286. Because her husband worked the night shift, she had to look for a new home daily, in spite of having just come home with a sick newborn. Ms. Hussein took her baby with her every day to look for housing.
287. Ms. Hussein was anxious that her family would not be able to find a place to live in Faribault. The whole family was worried. Her children asked her to explain why the landlord had evicted them. They could not understand why they would have to leave their home just because their family had a newborn baby.
56

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 57 of 72
288. Both Ms. Hussein and her husband were extremely sad to lose their home of over five years. Ms. Hussein cried in front of the landlord.
289. Ms. Hussein found it physically painful and stressful to look for a new home for her family in these circumstances. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
290. Ms. Hussein loves Faribault, which is home to her. The Husseins now have seven children, five of whom attend Faribault public schools.
291. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Hussein and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
292. Ms. Hussein’s current lease includes the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also forced to submit to the required criminal record check, and to cover the costs of this screening for her and her husband.
293. Ms. Hussein and her family plan to continue to live in Faribault. 294. Ms. Hussein and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future. Lucia Porras 295. Plaintiff Lucia Porras is a Latina woman and a U.S. citizen. 296. She was born and raised in Faribault. Her boyfriend, who is the father of all of her children, is from Northfield. 297. Both Ms. Porras and her boyfriend work in Faribault.
57

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 58 of 72
298. Ms. Porras and her boyfriend have two children, an eight-year-old daughter and a four-year-old son. Both of their children attend school in Faribault. The children’s grandparents also live in Faribault.
299. Ms. Porras and her boyfriend are expecting a third child in August. Ms. Porras is nearly eight months pregnant.
300. Ms. Porras and her family moved into a licensed rental apartment in Faribault in February of 2018. They signed the crime free lease addendum required by the Ordinance.
301. On April 19, 2018, the Department of Social Services removed Ms. Porras’s children from her home, accompanied by law enforcement.
302. Two days later, on April 21, 2018, the FPD sent a “Lease Termination Demand Notice” to Ms. Porras’s landlord.
303. The letter stated that “Law enforcement responded on 4/19/2018 to 416 8 St. NW #1 for a disorderly violation warranting removal proceedings for all occupants of the residence. At this point in time, I am requesting that you move forward with steps to have the tenants vacate the unit. Please send written confirmation of this.”
304. The letter cites “Laws contributing to the need for protection or services or delinquency of a minor as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 260C et seq.” as the basis for the Lease Termination Demand Notice.
305. The landlord sent a letter to Ms. Porras on April 26, 2018 stating “According to the police there was an issue on 4/19/2018 that prompted the police to send us a lease termination notice. They, and in turn your landlord, is demanding you move out before noon April 28, 2018.”
58

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 59 of 72
306. Ms. Porras and her entire family lost their home within ten days of the removal of her children, before any resolution of the validity of the Petition for Child in Need of Protection Services filed against her.
307. Ms. Porras has not been charged with any crime. 308. The Petition for Child in Need of Protection Services remains pending. Ms. Porras’s children have not been returned to her care. 309. Her children are currently staying with their grandparents. Ms. Porras has visitation with her children three times a week. 310. Ms. Porras has done everything possible to comply with every requirement from the Department of Social Services including attending group therapy, undergoing a parental assessment, and having a chemical dependency assessment. 311. However, the judge hearing the petition has made clear on the record that Ms. Porras’s children cannot be returned until she has secured safe and stable housing. She does not have stable housing, as a result of the Ordinance. Faribault has rendered her homeless. 312. Ms. Porras is actively searching for rental housing in Faribault and the surrounding area so that she can regain custody of her children. She is especially anxious to find housing before her baby is born in August. 313. Ms. Porras has never been convicted of a felony. She was, however, convicted of two theft misdemeanors in 2010, as well as several more recent petty misdemeanors related to driving.
59

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 60 of 72
314. Ms. Porras feels concerned that she will be denied housing in Faribault as a result of the Criminal Records Screening Policy. She has applied for rental housing in Faribault and paid criminal records screening fees only to be denied.
315. As Ms. Porras continues to seek housing in Faribault, the criminal background check required by the Ordinance makes her substantially likely to be denied housing on the basis of her prior convictions.
316. As Ms. Porras continues to apply for housing in Faribault, she will be forced to continue to pay the costs of the required criminal record screening for each application.
David Trotter-Ford 317. Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. 318. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée live and co-parent eight children together. Mr. Trotter-Ford is the primary caregiver for the children that reside with the couple. 319. Mr. Trotter-Ford takes pride in how he raises all of his children, irrespective of whether they are biologically related. He is a father to all of the children he and his fiancée co-parent together, although three of them are his fiancée’s biological children. For Mr. Trotter-Ford, his family is his priority. 320. In the fall of 2015, Mr. Trotter-Ford, his now-fiancée, and their children, were evicted from their home at the behest of the Faribault Police Department after a warrant for Mr. Trotter-Ford’s arrest was issued. 321. On August 28, 2015, Mr. Trotter Ford spanked two of the children with a belt several times.
60

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 61 of 72
322. On September 10, 2015, before Mr. Trotter-Ford had been convicted of any crime and before charges had even been filed against him, the FPD sent an “Eviction Demand Notice” to the landlord of the home where Mr. Trotter-Ford, his fiancée, and their children resided together.
323. The letter stated that “Law enforcement responded on 8/28/2015 to 1520 Western Ave. for a disorderly violation warranting removal proceedings for all occupants of the residence. At this point I am requesting that you move forward with steps to have the tenant vacate the unit.”
324. The letter cites “MN Statutes, Section 609.221 through Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.2231, which prohibit assault” as the basis for the Eviction Demand Notice. Mr. Trotter-Ford was never charged with or convicted of a crime in this portion of the criminal code, although his entire family lost their home on this ground.
325. When a criminal complaint was later filed against Mr. Trotter-Ford, it charged him with the gross misdemeanor of Malicious Punishment of a Child in violation of Minnesota Statute 609.377.1. That charge was eventually dismissed. On February 16, 2016, he pled guilty to Neglect of a Child in violation of Minnesota Statute 609.378.1(a)(1), a gross misdemeanor. He was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days of electronic home monitoring and two years of probation.
326. The Social Services Department took custody of the couple’s children as a result of the criminal charge. Mr. Trotter-Ford continued to have visitation with his biological children.
327. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée were forced to move out of their home under threat of eviction. They could find nowhere else to go, and had to stay in a low-
61

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 62 of 72
quality hotel for approximately two months before they were able to find a new place to live.
328. Mr. Trotter-Ford suffered emotional distress as a result. 329. It was very difficult for Mr. Trotter-Ford to find a new home for his family. 330. Mr. Trotter-Ford applied for several units and had his application denied, at least in part because of the criminal background check required by the Faribault Rental Licensing Ordinance. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s criminal record shows that he has several convictions for misdemeanors, but no felony convictions. 331. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his fiancée did everything possible to get their children back into their custody—including participating in parenting classes and working closely with their case worker. They were deeply concerned that being unable to secure housing would prevent them from being reunited with their children. 332. Full custody rights were restored as a result of their cooperation with the intense scrutiny of the Social Services Department. 333. The family has now been reunited and lives together in a five-bedroom, two-car garage home. Mr. Trotter-Ford, his fiancée, and four of their children (including a baby born in 2017) reside together. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s other four children spend weekends and some vacations with them. Mr. Trotter-Ford has returned to his role as the primary full-time caretaker of the children who reside with them. 334. Mr. Trotter-Ford knows that calls to police by neighbors, regardless of whether they result in criminal prosecutions or convictions, could result in his family
62

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 63 of 72
losing their home again as a result of the Ordinance. He remains at risk of being harmed again by the Ordinance.
Organizational Plaintiff 335. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a
nonprofit organization that has been providing services to the refugee population in southeastern Minnesota since 1999.
336. SCRS has two offices: one in Faribault, Minnesota and one in Rochester, Minnesota. Nine staff members work in SCRS’s Faribault office.
337. SCRS’s mission is to promote and advance the social well-being and the welfare of its members by providing community and resettlement services. SCRS assists refugee families to secure basic needs and resources for self-sufficiency and to acclimate to a new way of life.
338. Defendants have interfered with SCRS’s mission to assist refugee families to secure their basic needs by making it considerably more difficult for members to find and keep housing in Faribault.
339. The Ordinance has also forced SCRS to divert significant organizational resources from other planned activities. Because members of the Somali community seek help from SCRS when threatened with the loss of housing due to the birth of a new baby, SCRS has redirected and continues to redirect staff time, office space, and emergency assistance funds to assist these members with housing issues created by the Ordinance.
340. SCRS staff provides interpretation, transportation and other assistance to members who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy
63

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 64 of 72
Restriction. SCRS assists approximately five families each week who are at risk of losing their homes because of the addition of a new baby to their family.
341. Two of SCRS’s thirteen staff members now work exclusively on housing issues, at a cost to the organization of approximately $70,000 per year. Together, they spend about seventy hours each week assisting families who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction.
342. For example, when a family comes to SCRS with an eviction notice because of the birth of a new baby, SCRS employees help by: translating documents; providing interpretation services that allow clients to communicate with landlords and lawyers from Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services; filling out forms; negotiating with landlords; printing, faxing, and mailing documents, and paying for printing supplies and postage; and hand-delivering documents, including traveling to the surrounding area where landlords or management companies might be located.
343. Although two staff members work specifically on housing issues, in reality all nine staff members must spend time dealing with housing issues that arise because of the Ordinance.
344. In part as a result of the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction, SCRS has also expended resources to create an emergency assistance program for families who are at risk of losing their homes or who have lost their homes. This emergency assistance program began in November 2017 with $53,000 and was supposed to last a full year, but due to the depth of the need for this funding, SCRS ran out of funding for emergency assistance by April 2018. Approximately 90% of the funding in this program was used to secure new housing for families whose housing was in jeopardy due to the Ordinance and
64

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 65 of 72
its Occupancy Restriction. Specifically, the emergency assistance fund was used to help evicted families pay the upfront costs of renting a new home, such as deposits or last month’s rent required upfront.
345. As a result of the resources SCRS has diverted to addressing housing needs created by the Ordinance, SCRS has fewer resources to devote to other priorities critical to its mission, including resettlement services, civic engagement, education, health, employment, and programs for youth and the elderly.
346. For example, SCRS has had to curtail its employment services. Employment is an area of great need, and SCRS would have prioritized it in the last few years had it not been for the Ordinance. Instead, SCRS has been forced to stop driving community members to job orientations and to their first week of work, as SCRS had previously done. As a result, community members now miss out on job opportunities because they cannot afford transportation before receiving a first paycheck.
347. SCRS has also been forced to divert resources from its youth programming. SCRS would like to provide tutoring and recreation opportunities for youth, but it can do only a very limited amount of this work because of the volume of housing work created by the Ordinance. SCRS had hired a staff member with the title of Youth Program Administrator, but that staff member now works exclusively on housing issues.
348. SCRS will continue to divert resources to stem the housing crisis facing the Somali-American community in Faribault for as long as the Ordinance continues to cause Somali-American families to lose their homes in Faribault.
65

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 66 of 72
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 349. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 350. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 351. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Fair Housing Act because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to make unavailable and deny dwellings in Faribault to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin. 352. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 353. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 354. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
66

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 67 of 72
355. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin.
356. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF § 1981 – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 357. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 358. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws . . .” Making and enforcing contracts “includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” § 1981(b). 359. Section 1981 protects these rights from “impairment under color of State law.” § 1981(c). 360. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates § 1981 because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to deny the equal right to make and enforce contracts for rental housing to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or ancestry.
67

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 68 of 72
361. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – CRIMINAL HISTORY POLICY 362. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 363. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 364. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means. 365. By causing potential tenants to be barred from housing based upon their criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory impact on the basis of race and national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
68

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 69 of 72
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION (art. V, § 7-40(h)) 366. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 367. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 368. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means. 369. By barring families from residing in otherwise-suitable housing based on family size, and by causing tenants to be evicted from housing upon the birth of additional children, the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on persons of Somali national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(RACE DISCRIMINATION) 370. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above.
69

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 70 of 72
371. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1.
372. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates Minnesota equal protection because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin.
373. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(ANIMUS AGAINST RENTERS) 374. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 375. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1. 376. In order to survive rational basis scrutiny under the Minnesota Constitution, a policy must satisfy three requirements: (1) the distinctions separating those included within a classification from those excluded must be genuine and substantial rather than arbitrary or fanciful; (2) there must be an evident connection
70

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 71 of 72 between needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; and (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the government can legitimately attempt to achieve.
377. The Rental Licensing Ordinance explicitly treats renters differently from homeowners and those residing in owner-occupied housing. Renters’ private information, including their dates of residency, are available to the City of Faribault at all times; renters can lose their homes as a consequence of contact with the police; and renters are responsible if guests or others “under the resident’s control” engage in criminal conduct. None of these requirements apply to homeowners or those who reside in owner-occupied homes. There is no evident connection between this classification and any legitimate government purpose, and there is evidence that the Ordinance was adopted with animus toward renters.
378. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
71

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 9 Filed 06/29/18 Page 72 of 72

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and their officials, employees, and agents from implementing or enforcing the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program;
B. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law, Minn. Stat. § 555.01, that the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program, is unlawful and invalid;
C. Compensatory damages, including “garden variety” emotional distress damages, for the Plaintiffs;
D. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and
E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

Dated: June 29, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Rachel Goodman Rachel Goodman Jennesa Calvo-Friedman American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212.549.2500 rgoodman@aclu.org jcalvo-friedman@aclu.org

Teresa Nelson Ian Bratlie American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: 651.529.1692 tnelson@aclu-mn.org ibratlie@aclu-mn.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

72

 
 CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 90

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

THELMA JONES, PRIYIA LACEY, FAISA ABDI, ALI ALI, RUKIYA HUSSEIN, LUCIA PORRAS, DAVID TROTTER-FORD, AND SOMALI COMMUNITY RESETTLEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF FARIBAULT,
Defendant.

Case No. 18-CV-01643-JRT
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
DAMAGES

INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges the City of Faribault, Minnesota’s illegal and unconstitutional Rental Licensing Ordinance, Ord. No. 2017-13, which was aimed at reducing the number of people of color living in rental housing within its borders. (The 2017 Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 2. This lawsuit also challenges the City of Faribault’s 2019 update to its Rental Licensing Ordinance, Ord. No. 2019-17, which has the identical purpose and scope of the 2017 version and has or will predictably have the same effects as the 2017 version. Unless otherwise stated, all references to the “Rental Licensing Ordinance” or “Ordinance” refer to both the 2017 and 2019 versions because, in those instances, the language and section numbers in both versions are identical. (The 2019 Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 3. In order to rent out residential property in Faribault, every landlord must secure a rental license. To secure and maintain this license, the City of Faribault requires
1

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 90
that landlords give police enormous control over their tenants through Faribault’s codified Crime Free Housing Program.
4. The City of Faribault (“Faribault” or “the City”) enacted its Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program in order to target Black Somali tenants living in downtown Faribault, whom some in the community perceived to be engaging in crime and, by their very physical presence on streets and sidewalks, creating a “negative perception” of Faribault.
5. Faribault first enacted the scheme in 2014 despite the fact that its own Chief of Police, Andrew Bohlen, stated in a memorandum to the City Council that there was no downtown crime problem and that “fears and cultural clashes” were to blame for the community concerns. Faribault’s Black Somali population had surged in the years leading up to passage of the Ordinance.
6. Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that landlords use leases that allow police to order all members of a household evicted if any household member or guest engages in what police deem to be criminal activity. Police can order evictions even when there has been no arrest and no prosecution.
7. Before re-enacting the Ordinance in 2017 with minor revisions, City officials made public statements concerning the Crime Free Housing Program’s success at “get[ting] rid of” residents who are “undesirable[].” One member of the City Council stated that Faribault needed to attract higher income residents or it would “flip like Detroit in a few years.”
8. The Rental Licensing Ordinance also requires that landlords screen potential tenants for criminal history. Faribault instructs landlords to refuse to rent to
2

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 90
potential tenants with criminal records, including convictions for minor crimes, without regard to whether a criminal record indicates a present risk for property or safety. Because Black Minnesotans are vastly more likely to have a criminal record than are white Minnesotans, as are Latino Minnesotans, this policy has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect.
9. The 2017 Rental Licensing Ordinance limited the occupancy of every rental unit to two people per legal bedroom plus one, regardless of the size of the bedrooms or the availability of additional rooms for sleeping. Because Faribault Somali families tend to be large, such that Faribault Somali households are significantly larger than non-Somali households, this occupancy restriction has a significant and unjustified discriminatory effect on people of Somali national origin, who were often evicted upon the birth of a child. Because of this lawsuit, the City modified its occupancy restriction in 2019 to exempt children aged 2 and under.
10. These discriminatory policies violate the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the equal rights guarantees provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Minnesota Constitution.
11. This lawsuit seeks to end the many harms wrought by the Rental Licensing Ordinance on tenants and potential tenants, as well as on the health of the broader Faribault community.
PARTIES Plaintiffs
12. After the inception of this lawsuit, Plaintiff Thelma Jones moved to Burnsville, MN. Ms. Jones had previously resided in rental housing in Faribault, where
3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 90
she had lived since 2008. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Jones and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program after the Faribault Police Department threatened Ms. Jones’ landlord with criminal prosecution unless she evicted Ms. Jones and her family.
13. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is actively seeking rental housing in Faribault. She is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Lacey is Ms. Jones’ daughter. She, too, lost her home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
14. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2010. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family are currently threatened with loss of their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
15. Plaintiff Ali Ali has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2006. He is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their prior home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction and are at risk of losing their current home as their family expands.
16. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein has resided in rental housing in Faribault since 2002. She is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. She and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and its occupancy restriction.
17. Plaintiff Lucia Porras has lived in Faribault for most of her life. She is a Latina woman and a U.S. citizen. Ms. Porras is actively seeking rental housing in Faribault after she and her family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
4

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 90
18. After the inception of this lawsuit, in 2019, Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford and his family moved from Faribault to Rosemont, MN. He is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. He and his family lost their home as a result of the Rental Licensing Ordinance and the Crime-Free Housing Program.
19. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, with its primary places of business in Rochester and Faribault, Minnesota. The Rental Licensing Ordinance interferes with its mission to promote the welfare and well-being of members of the Somali community and forces it to divert resources to ameliorate the harms caused to that community by the Ordinance.
Defendant 20. Defendant City of Faribault, Minnesota is a municipality capable of being
sued under Minnesota law. The city is the legal entity responsible for the Faribault Police Department (“FPD”), a law enforcement agency. Plaintiffs base all applicable and appropriate claims as to Defendant City of Faribault on the doctrines of respondent superior or vicarious liability and municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. This action arises under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601– 3619, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 90
22. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court may award Plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, and this Court’s inherent equitable jurisdiction.
23. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota state law claim, which forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory, injunctive, and other relief as necessary or proper under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”),1 Minn. Stat. § 555.01 et seq., and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
24. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the events giving rise to the claims made in this complaint have occurred or will occur in this district and because Defendant City of Faribault is located in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Faribault Context: Demographic Change
25. In the years leading up to the 2014 passage of the first Rental Licensing Ordinance, Faribault’s Black population had risen rapidly, and the trend continues.
26. In 2000, according to the United States Census, just 2.7% of Faribault’s population was Black. By 2010, that figure stood at 7.6%. In 2016, the Census’s American Community Survey estimated Faribault’s population to be 9.2% Black.
1 The UDJA is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed and administered to “settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” Minn. Stat. § 555.12. 6

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 7 of 90
27. This growth includes considerable growth in Faribault’s population of people of Somali national origin. In 2009, the American Community Survey estimated that there were 175 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, composing about 0.8% of Faribault’s population. By 2016, that population figure had risen by a factor of nearly ten. The American Community Survey estimated that there were 1,036 people of Somali ancestry living in Faribault, composing about 4.4% of Faribault’s population.
28. Faribault’s Black residents, including those of Somali national origin, are concentrated in rental housing. Kim Clausen, the City’s Community Development Coordinator, confirmed in sworn testimony that more Black/African-Americans rent homes rather than own homes in Faribault
29. According to the 2010 Census, which provides the most recent statistics available, just 0.5% of owner-occupied households in Faribault were Black households, whereas 8.4% of renter households were Black households. Put differently, nearly 90% of Black households in Faribault lived in rental housing in 2010. By contrast, just 28% of non-Hispanic white households lived in rental housing the same year.
30. Latino residents also disproportionately reside in rental housing. In 2010, more than 40% of Latino households in Faribault lived in rental housing
31. The 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted that homeownership “by minority groups in Rice County is staggeringly low,” and that “over 98 percent of households are owned by white Americans.” The study also estimates that, although 19% of Faribault’s population is composed of racial minorities, 2% of its housing units are owned by racial minorities.
7

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 8 of 90
32. In Rice County, where Faribault is located, there are approximately three hundred low-income families receiving federally-funded Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, to assist them in paying rent in private market housing. Threequarters of the families receiving this assistance live in Faribault.
33. Two-thirds of the Rice County families receiving Section 8 are Black or African-American. When adults in households receiving Section 8 in Rice County were asked about languages spoken, 390 reported speaking Somali, three times more than the 130 who reported speaking English (some respondents marked more than one language). Thus, a majority of Section 8 recipients in Rice County are of Somali national origin.
34. Mayor Voracek described the change in Faribault this way: “it is a city founded upon good working values. Its been known as a Christian community for many years, as there used to be three Catholic churches, now we're down to one. So that also shows a turn of the beliefs and values.”
Somali Presence and Misperceptions of Downtown Crime 35. Between 2000 and 2014, the total number of crimes in Faribault dropped
significantly. According to Faribault Police Department data reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system, the overall number of property crimes fell by more than a third, even as Faribault’s population grew. Faribault did not consistently report all categories of violent crime data during the period, but the total number of reported violent crimes in 2014 was essentially the same as it had been in 2000.
36. Nonetheless, some Faribault residents reported concerns with crime and safety, especially downtown. Tenants “loitering” on downtown sidewalks were the locus of this concern—particularly if they were Somali.
8

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 9 of 90
37. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that “large numbers of Somalis at night standing in groups on corners were concerns that I received phone calls from, from residents, at the grocery store, post office had some concerns. From business owners, from basically different people. They were uncomfortable with the appearance of that [.]” Jasinski also testified that large groups of Somali men standing on street corners contributed to the perception of a crime problem and that “the number one complaint I heard about was the Somali population, to be honest with you. Absolutely.”
38. Mayor Voracek testified that the increase in concern about crime downtown was due to people getting used to the “new look.” He testified that the “new look” refers to “more diversity in our downtown” and by “diversity” he meant “people that are not white.”
39. A 2011 Downtown Faribault Market Analysis (“2011 Market Analysis”), funded in part by the state of Minnesota, reported that visitors to the downtown had mentioned safety as one of their top two concerns. However, the same report noted that police “indicated there is little crime in the downtown, and certainly no more than the community at large.” Later, the report noted that “relating to the negative perception of the safety of downtown are the low income residents residing in second floor apartments who are loitering and/or congregating during peak and off-peak hours along the retail corridor.”
40. With respect to concerns he heard around this time from members of the public, then-Mayor Jasinski testified that Somalis made people uncomfortable to park downtown and that “they would all smoke and throw their cigarette butts on the sidewalk[.]”A large proportion of renters living downtown were people of color.
9

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 10 of 90
41. In March 2013, the Faribault Daily News noted that complaints of drug activity and theft downtown had become a hot button issue, but that, once again, police records did not corroborate this concern. A quoted resident said that the perception of downtown as unsafe exists “because people drive up and down the street and see groups of people standing in the sidewalks. But that’s not a bad thing. Times are changing, and it’s a matter of people getting used to the new look.”
42. Jasinski testified that around this time, March 2013, the fact that people were congregating downtown led to a perception of crime, whereas crime data, he acknowledged, showed no higher percentages of crime downtown as compared to the rest of the Faribault. Jasinski testified that he moved downtown to prove that downtown was safe.
43. Later that spring, a letter to the editor of the Faribault Daily News explicitly stated that the writer was in fear of Somalis “loitering” around town, and that she did not “understand why our beautiful city permits this activity.” Jasinski testified about this letter, attesting that he heard the same concerns from the community—of being fearful of the Somali community. (A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
44. Jasinski also testified that Janna Viscomi, a City Council member beginning in 2015, told him she did not feel comfortable walking by Somali men congregating downtown. Jasinski testified that Ms. Viscomi “had some issues with the Somali men in front of her restaurant[,]” adding that “[s]he was very vocal.” Mayor Voracek, for his part, testifed that Viscomi said a nusiance code was necessary because of people gathering on the street.
10

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 11 of 90
45. Peter Waldock, the City’s Planning Coordinator, observed the same sentiment elsewhere in the community. He testified that business owners complained that Somalis gathering near stores “frightened” customers who were not accustomed to black people. Waldock also testifed that he heard complaints about people loitering downtown from citizens, who expressed fear of walking down the sidewalk past large groups of people, which he described as young males and “Somalis.” He further testified that the perception of downtown Faribault as unsafe had to do with people gathering on corners and sitting on their cars—and with their race.
46. Mayor Voracek testified that a “cultural clash” were the coversations about the “African American culture that moved to town” congregating on streets.
47. In October 2013, the Faribault Daily News ran an article about a duallanguage video created by the FPD in an attempt to communicate with Faribault’s Somali-speaking community. That article interviewed Asher Ali, the head of the Faribault Diversity Coalition, who discussed the need to address “cultural differences” between downtown businesses and the Somali-American residents who live around them or above them. He noted that Americans deem it “loitering” when Somalis stand around on the street, a regular practice in a culture that places more emphasis on face-to-face interactions.
48. Thus, concerns about “loitering” in downtown Faribault had become a clear code for concerns about the visible presence of Black Somali people downtown.
11

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 12 of 90
Events Leading to the Enactment of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance 49. On October 15, 2013, the Faribault City Council’s Joint Committee held a
“Discussion Regarding Downtown.” 50. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen of the FPD wrote a
memorandum to then-City Administrator Brian Anderson discussing “ongoing police efforts to work with the downtown community on Central Avenue to alleviate some of the fears and cultural clashes taking place.” (The Bohlen Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit D.) This memorandum began by noting the proximity of the business community to a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups” and the fact that business owners had recently raised concerns about people on the sidewalks, including “alleged criminal activity and open drug transactions.” Chief Bohlen then noted that he had examined police records and concluded that there had been no increase in downtown crime, including drug crime. See Ex. D.
51. The Bohlen Memorandum also mentioned the “increased discussion of a revised loitering ordinance.” He noted that he had discussed the issue with the city attorney and recognized that a loitering ordinance might be “problematic and unenforceable” in many circumstances. See id. Then-Mayor Jasinski confirmed in sworn testimony that the City Council was then considering a loitering ordinance to address, in part, the groups of Somali men congregating downtown.
52. Officer Mark Krenik, who would later run the Crime-Free Housing Program for the FPD, also made that connection. In testifying why he thought the loitering ordinance was unenforceable, he directly linked concerns over loitering with people living in apartments above businesses downtown, who tend to congregate on the
12

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 13 of 90
sidewalk. He said that the sidewalk is part of their home, implying it would be unfair to punish people for standing in their “home.”
53. Chief Bohlen was correct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that loitering for innocent purposes is part of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53 (1999).
54. The Memorandum segued directly from discussion of this unconstitutional proposal to discussion of plans to improve the relationship between the FPD and the Somali community. Chief Bohlen wrote:
I believe building trusting relationships with the diverse downtown culture is vital to improve police and community relations, cooperatively work towards common goals, establish enforceable laws and make genuine progress. The Somali culture is here to stay and I have personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city and it is not solely a problem with one ethnic group. They are a vital part of the Faribault economy, rent apartments downtown, and communicate differently than the long time residents. The new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street. See Ex. D. 55. Then-Mayor Jasinski agreed with Chief Bohlen’s remark about intolerance in the community. He testified “there was a certain group of the population or the local people that have been here for years that were intolerant, yes.” 56. Peter Waldock, the City’s Planning Coordinator, also agreed with Chief Bohlen. He testified that he too observed intolerance towards Somalis, specifically, in the context of City Council meetings. 57. The Bohlen Memorandum and current and former City officials’ testimony demonstrate the City of Faribault’s awareness that (1) concerns about
13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 14 of 90
downtown safety were not borne out by facts about crime; (2) these concerns were a product of community animus directed at Somali residents of downtown Faribault; and (3) the City could not legally keep its Somali residents from innocently “loitering” on city sidewalks.
58. Six months later, on March 18, 2014, the Joint Committee discussed a “Rental Licensing Ordinance and Crime Free Housing Program.” As part of this discussion, according to the notes, “[t]he Chief of Police and City Attorney stated that a loitering ordinance may only lead to legal issues when the real issues are more closely related to nuisance violations.” (A copy of these notes is attached hereto as Exhibit E.) Then-Community Development Director Peter Waldock testified that “real issues” meant facts, as opposed to perception, explaining that one could feel unsafe (perception) when they are really safe (fact). Thus, the discussion once again explicitly positioned the draft rental licensing ordinance as a way to address the perception of increasing crime and as a substitute for the unconstitutional loitering ordinance that had been proposed. See Nicole Stelle Garnett, Relocating Disorder, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1075, 1090 –01 (2005) (arguing that municipalities increasingly turn to property regulation tools in an effort to avoid legal challenges to policing policies aimed at controlling low-income populations).
59. In advance of this meeting, Community Development Director Peter Waldock prepared a memorandum for then-City Administrator Brian Anderson, attaching a draft ordinance substantially similar to the rental licensing ordinance that was subsequently enacted. (The Waldock Memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) The Waldock Memorandum explicitly linked the Ordinance to the October discussion of
14

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 15 of 90
purported crime downtown for which the Bohlen Memorandum had been prepared, stating:
At the City Council Joint Committee meeting last October, the City Council heard concerns expressed regarding housing conditions in some rental units downtown and concerns with problem tenants in the community. The City Council directed staff to review the issues and recommend ways in which the City could address the issues. As a follow up to this discussion, staff presented a number of ideas for the City Council to consider addressing the concerns. Among these was participation in a Crime-Free MultiHousing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program. See Ex. F. 60. The Waldock Memorandum demonstrates that the City of Faribault viewed the Crime-Free Housing Program and the Ordinance as a means to address ongoing “concerns” about downtown—concerns which Chief Bohlen and the City had recognized were motivated by animus and not borne out by facts about crime. See id. 61. Moreover, the Crime-Free Housing Program that the Joint Committee discussed, and that the City eventually adopted, follows a model created by the Arizonabased International Crime Free Association. The proposed Crime-Free Housing Program, far from being tailored to respond to the realities of crime in Faribault, was an off-therack solution to a problem that did not exist. 62. The Joint Committee again discussed the draft ordinance at its April 29, 2014 meeting. In advance of that meeting, Chief Bohlen and Peter Waldock prepared another memorandum to the Joint Council Committee. This memorandum contained no discussion of any recent increase in crime or calls for police service in Faribault. Nonetheless, the memorandum stated: By not addressing problematic tenants through a CFMH program, quality tenants will vacate problem properties, increasing calls for service to PD
15

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 16 of 90
staff and ultimately change the landscape of tenants renting within Faribault. The city will continue to experience lower quality rental housing. The police department will not have a route to address problem tenants as calls for service and complaints increase, taxing existing staff. 63. The draft ordinance had a first and second reading before the City Council in June, and it was published on June 27, 2014. City of Faribault, Ord. No. 2014-009, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 7 and Repealing Chapter 21 of the Faribault City Code (“the 2014 Ordinance”). It passed unanimously and went into effect on January 1, 2015. 64. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi told the Faribault Daily News in a video interview that she had been trying to get the City Council to address the issue of loitering downtown for more than three years. She acknowledged the racial dynamics of her concern repeatedly. In response to a reporter’s prompt about the large Somali presence downtown as “the elephant in the room,” she stated: “[H]ere’s the thing, you know, I’ve got a lot of friends that are Somali, okay. So I would not have one problem going up to any of them and saying what are you doing, you can’t be sitting on that guy’s car.” She also stated that she has “seen a change firsthand” over the last eighteen years— during the period when Faribault’s Black and Somali population expanded rapidly—and continued, “yes, I want to kumbaya and embrace everyone, and yaa,” but that she believes business is harmed by the loitering.
City Officials’ Statements About Enforcement of the 2014 Ordinance 65. In January 2016, then-City Manager Anderson and then-Mayor John
Jasinski discussed the Ordinance on a City-produced Faribault Community Connections video. In that video, Anderson touted the fact that 31 families had lost their homes as a
16

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 17 of 90
result of the Ordinance’s Crime Free Housing Program. The following exchange then
took place:
CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: [I]f you want to know you know why are we putting more officers out on the streets; it’s to help fund programs like this, the Crime Free Multi Housing, and it’s to help get rid of some of the some of the, you know, what would you say, the residents that normally are – MAYOR JASINSKI: Undesirable? CITY MANAGER ANDERSON: The undesirable ones [ . . . ]
66. This group of “undesirables” includes not only adults who had not been
charged with or convicted of any crime, but also children living in households targeted
for eviction. A similar term—“less desirables”—was used by a downtown business
owner in a June 2016 email to City Council members describing men loitering outside his
business. The City Administrator referred the complaint to the full City Council and
announced they would “address the issues accordingly.”
67. In the above cited January 2016 video, then-Mayor Jasinski, who served
from 2008 until 2016, again linked unsupported concerns about downtown crime to
passage of the Ordinance and further affirmed that community animus motivated the
Ordinance. He stated:
[T]hat’s something that we had heard as a council that we know the downtown, the housing stock, the crime, and things like that that we wanted to get out. . . . you know, it makes it a little bit difficult on the property owners, the rental property owners. It’s a little bit more in-depth and they have to do a few more things. But again to clean up our housing stock, and residents, and things like that. 68. Faribault City Council Member Janna Viscomi, who voted to enact the
2017 and 2019 versions of the Ordinance, used coded racial terms to describe her views
on City housing policy in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. Council
Member Viscomi stated that the City needed to develop policies to attract “higher income
17

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 18 of 90
people” to balance the “lower-income people” in Faribault “or we are going to flip like Detroit in a few years.” Viscomi testified that she meant she wanted to raise the median income in Faribault to attract businesses like Target and Olive Garden. She acknowledged, however, that since she has been on the City Council she had not solicited any businesses to Faribault. When asked whether discouraging low-income people from living in Faribault would raise the median income in Faribault, she repeatedly said “no” before admitting, “it might.”
Statements by City Officials and Public about Mosque and Integrating Somalis 69. The City of Faribault has a single mosque, located at 1201 Division Street.
The mosque is a place of worship for Muslims. 70. Upon information and belief, the mosque’s congregation is almost entirely
composed of people who are either Somali or of Somali descent. As attested to by one mosque official, 98% of the people who appear for Friday prayer at the mosque are Somali. (A copy of this official’s affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit G.)
71. In May and June 2016, the City Council considered a conditional use permit application by the mosque to construct a parking lot.
72. Members of the City Council heard opposition from the public regarding the mosque. Then-City Council Member Rowan was asked in a deposition whether the influx of immigrants from Somalia to Faribault had brought any particular policy challenges to the City Council. He answered that “the public had voiced frustrations with the mosque.” When asked what concerns he heard voiced in opposition to the mosque, he said “people didn’t want it in a residential area” because of the traffic, and that
18

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 19 of 90
“[c]oncerns later would be brought up that they have a propensity to crash into people’s houses and cars.” He explained that by “they” he meant “[n]ew Somalian drivers.”
73. Rowan also testified that the public voiced concerns to him as a City Council Member about the religion itself, Islam. When pressed for details, Rowan at first refused to answer. He finally responded that “I heard that people were concerned that it would be a breeding ground for terrorists.”
74. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that he heard City Council Member Rowan express that same concern—that the mosque would be a breeding ground for terrorists. Jasinski explained that Rowan lived only a block away from the mosque. Jasinski added that he heard Rowan express this concern in the context of their respective roles as City Council Member and Mayor.
75. Jasinski also testified that he, like Rowan, heard concerns regarding the mosque from members of the public. He recalled a woman asking “what was happening inside the mosque . . . were they training terrorists[?]”
76. Jasinski himself was not immune to such feeling. As state senator, in 2019, he admitted that his office pushed out a link to a debunked news report suggesting the Somali community in Minnesota was defrauding the state of millions of dollars and sending it to fund terrorist groups in Somalia. His office pushed out the story the day after the state’s Office of Legislative Auditor (“OLA”) found no evidence to support it.
77. City Council Member Janna Viscomi also had concerns about the influx of Somali immigrants. She testified that she supported President Trump’s first travel ban, as reported by a newspaper in February 2017. That ban, which was blocked by federal courts and superseded in March 2017 by a revised ban, limited travel from seven
19

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 20 of 90
countries including Somalia. In explaining her support for the ban, Viscomi testified that the City had been “flooded with a lot of people” from Somalia—she described “hundreds of thousands coming into the country”—and that she wanted to slow the flow of Somali immigrants to Faribault to absorb those already there. She compared the City to a boat and asked: “how many people can we put on a boat before the boat capsizes?”
78. Viscomi also connected the Somali immigrants to terrorism. When asked during a deposition what programs, if any, the City had to help integrate Somali refugees, she cited an outreach program by the FPD to dissuade Somali adolescents from joining Al Qaeda or ISIS.
The City’s Decision to Install a Downtown Camera Surveillance System 79. In November 2014, the City purchased and installed a camera surveillance
system in downtown Faribault. According to the resolution approving the purchase, the City thought it “could reduce criminal activity; create a sense of safety; allow the police department to better work with business owners to track issues, public complaints, nuisances violations[.]” According to minutes of a meeting discussing the system, Chief Bohlen also said the system would allow the FPD to better work with downtown business owners “to track issues and complaints” including “blocking sidewalks.” The system cost the City $43,204.35. (Copies of the resolution and minutes are attached hereto as Exhibits H and I.)
80. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that he had no recollection of any data being presented to the City Council by Chief Bohlen or anyone else to justify the expense for the camera system. He testified that during this period there was a “perception” of crime
20

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 21 of 90
downtown and that concerns over loitering could have influenced other City Council Members’ decision to support the camera system.
Crime Rates in Faribault and Unsupported Claims about Efficacy of CFMH 81. The City’s own data showed that crime was dropping from previous years
when the City Council decided to enact the Crime-Free Housing Program in 2014. 82. In mid-2014, the City began participating in the Cannon River Drug and
Violent Offender Task Force (“Task Force”), which consisted of combined resources from Faribault, Rice County Sheriff’s Office, Northfield, Le Sueur County Sheriff’s Office, and the MN Department of Corrections. Its purpose was to combat drug activity and violent crime.
83. Chief Bohlen testified that he thought the Task Force had decreased drug crime.
84. Despite the enactment of the Crime-Free Housing Program effective January 1, 2015, the City’s data also showed an 11.5% increase in crime in 2015 compared to 2014.
85. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that he knew that crime had been declining when he decided to vote for the Crime-Free Housing Program. He supported it anyway because, as he testified, his constituents wanted it. As he put it, “[d]owntown was a concern.”
Passage of the 2017 Ordinance
21

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 22 of 90
86. In 2017, Faribault revised the Rental Licensing Ordinance, but the core purpose and intent of the Ordinance remained unchanged.
87. In March 2017, the Faribault Daily News ran a series of articles discussing the first two years of enforcement of the Crime-Free Housing Program. Sergeant Mark Krenik, who runs the Program for the FPD, told the paper that he and city staff would be revisiting certain areas within the ordinance in order to “one, make it easier to understand, and, two, make it easier to enforce.” Gunnar Olson, Mixed emotions: Landlords, officials measure success differently for Crime-Free Multi-Housing program, Faribault Daily News, Mar. 29, 2017.
88. These ideas were repeated throughout the formal revision process. In May 2017, Chief Bohlen and Deanna Kuennen, now Director of Community and Economic Development, presented the City Council Joint Committee with a memorandum outlining proposed changes to the Ordinance. The memorandum stated “Staff has worked with legal counsel to update the Rental Dwelling Licenses ordinance to ensure that the ordinance continues to serve its intended purpose.” An August version of that memorandum stated that the revisions would provide the City with tools “to effectively meet the expressed objectives of the City as well as more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance.”
89. Similar language appears in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the first reading of the revised ordinance was approved. A second reading followed on September 26, 2017. It passed unanimously and was published on September 29, 2017. City of Faribault, Ordinance No. 2017-13, An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing
22

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 23 of 90
Sec. 7-36 Through Sec. 7-45 of Article V of Chapter 7 of the Faribault City Code. See Ex. A.
Passage of the 2019 Ordinance 90. In October 2019, Faribault once again revised the Rental Licensing
Ordinance, but the core purpose and intent of the Ordinance remain unchanged. 91. A memorandum dated October 8, 2019 sent to the Faribault Mayor and
City Council and authored by Faribault Police Department Chief, Andrew Bohlen, and Community & Economic Development Director, Deanna Kuennen, characterizes the proposed changes to the 2017 Ordinance as “removal o[f] redundant and unnecessary language,” “correction of clerical errors,” and “clarifications to a landlord’s obligations under the Ordinance as well as the City’s enforcement procedures.” The 2019 Ordinance is virtually identical to the 2017 version. (A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit J.)
92. The 2014, 2017, and 2019 versions of the Ordinance describe the purpose of the Rental Licensing Ordinance in identical language. See 2014 Ordinance § 7-36; 2017 Ordinance § 7-36; 2019 Ordinance § 7-36
93. The lack of significant changes to the substance of the Ordinance from version to version make clear that the animus involved in the passage of the 2014 Ordinance and 2017 Ordinance infects the current Rental Licensing Ordinance.
23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 24 of 90
The Rental License Ordinance is Part of a Plan to Remove Low-Income Black Residents From Faribault’s Downtown
94. The City enacted and deployed the Rental License Ordinance as one component of a broader effort to replace affordable housing downtown, occupied disproportionately by low-income people of color, with more expensive housing, as a means of forcing current residents to vacate.
95. Former Mayor John Jasinski addressed these issues in a 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television. He discussed the “inflow” of a “nationality” to Faribault, and the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize downtown.” Then-Mayor Jasinski voted in favor of the 2014 Rental Licensing Ordinance.
96. In another 2016 interview on Faribault Community Television, Council Member Rowan, who voted in favor of both the 2014 Ordinance and the 2017 Ordinance, suggested that a lack of “quality rental properties. . . for the millennials” was one of the most pressing issues facing Faribault, caused by not “enforcing existing laws.” He described Crime-Free Multi-Housing as a “step[]” in that direction. He also stated that Faribault is “going to have to make changes” to become appealing to the “millennial generation that’s coming out of college” and getting “good paying jobs.”
97. Since at least 2011, plans for downtown have included replacing its current low-income Black residents with more affluent tenants.
98. The 2011 Market Analysis performed for downtown noted that a majority of tenants downtown are low- and very-low-income households, and observed that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the
24

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 25 of 90
downtown district.” The same analysis states that “the Somalis . . . are often low income, seeking work, looking for affordable housing.”
99. In 2014, Faribault engaged in a community planning process called Community Vision 2040, with an outside consultant. Among the strategic priorities identified in the Community Vision 2040 report was “A Vibrant Downtown.”
100. Goals listed under that heading included both “[e]stablish[ing] market rate and high-end residential [units] in the downtown” and “[e]nhanc[ing] the appearance of downtown buildings and the streetscape.” To accomplish that latter goal, the report suggested enforcing, among other things, the recently-passed “rental ordinances.”
101. During a deposition of the City, intended, in part, to discuss Faribault’s Community Vision 2040, its designated representative was asked to whether the City distinguished between “market rate” and “high-end” residential. The City testified that by “market rate” the City meant residential units that were not subsidized. The City also admitted that the City did not consider establishing any properties downtown that could include occupants with housing subsidies.
102. The Community Vision 2040 report noted that “Faribault has become significantly more diverse. Faribault was 96 percent white in 1990. It is approximately 75 percent white today. There are approximately ten times more persons of color in Faribault today than 25 years ago, and Faribault has approximately 50 percent more persons of color, as a percentage, than the average Minnesota community.” Nonetheless, the report exclusively employs images of white people to illustrate Faribault. Not a single person of color is depicted in Faribault’s “vision” of its future.
25

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 26 of 90
103. Faribault subsequently established a “Downtown Housing Improvement Program,” through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which provided loans “to encourage the development and redevelopment of high-quality market-rate housing.”
104. Specifically, the program notes the goal of “renovating substandard housing on upper floors into high-quality market-rate housing.” In order to participate in the program, a residential developer must pledge, among other things: (1) to comply with the requirements of the Crime-Free Multi Housing Program; (2) to bar all tenants who use a subsidy to pay their rent for at least ten years; and (3) to charge rents above a minimum threshold, so that rents do not fall below city-dictated levels.
105. Among the improvements eligible for city funding are “cabinets, molding, and countertops,” as well as “amenities that add exceptional value,” such as fitness rooms and “pet spas.” The addition of these amenities is intended to attract higher-income tenants.
106. The Downtown Housing Improvement Program aims to subsidize the conversion of affordable rental housing downtown, currently inhabited disproportionately by low-income people of color, into housing that would not be affordable to this population. In order to ensure this effect, the City bars recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers—who are overwhelmingly of Somali ancestry in Rice County—from living in the units it subsidizes, although their vouchers might enable them to afford the units.
107. Before the Program ended, it distributed $120,000, of which $80,000, or 66.6%, went to Councilwoman Janna Viscomi to create four housing units. The housing units on information and belief are the “Vintage Residential Suites,” which offers Weekly
26

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 27 of 90
and Monthly Stays through Airbnb, which provide accommodations for long-term stays in Faribault, not housing for Faribault residents.
108. These statements and policies make clear that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was enacted as part of a broader plan by the City of Faribault to push lowincome residents of color out of the downtown area. At the same time, the City has done nothing to increase the stock of affordable and subsidized housing elsewhere in Faribault.
The Rental Licensing Ordinance: A Summary 109. The Rental Licensing Ordinance requires that any person operating a
rental dwelling in Faribault obtain a rental license, § 7-38(a)(1), and sets out numerous requirements for procuring and maintaining such a license, as well as criminal penalties for landlords who fail to comply with those requirements.
110. The Rental Licensing Ordinance exempts just two categories of occupied rental dwellings from its coverage: Owners who rent a single dwelling to a relative and “snowbird[s]” who rent out their homes for fewer than 120 days each year while residing outside of Minnesota. § 7-38(a)(1)(a)–(b).
111. Licensees must file complete applications with the city, pay registration fees, stay current on taxes, fines, and penalties, and remain in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws. §7-38(c)–(e). A license is generally valid for two years, §7-38(b), although a provisional license of shorter duration is available in certain circumstances, § 7-39.
112. The Ordinance also requires that landlords who do not live in designated nearby Minnesota counties register a local agent with the City. § 7-40(a).
27

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 28 of 90
113. The Ordinance requires licensees to keep a “register of occupancy for each dwelling unit,” containing among other things: its address, “legal names and date of birth of adult occupants,” dates on which renters occupied and vacated the unit, and a “chronological list of complaints and requests for repair” by tenants, along with responses. § 7-40(g). This register “shall be made available for viewing or copying by the City of Faribault at all reasonable times.” Id.
114. The 2017 Ordinance also limited the maximum number of occupants in a rented home to two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2). This number can be increase by one person if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c). This requirement will be discussed in further detail below.
115. The Rental Licensing Ordinance prohibits “disorderly conduct,” defined broadly, and determined in most instances by a single police officer, in licensed rental dwellings. § 7-41. Criminal charges need not be brought for a finding of disorderly conduct, and a dismissal or acquittal of charges does not bar police from instructing a landlord to take action. § 7-41. After three instances of disorderly conduct stemming from the same tenancy, the City may order the licensee to evict all occupants of the unit. § 7-41. This section will be discussed in further detail below.
116. Licensees must also participate in Faribault’s “Crime free housing program,” modeled on the “Minnesota Crime Prevention Association’s Crime Free Multi Housing Program.” § 7-42 (the “Crime Free Housing Program”).
117. In detailing the purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program, the Ordinance states the City Council’s finding that “repeated police calls to rental dwelling units in the city related to disturbances or criminal activity have taxed law enforcement
28

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 29 of 90
resources.” § 7-42(a). On information and belief, no evidence supporting this finding was before the City Council when it enacted the Ordinance, or its predecessors, the 2014 Ordinance and 2017 Ordinance. Indeed, City officials’ testimony suggests just the opposite. Then-City Council Member Rowan testified that no evidence was presented to the City Council to support the claim that law enforcement resources had been taxed in any way.
118. The Crime Free Housing Program requires all Faribault landlords to comply with three basic components:
(1) Attend a certified eight-hour crime-free housing course presented by police, fire, public housing and others.
(2) Use a written lease which includes the crime-free/drug free housing lease addendum.
(3) Conduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of third-party background check procedures for tenants.
§ 7-42(b). The FPD can require a landlord to evict an entire household when the FPD believes the terms of the lease addendum have been violated. § 7-42(f)(1). The requirements of the Crime Free Housing Program are discussed in more detail below.
119. The Ordinance makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, to violate any of its requirements. § 7-42(f)(5).
120. The Rental Licensing Ordinance provides for required inspections of rental housing and a process for issuance and appeal of orders when properties do not fully comply with City Code and other requirements. § 7-43. It also sets out the process for dwellings found unfit for human habitation. Id.
29

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 30 of 90
121. Finally, the Ordinance details the circumstances in which the City can deny, suspend, non-renew, or revoke a license, and describes the process provided to landlords in such circumstances. § 7-44.
The Tenant Control Policies 122. The Rental Licensing Ordinance and its Crime Free Housing Program,
taken together, grant the City tremendous control over the lives of Faribault renters. By exerting pressure on their landlords, the Rental Licensing Ordinance provides Defendants with tools to harass and evict entire families for alleged criminal conduct that does not even necessitate criminal prosecution. Several distinct pieces of the Rental Licensing Ordinance work in tandem to provide Defendants with these tools.
123. As part of the Crime Free Housing Program, all Faribault landlords are required to include extremely broad and vague contract language adopted by the City, “or language that is contractual and legal equivalent [sic]” in each of their private lease agreements with tenants. § 7-42(e). This language, the “Crime Free/Drug Free Lease Addendum” (“the Lease Addendum”), makes a single violation of its requirements a “material violation of the lease and good cause for termination of tenancy.” § 7-42(e)(6).
124. The Lease Addendum makes it a violation of the lease for not only members of the household to engage in the prohibited activities, but also for guests or people “under the resident’s control,” without further definition, to engage in these activities. § 7-42(e).
125. Prohibited activities range from drug sale and manufacture, to possession of drug paraphernalia, to “acts of violence or threats of violence.” § 7-42(e)(1)–(5). That last category is a loosely-defined catchall, including but not limited to “unlawful
30

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 31 of 90
discharge of firearms, prostitution, criminal street gang activity, or any other breach of the rental agreement that otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of the landlord, his agents, or tenants.” § 7-42(e)(5).
126. The 2017 version of the Rental Licensing Ordinance included “intimidation” in the Lease Addendum as grounds for eviction. In its 2019 version of the Rental Licensing Ordinance, the City eliminated the word “intimidation.” The City removed “intimidation” from the Lease Addendum because of this lawsuit.
127. The Lease Addendum prohibits most of these activities “on or near the said premises,” but it prohibits certain crimes involving illegal drugs, including felony possession, “at any locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit premises or otherwise.” § 7-42(e)(4). Because that provision, like the others, applies to guests and other people “under the resident’s control,” it allows eviction purely based upon association: if someone who has been a tenant’s guest engages in drug crime anywhere, whether in Faribault or elsewhere, the tenant can be punished.
128. If the FPD determines by a preponderance of the evidence that someone has engaged in felony-level conduct violating the Lease Addendum on the rental property, they must require the landlord to evict the entire family residing in the unit. § 742(f)(1). If the FPD determines that someone has engaged in misdemeanor-level conduct on the property that violates the Lease Addendum and “threatens the peaceful enjoyment or safety of any other resident or neighbor to the premises,” the Police Department has discretion to determine whether to order the eviction of the entire family. Id.
31

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 32 of 90
129. The FPD can order eviction on either of these bases without even bringing criminal charges, and even a dismissal or acquittal on the relevant charges is not a bar to ordering eviction. § 7-42(f)(2).
130. According to public records, on one occasion in 2016, the FPD issued a lease termination demand notice targeting a household based on a March 22 search of the home for drugs. The officers’ reports describe the execution of the search warrant without mentioning that any drugs were found, and the tenant was never convicted for a crime related to drugs found in the home. The tenant had, however, been charged with possession of marijuana in his car the week before. Accordingly, it appears that although law enforcement was unable to find drugs in the home, the FPD nonetheless opted to force the tenant’s eviction.
131. The vagueness of the Lease Addendum language, combined with its extraordinary breadth, lends itself to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
132. There was no exemption in the 2017 Ordinance when the felony-level conduct was an act of domestic violence, meaning that its text allows for the eviction of a victim of domestic violence and the rest of her family along with the individual alleged to have committed the crime.
133. While the 2017 Ordinance provided for a hearing for a landlord who wishes to contest an eviction order, there was no such provision of process for the impacted tenants. § 7-42(f)(2).
134. In response to this lawsuit, Defendant added language to this section in the 2019 Ordinance that now requires licensees to provide notice to tenants: “The licensee, agent, or property manager shall notify the tenant or tenants in writing within ten (10)
32

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 33 of 90
days of the notice of violation of the crime free/drug lease language and advise the tenant(s) of the termination of the tenancy as directed by the Police Department.” § 742(f)(2). Tenants, unlike licensees, still have no opportunity for a hearing before the City Council.
135. The disorderly conduct provisions of the Ordinance, § 7-41, create an additional framework for forcing landlords to evict tenants, this time after three incidents of “disorderly conduct” within twelve months, § 7-41(c)(3).
136. Disorderly conduct is defined here with exceptional breadth. Thirty-three separate categories of crime can constitute disorderly conduct, including underage drinking, possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, and disturbing the peace and quiet of neighbors. §§ 7-41(b)(7), (5), (1), (10). Moreover, the Ordinance specifically states that disorderly conduct is not limited to these enumerated categories. § 7-41(b). The FPD could therefore rely on other criteria, not defined or described in any way in the ordinance, to accuse tenants and their guests of “disorderly conduct,” thus subjecting the tenant to eviction.
137. The breadth of this language departs from the language of the ordinance in Brooklyn Center, on which this language was based. Officer Krenik acknowledged, in sworn testimony, that the Faribault disorderly conduct provision is open-ended. He testified that the difference between Faribault’s disorderly conduct provision versus Brooklyn Center’s is that Faribault’s open-ended provision gives him “greater discretion when it comes to the violations.”
138. Krenik did not identify any policies or training he had received that would in any way limit or inform that discretion. Similarly, in sworn testimony the City failed to
33

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 34 of 90
identify a single policy that reflects what constitutes a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor that would warrant a decision to terminate a tenancy. When the City was specifically asked what policies, if any, govern when to issue a disorderly conduct citation, it answered: “There’s no policy. It’s really . . . discretion.” The City admitted this discretion makes it easier to enforce the Ordinance.
139. The City’s decision to give the FPD limit-less discretion in making eviction decisions “easier” because it allows police to base those decisions on any consideration at all, including potentially racial bias. Officer Krenik, for his part, acknowledged in sworn testimony that “bias” could affect this decision-making process. Then-City Council Member Rowan testified that he “absolutely” agreed there is racial bias in the criminal justice system. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that he was a little “concerned” about the amount of discretion afforded FPD in making eviction decisions. He explained that it opened it up to “some subjectivity” and that it could lead to inconsistent enforcement of the crime-free housing program. When asked if the discretion afforded FPD under this program opened up police officers to charges that their eviction decisions were being influenced by bias, he answered “It could probably be tightened up[.]”
140. The Ordinance explicitly permits the FPD to issue disorderly conduct notices without bringing criminal charges, and explicitly allows the disorderly conduct determination to stand even if a tenant is acquitted of a related criminal charge. § 7-41).
141. A first instance of disorderly conduct results in a notice to the landlord instructing the landlord to take steps to prevent further violations; a second instance results in a notice requiring the landlord to provide information about the steps they have
34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 35 of 90
taken. § 7-41(c)(1)–(2). After a third instance, the landlord is directed to evict the entire household, and/or the City will act to suspend, revoke, or decline to renew the landlord’s rental license. § 7-41(c)(3).
142. The Ordinance provides no process through which tenants can contest these determinations. Landlords can contest the first and second notices only by requesting reconsideration from the police officer who made the disorderly conduct determination; they can contest the third notice with the City Council. § 7-41. These deficits in process enhance the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
143. For example, police have tremendous discretion to force the eviction of an entire family as a result of several noise complaints. First and second disorderly conduct notices also force landlords to take action to discipline their tenants, even where the landlord does not see the underlying conduct as an issue affecting the landlord-tenant relationship.
144. The Ordinance also allows the City to revoke a landlord’s rental license altogether (or to deny, suspend, or not renew that license) if, among other reasons, a landlord fails “to actively pursue the eviction of a tenant or otherwise terminate the lease with a tenant” who has violated the disorderly conduct provisions or the Lease Addendum or who has “otherwise created a public nuisance” in violation of the law. § 744(c)(6).
145. In sum, the Ordinance allows the FPD to inject itself into the relationship between landlord and tenant from the inception of the lease. It allows police to order eviction of an entire family based upon allegations of criminal conduct by them or others, even without charging anyone with a crime.
35

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 36 of 90
146. By providing the FPD with this tremendous discretion, the Ordinance significantly expands the impact of any bias in policing decisions.
147. For example, public records demonstrate that, in 2016, police responded to eight separate complaints involving a white household before issuing a first disorderly conduct notice for a noise violation. In contrast, Police issued a first disorderly conduct notice that year to the household of a Black man who had been in a single loud verbal argument with another Black man outside of his building. The same year, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to the household of a Latina woman who had been home alone and screaming in grief over her aunt’s recent death, despite no prior incidents noted.
148. In 2017, police issued a first disorderly conduct notice to a household consisting of a Black mother and her two children after a neighbor called in a noise complaint, which the police report describes as having to do with the reaction to a moth trapped in the house. Police issued this notice on the very same day that they issued an eviction demand aimed at excluding from the unit a man who had stabbed the mother in the throat a month prior.
149. Under the Ordinance, aggressive or bias-based policing can result in entire families unjustly losing their homes. In 2016, the FPD sent a notice demanding eviction of an entire household after a fifteen-year-old living there was arrested for the petty misdemeanor of possession of a small amount of marijuana.
150. Tenants who lose their homes because of an eviction demand from the FPD sometimes leave Faribault, believing that no landlord will house them and risk a conflict with police.
36

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 37 of 90
The Criminal Records Screening Policy 151. The Ordinance requires Faribault landlords to conduct criminal records
checks for all potential tenants. The City supplements this language with instructions to landlords telling them not to house anyone with a criminal record. These instructions, combined with the Ordinance text and Faribault’s enforcement practices, constitute Defendants’ Criminal Records Screening Policy.
152. The Ordinance requires licensees to “[c]onduct a criminal background [sic] of all prospective tenants 18 years and older and, upon request, provide a copy of third party background check procedures for tenants.” § 7-42(b)(3); see also § 7-42(d) (“All licensees will conduct criminal background checks on all prospective tenants eighteen (18) years and older.”)
153. According to the Ordinance, the criminal background check must cover “at least the last three (3) years” and be a “statewide” check. § 7-42(d)(1). This check “must be done ‘in person’ or by utilizing the most recent update of the state criminal history files.” Id. If potential tenants have not lived in Minnesota for at least three years, the Ordinance requires searching tenants’ previous states of residence. § 7-42(d)(2)–(3). The Ordinance does not say how licensees should go about obtaining these criminal backgrounds. Then-City Council Member Rowan testified that arrest data was available from the state court system. He also acknowledged that people can be falsely accused of crimes and that, in fact, he had seen it.
154. Kim Clausen testified that she was responsible for providing the fair housing training, which was part of the overall crime-free housing training that licensees in Faribault must attend, per the terms of the Ordinance. Though she acknowledged that
37

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 38 of 90
she asks licensees whether they have the required criminal history screening policy, she testified she does not define “criminal history” and that “it’s up to the individual landlord.” She acknowledged that other portions of the training could encourage landlords to consider a record of contact with the police even if that contact does not result in a ticket.
155. The criminal background check requirements in the 2017 and 2019 Ordinances differ in only one respect from those in the 2014 Ordinance: whereas the 2014 Ordinance made it mandatory for landlords to provide written screening criteria to potential tenants, the 2017 and 2019 Ordinances says only that landlords “should” have such criteria. Compare Ord. No. 2014-009, § 7-44(4)(e) with Ord. No. 2017-13 and 201917, § 7-42(d)(5).
156. When the original complaint in this case was filed, the City’s website contained a Frequently Asked Questions document concerning the Crime Free Housing Program. This document described the required background check in terms that contradict the text of the Ordinance. It required that landlords must conduct a national criminal background check on all prospective tenants who are eighteen years old or older, and that such a check be conducted by a “reputable agency that utilizes the national database.” It stated that “[c]riminal background checks conducted by the Faribault Police Department no longer meet the ordinance requirements.”
157. The Frequently Asked Questions document did not suggest any limit on how far into the past a national criminal background check should extend.
38

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 39 of 90
158. The Frequently Asked Questions document made clear that Defendant’s implementation of the Criminal Records Screening Policy was not limited by the text of the Ordinance.
159. Because of this lawsuit, the City removed these Frequently Asked Questions from its website.
160. The City of Faribault’s website also contains a page on “Crime Free Multi-Housing.” This webpage provides “Resources,” which it describes as “good resources for rental owners, managers, and residents.”
161. Among the four documents previously listed as resources was a document entitled “The Importance of Screening.” (A copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit L.) This document cautioned landlords that, given the costs of eviction, “it is more important than ever to do a thorough job of tenant screening.” It then provided suggested screening criteria, including “denying applicants who: […] Have a criminal history.” It also instructed landlords to ask potential tenants if they have “ever been convicted of a crime, including a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, anywhere in the United States.” See Ex. L.
162. The “Importance of Screening” document placed no limitation on what kinds of criminal records should bar potential tenants from housing. It did not exempt arrests, old convictions, or low-level crimes. See id.
163. Because of this lawsuit, the City removed the “Importance of Screening” document from its website.
164. According to the Ordinance, landlords must retain the results of the background check for at least one year, or “if the subject of the check becomes a tenant of
39

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 40 of 90
the licensed premises, one year after the subject of the check has ceased to be a tenant.” § 7-42(d)(4). This information “shall be available for inspection upon request by the city.” Id.
165. While the 2014 Ordinance was in force, the FPD repeatedly cited landlords for failure to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance related to criminal record screening and retention of criminal record screening information. According to public records, on eight separate occasions between 2015 and August of 2017, landlords received criminal citations for failing to conduct criminal record screening. Upon information and belief, this practice continues under the current Ordinance.
166. The FPD also contacts the landlords of individuals whom police know to have criminal records to ask questions about their decisions to allow these individuals to move in. These police “compliance check[s],” sometimes initiated with “rental information demand notices,” can result in misdemeanor prosecutions for landlords. Police have even targeted landlords for enforcement when they learn from a probation officer that an individual on probation is residing in a landlord’s property. These contacts serve as a further reminder to landlords that police prohibit them from renting to people with criminal records.
167. As of June 2018, in every single case in which public records show that the FPD affirmatively contacted a landlord to ask questions about the landlord’s compliance with the Ordinance, that landlord was currently housing a tenant with a criminal record. In a number of these cases, the tenant’s criminal conviction was more than three years old.
40

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 41 of 90
Licensees are Required by the Ordinance to Enforce City Policy 168. The City’s Crime-Free Housing Program is a specific form of community
policing known as third-party policing. Third-party policing involves leveraging the assistance of third parties to take actions within their sphere of authority to address crime on behalf of a community.
169. In the case of Faribault’s Crime-Free Housing Program, licensees act as the third party police who are required, by the City, to act within their sphere of authority (over actual or potential tenants) to enforce City policy as reflected in its Crime-Free Housing Program.
170. Under Faribault’s Crime-Free Housing Program, licensees are required to screen potential tenants for criminal histories; required to evict tenants when ordered to do so by the FPD (subject to a potential hearing before the City Council); and face criminal liability if they do not comply with these or other provisions.
171. Since the inception of the City’s Rental Licensing Ordinance in January 2015, at least one licensee has been jailed by the City for failing to comply with the Ordinance, of which Crime-Free Housing Program is a part.
172. The City imposed the crime-free housing obligations on licensees with the expectation that licensees would fulfill those obligations.
173. The City imposed the crime-free housing obligations on licensees with the expectation that the City and its residents would benefit from the licensees’ fulfillment of those obligations.
41

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 42 of 90
The Occupancy Restriction 174. The Ordinance also introduced into the Faribault code an Occupancy
Restriction Policy that results in evictions for renting families. For Faribault’s large families, disproportionately Somali as a group, it can mean that there are simply no rental homes in Faribault in which they may legally live as a household.
175. Mayor Kevin Voracek testified that given Faribault’s housing inventory— which has not significantly changed since 2014—the occupancy restriction is hardest on Somali families, which are more likely to be large.
176. The 2017 Ordinance stated that a rented home cannot house a family numbering more than two times the number of legal bedrooms plus one. § 7-40(h)(2)(b). For example, that no more than five people can legally live in a two-bedroom apartment. That figure increased by one person only if all occupants of a sleeping room are under two years old. § 7-40(h)(2)(c).
177. City Council members who voted for the 2017 Ordinance misunderstood its terms. Former City Council member John Rowan testified that he understood the 2017 Ordinance included an exemption for children aged under 2 or 3. He testified that Deanna Kuennen confirmed to the City Council that there was an infant exception to the thenexisting occupancy restriction.
178. Because of this lawsuit, the City modified the occupancy restriction in its 2019 Ordinance to expressly include an exemption for children aged 2 and under.
179. This Occupancy Restriction does not allow for additional occupants even when bedrooms are very large or when an additional room, such as a living room, could be used as a bedroom.
42

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 43 of 90
180. Under the Occupancy Restriction in effect in the 2017 Ordinance, because landlords want to maintain their licenses in good standing, a Faribault family consisting of two adults and three small children will be evicted from a two-bedroom apartment when they have another baby. Eviction is similarly required when a baby is born to a two-parent family with five older children living in a three-bedroom apartment or a family with seven existing children living in a four-bedroom apartment.
181. Although Minnesota statute provides that no residential tenant may be evicted “on the basis of familial status commenced during the tenancy unless one year has elapsed from the commencement of the familial status and the landlord has given the tenant six months prior notice in writing,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 504B.315, the text of the 2017 Ordinance made no mention of this law and therefore purported to override it. Moreover, as of June 2018, on information and belief, none of the information provided to landlords about the Ordinance acknowledges the state law. Faribault landlords, unfamiliar with the nuances of preemption doctrine, regularly apply the Occupancy Restriction to require eviction upon the birth of a child.
182. Plaintiffs Rukiya Hussein and Ali Ali were each forced to leave their homes upon the birth of a child as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, as described in more detail below. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi has been threatened with eviction under the Occupancy Restriction. Numerous clients of Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services have had the same experience. In fact, SCRS serves approximately five families each week who are facing this exact situation.
183. The Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“RCHRA”) administers the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Rice County.
43

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 44 of 90
Through the program, some low-income Faribault families receive a housing subsidy to help them pay rent in private housing units. Under RCHRA’s Section 8 program, six people can live in a two-bedroom unit, eight people can live in a three-bedroom unit, and ten people can live in a four-bedroom unit. As a result, the Ordinance forces the evictions of families from apartments that RCHRA would allow them to stay in.
184. According to the 2016 American Community Survey the average renter household nationally contains 2.53 people. Given that Somali households compose less than one tenth of one percent of renter households nationally, the figure for non-Somali household size is substantially the same. By contrast, for the population of Somali ancestry, the average renter-occupied household contains 3.62 people, making Somali renter households nearly 50% larger than non-Somali renter households generally.
185. The average family size for households receiving Section 8 in Rice County is 4 people. Given that a significant majority of Section 8 recipients are of Somali national origin, this suggests that Somali families in Rice County are even larger than this national statistic suggests. Moreover, one-quarter of Rice County’s Section 8 households are composed of six or more people.
186. There are at least 71 Somali families in Faribault consisting of six people or more who are actively seeking housing, representing at minimum 40% of all persons of Somali ancestry in Faribault. Many Somali families have households of ten, eleven, or twelve members.
187. In contrast, the average renter household in Faribault contains 2.37 people, indicating that non-Somali households in Faribault are far smaller than Somali households.
44

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 45 of 90
188. Black and Latino households are more likely than White households to be hurt by the City’s occupancy restriction. In Faribault, 43.5% of Black households have more than one occupant per room compared with 0.4% of White households and 7.4% of Latino households. In Rice County, 35.1% of Black households have more than one occupant per room compared with 0.5% of White households and 4% of Latino households.
189. There is a severe shortage of rental housing available for large families in Faribault. The 2018 Rice County Comprehensive Housing Study noted the limited availability of four-bedroom rental units and the nonexistence of available five-bedroom units.
190. In 2015, when local social service agency Three Rivers Community Action opened Prairiewood Townhomes, an affordable housing development in Faribault containing nineteen three-bedroom units and six four-bedroom units, every single unit had been leased before it was built. There is currently a long waiting list for those units. As a result, a large family evicted because of the Ordinance and its occupancy standards may be unable to find any legal housing in Faribault at all.
191. Because large Faribault families are disproportionately Somali, Somali families are disproportionately likely to lose their homes, and sometimes to lose their residency in Faribault altogether, as a result of the Occupancy Restriction.
Intentional Discrimination in the Passage of the Ordinance 192. The Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with the express intent and
purpose to discriminate against Somali and Black people on the basis of their race and national origin.
45

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 46 of 90
Direct Evidence 193. There was a specific and articulated link between animus against Black Somali residents of Faribault and the passage of the Ordinance. 194. The October 2014 Bohlen Memorandum, part of the City Council’s legislative record, stated that community concerns about downtown crime were not borne out by an examination of police records, and explicitly linked these concerns to “fears and cultural clashes taking place” as well as the proximity of a “very large diverse population, often observed standing in groups.” See Ex. D. 195. Chief Bohlen went on to explain that “[t]he Somali culture is here to stay and [he had] personally observed intolerance from every direction in this city.” He noted that these “new residents do not have a Somali paper, Somali TV station, and large yards to gather in so they do what their culture has taught them. They talk and visit on the street.” Id. 196. Additionally, as shown by the City Council’s March 18, 2014 Follow-Up Notes, the City Council discussed the Rental Licensing Ordinance, Crime-Free Housing Program, and loitering as part of the same conversation regarding “nuisance violations.” See Ex. E. According to the Waldock Memorandum, drafted by the City’s thenCommunity Development Director and introduced into the legislative record, “participation in a Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program and upgrading the rental registration ordinance to convert to a rental licensing program” were City staff’s ideas for addressing the “concerns” about crime downtown, which Chief Bohlen had written were nothing more than manifestations of bias against Somalis. See Ex. F. The first draft of the
46

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 47 of 90
2014 Ordinance was put before the City Council explicitly as a response to these “concerns.”
197. There were no facts in the legislative record suggesting an increase in crime downtown, and the Chief of Police had found any such concerns to be unfounded.
198. That the City Council ignored statements from the Chief of Police that there was no crime problem downtown and that any concerns were attributable to bias, and nonetheless proceeded to enact an Ordinance allegedly aimed at controlling crime downtown represents a relevant departure from a normal substantive conclusion.
199. The 2017 revisions to the Ordinance were intended to allow the City to “more fully pursue the enforcement of the Ordinance,” and did not represent any significant break with the policies or purpose of the 2014 Ordinance. The 2017 Ordinance therefore incorporates the animus that fueled the passage of the 2014 Ordinance.
200. The 2019 revisions to the Ordinance were intended to allow the City to “clarify the obligations and procedures of the current ordinance,” and did not represent any significant break with the policies or purpose of the 2014 and 2017 Ordinances. The 2019 Ordinance therefore incorporates the animus that fueled the passage of the 2014 Ordinance.
Discriminatory Effects 201. There are also ample additional facts supporting the role that animus played in the passage of the Ordinance. 202. In Faribault, an ordinance targeting rental housing and its occupants will inherently have a starkly disparate impact on Black people. . Almost all Black households in Faribault (91.2%) rent, compared with 30.6% of White households and 29.8% of
47

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 48 of 90
Latino households. In Rice County, 87.7% of Black households rent, compared with 22.7% of White households and 38.5% of Latino households.
203. The fact that the ordinance targets people with criminal records causes it to have a further discriminatory effect on Black people, who are more than ten times as likely as white Minnesotans to be incarcerated in Minnesota’s prisons. These disparities are explored further below with respect to the disparate impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
204. Moreover, the fact that the Ordinance creates housing consequences for tenants after police make note of their allegedly criminal conduct further suggests that there will be a disparate impact on Black people. One study showed that in Rice County, Black people are 3.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites for marijuana possession. Minnesota 2020, Collateral Costs: Racial Disparities and Injustice in Minnesota’s Marijuana Laws 4, 16 (April 2014).2 This is despite studies which show Black people and white people use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4 (2013). The 2003 Minnesota Racial Profiling Report, submitted to the Minnesota Legislature as required by statute, found that Black drivers in Faribault were stopped by police at rates “considerably higher than would be expected” based on estimates of the driving population, while whites and American Indians were stopped at lower than expected rates. The Council on Crime and Justice & Institute on Race & Poverty, The
2 https://www.mn2020.org/assets/uploads/article/collateral_costs_web.pdf. 48

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 49 of 90
Minnesota Racial Profiling Report – Faribault Police Department 4, 14 (Sept. 22, 2003).3
205. The Occupancy Restriction Policy ensures yet another discriminatory effect of the Ordinance. Because large families inevitably lose their homes as a result of the Occupancy Restriction, and because those families in Faribault are disproportionately Somali Black families, the Occupancy Restriction adversely impacts Somali Black families. Moreover, because of the known shortage of rental units available for large families in Faribault, evictions due to the Occupancy Restriction Policy result in forcing some Somali Black families out of Faribault altogether.
Explicit and Coded Expressions of Animus by City Officials 206. Legislators and city staff repeatedly used coded expressions of discrimination in discussion of the Ordinance and of downtown Faribault leading up to the 2017 revisions. 207. In a 2016 City-produced video, then-City Manager Anderson and thenMayor Jasinski, a voting member of the City Council when the 2014 Ordinance passed, referred to the tenants that the Crime-Free Housing Program had helped to “get rid of” as “undesirables.” 208. In 2016, then-Mayor Jasinski, in a separate interview, discussed the need to find “housing where the Somali family can live outside of downtown” in order to “revitalize” downtown.
3 https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2003/mandated/030508/www.crimeandjustice.org/ Pages/Publications/Reports/Racial%20Profiling%20Study/Faribault-Final.pdf.
49

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 50 of 90
209. In 2015, Council Member Janna Viscomi discussed on video the need for a loitering ordinance and increased police presence downtown because of men standing on the sidewalk, and noted she had “seen a change first hand” over the last 18 years, the period during which Faribault’s Black and Somali population grew significantly. In a 2016 video interview, she stated that the City needed to attract higher-income people to balance the lower-income people, “or we’re going to flip like Detroit in a few years.”
Community Animus and Historical Background of the Decision 210. Moreover, community animus targeted at Black Somali residents, in the form of unsubstantiated “concerns” about downtown crime, motivated the passage of the Ordinance. Memoranda in the legislative record make that clear. 211. Community animus against Black Somalis downtown also forms a crucial part of the historical background of the decision. A 2011 report noted the “negative perception” of downtown safety was due in part to “low income residents . . . loitering and/or congregating” downtown. That report suggested that “low income and/or Section 8 type living quarters should be developed outside of the downtown district.” 212. 2013 statements in the Faribault Daily News also demonstrate community animus. The newspaper reported that downtown business owners were complaining about drug activity and theft, although police statistics did not corroborate that concern. One resident quoted explicitly referred to the “new look” of downtown’s population when speculating about why some feel downtown is unsafe. That same year, a letter to the editor discussed the writer’s fear of loitering Somalis, and suggested that Faribault should not “permit[] this activity.”
50

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 51 of 90
213. The creation and administration of the Downtown Housing Improvement Program is also part of the relevant historical background. With that Program, the City explicitly funds developers to transform downtown housing affordable to low-income people—and populated disproportionately by Black people—to housing including, for example, “pet spas” for wealthier people. To ensure that this program will result in the right kind of residents, the City requires that developers receiving funding charge rents above City-dictated thresholds and prohibit anyone who receives a housing subsidy from living in their units.
214. Moreover, there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance. As a result, the enactment of the Ordinance constitutes prohibited intentional discrimination.
215. Additionally, the City, through its decision-makers, knew the Ordinance would have a disparate impact on its communities of color, including its Somali population and, despite this knowledge, did nothing to address that impact. Clients’ Council v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 1406, 1409 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Adherence to a particular policy or practice, with full knowledge of the predictable effects of such adherence upon racial imbalance . . . is one factor . . .in determining whether an inference of segregative intent should be drawn.”) (quoting Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979)).
216. At all relevant times, Kim Clausen’s responsibilities for the City included educating the City Council on developments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). According to then-Mayor Jasinski, Clausen did this so the City Council could make a lawful decision related to housing.
51

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 52 of 90
217. Then-City Council Member Rowan served as a City Council representative on the Faribault HRA. His role on the HRA included, among other things, reporting back to the full City Council any housing updates provided to the HRA by Kim Clausen. Rowan testified that Kim Clausen regularly presented HUD guidance to the Faribault HRA.
218. As explained in more detail below, in April 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) released “Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions” (“HUD Guidance”). That guidance provides, among other assertions, that “African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers.” (A copy of the HUD Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit M.)
219. Upon being presented with the HUD Guidance in a deposition, and given time to inspect it, Rowan testified that he recognized it. He explained that Clausen provided packets including HUD guidance to the HRA for discussion. “She took it very seriously,” he added. When asked specifically whether Clausen talked to him about the possibility that the use of criminal records by providers of housing could violate the Fair Housing Act, he answered “Yeah[.]” When asked whether he had any doubt that Clausen covered this with him as a member of the HRA, he answered: “If I was on HRA, she went through this with us.”
52

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 53 of 90
220. Jasinski similarly testified that he had no reason to doubt that Clausen informed the City Council regarding the HUD Guidance. He also testified that Rowan’s duties as the City Council’s representative on the HRA included updating the City Council on what was happening with the HRA.
221. When asked whether he thought African-Americans commit more crimes than non-African-Americans, Jasinski testified that he had “heard that.” When pressed if that was his understanding, he answered, “yes,” adding that he did not know why African-Americans committed more crimes. He did not attribute the disparity in criminal charges and convictions between African Americans and non-African Americans to racial bias or any other flaws in the criminal justice system.
222. The foregoing evidence establishes that the City knew its crime-free housing program would have a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics.
The City also knew that its Occupancy Restriction would have a disparate impact on Somali families. Then-Mayor Jasinski testified that he knew that given the larger size of Somali families, the occupancy restriction could have a greater impact on them. Similarly, Chief Bohlen testified that “Absolutely. The East African Somali families have larger families.” He noted that “that’s just – I think that’s a known factor.” Kim Clausen similarly testified that “the Somali families that I am familiar with have larger families[.]”
Disparate Impact of the Criminal Records Screening Policy 223. Because the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory
impact on the basis of race and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
224. Through the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Defendants instruct landlords to reject potential tenants with any criminal record whatsoever. Defendants
53

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 54 of 90
require landlords to make records of their criminal records checks available to police at any time, and they follow up with landlords who have nonetheless housed tenants that police know to have criminal records.
225. Because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy, Faribault landlords reject people looking for housing when a member of the household has a criminal record. Landlords, even those who used to be flexible about accepting tenants with criminal records, have changed their policies for fear of retribution from the City if they accept these tenants now.
226. The HUD Guidance, referenced above, notes that 100 million adults, nearly one-third of the U.S. population, have a criminal record of some kind. See Ex. M at 1. It makes clear that because people of color are disproportionately likely to have criminal records, using criminal records to restrict housing opportunities can have a racially disparate impact prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. Id. at 2.
227. As a result, a screening policy that “fails to take into account the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction,” as well as its recency, is unlikely to satisfy the Fair Housing Act. Id. at 7. Individualized consideration of people seeking housing opportunities presents a less discriminatory alternative to barring individuals who have been convicted of crimes on any kind of blanket basis. Id.
228. The HUD Guidance also makes clear that barring an individual from housing based on a record of arrest, as opposed to conviction, will always violate the Fair Housing Act, because arrest records “do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct.” Id. at 5.
54

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 55 of 90
229. Despite the existence of the HUD Guidance, as of June 2018 the Ordinance did not alert landlords to the risk that they incurred Fair Housing Act liability by excluding tenants based upon criminal records. The HUD Guidance was recently added to the City’s website as a result of this lawsuit.
230. In fact, one of the questions in the previously-cited Frequently Asked Questions Document wass “Doesn’t the ordinance promote discrimination or profiling?” The response provided by the City begins: “No. The Federal Fair Housing Act . . . has seven protected classes. A person’s behavior is not a protected class.” This instruction, that complying with the Crime-Free Ordinance cannot create Fair Housing Act liability, runs directly counter to the HUD Guidance and the law.
231. Because of this lawsuit, the City removed the Frequently Asked Questions from its website.
232. Because—both nationally and within Minnesota—Black and Latino people are significantly more likely than white people to have criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has an adverse disparate impact on Black and Latino people.
233. Because criminal record statistics broken down by race are not available, incarceration and arrest rates can be used as proxies. The HUD Guidance takes this approach. Id. at 3–4.
234. Nationally, Black people are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate more than 5 times higher than the rate for white people. Ashley Nellis, The Color of Justice:
55

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 56 of 90
Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons 3 (2016) (“Color of Justice”).4 Latinos are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate 1.4 times higher than the rate for white people. Id. at 4.
235. The Minnesota Black-white disparity is even starker. Minnesota is one of just five states in which the Black incarceration rate is more than ten times higher than the white incarceration rate. Id.
236. As of July 1, 2017, 34.4% of Minnesota’s inmate population was Black, yet Black or African Americans comprised only 6.2% Minnesota’s population; thus, Black people in Minnesota are incarcerated at over 5.5 times their proportion of the population. See Minnesota Department of Corrections, Adult Inmate Profile as of 07/01/2017 3 (July 2017); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Minnesota (updated July 1, 2017).
237. Much of this disparity can be attributed to the disparity in rates of arrest for drug possession. Nationally, in 2010, a Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests 4 (2013).5 In Minnesota, according to the same analysis, the disparity was even worse: a Black person was 7.81 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Id. at 18, 49.
238. As of July 1, 2016, 6.2% of Minnesota’s inmate population was Latino, yet Latinos comprised only 5.2% of Minnesota’s population; thus, Latinos in Minnesota are incarcerated at over 1.2 times their proportion of the population. See Minnesota
4 http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-JusticeRacial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf.
5 https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf. 56

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 57 of 90
Department of Corrections, Adult Inmate Profile as of 07/01/2016 2 (July 2016); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Minnesota (updated July 1, 2016).
239. The FPD arrest data for the years 2014–2017 shows that Black people in Faribault, like Black people across Minnesota and nationally, are arrested at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. For example, in 2015, the year the Ordinance went into effect, Black people made up just 8.1% of the Faribault population but 44.8% of the arrests for “Disorderly Conduct” were of Black people. That same year, Latinos made up 12.7% of the Faribault population, but 26.2% of the arrests for “Disorderly Conduct” were of Latino people.
240. In sum, both in Minnesota and in the country as a whole, people with criminal records are disproportionately Black and Latino, and Black and Latino people are far more likely than whites to have criminal records. As a result, Black and Latino people are much more likely than whites to be barred from rental housing in Faribault because of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
241. The Criminal Records Screening Policy is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
242. The ostensible purpose of the Crime Free Housing Program is to “preserve and protect the city’s neighborhoods and to promote public safety.” Ordinance § 7-42(a). If “preserv[ing] and protect[ing] neighborhoods” means keeping people of color out of Faribault, that discriminatory goal cannot save the policy.
243. Instructing landlords to exclude anyone with a criminal record, without limitation, is not necessary to achieve these goals. Instructing landlords instead to give individualized consideration to each potential tenant, and advising landlords of the need
57

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 58 of 90
to comply with the Fair Housing Act and the HUD Guidance, is a less discriminatory alternative to the Criminal Records Screening Policy. Such a policy would serve public safety equally well.
244. Specifically, Defendant could inform landlords that, if they choose to perform criminal records screening on potential tenants, they must consider indvidualized factors like the nature of the conviction, the amount of time since conviction or release, rehabilitation and good conduct, including good tenancy, and current support from household and community. Ex. M at 7. They can exclude potential tenants only where this evaluation shows that the potential tenant presents a demonstrable risk to resident safety or property. Id. at 6. This approach would continue to protect public safety while reducing the number of people of color who are barred from housing in Faribault as a result of Defendants’ policy.
245. The discriminatory effect of the Criminal Records Screening Policy is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Rental Licensing Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against Black people. The City of Faribault fully understands the effect that the Criminal Records Screening Policy has on the racial make-up of Faribault’s tenant population. It nonetheless intentionally implemented and continues to pursue the policy for the express purpose of limiting the number of people of color in Faribault.
58

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 59 of 90
Disparate Impact of the Occupancy Restriction 246. Because the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on
the basis of national origin and is not necessary to achieve a legitimate business purpose, it is unlawfully discriminatory.
247. The Occupancy Restriction in the 2017 Ordinance required Faribault landlords to evict tenants when the birth of an additional child means that the number of household members exceeds two times the number of bedrooms plus one, regardless of the square footage of the unit or the availability of additional sleeping spaces.
248. Because of this lawsuit, the City modified the Occupancy Restriction in the 2019 Ordinance. It now exempts children aged 2 and under. The 2017 Ordinance did not include this exemption.
249. In an undated 33-page memorandum, the City justifies its Occupancy Restriction by citing concerns of over-crowding. That memorandum cites no evidence that the City has an over-crowding problem. (The undated memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit K.)
250. Evidence suggests the opposite. HUD’s 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data report that only 50 of 5,480 (0.9%) owneroccupied homes in Faribault have more than one person per room (“PPR”), and 195 of 2,895 (6.9%) renter-occupied homes had more than one person per room. Only 4.3% of all housing in Faribault had more than 1 PPR.
251. In the context of claims of family status discrimination against landlords, HUD guidelines addressing occupancy restrictions note numerous factors relevant to determining whether an occupancy restriction is reasonable. See Fair Housing
59

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 60 of 90
Enforcement—Occupancy Standards Notice of Statement of Policy, 63 Fed. Reg. 70256. These factors include the size of bedrooms and unit, the age of children, and the availability of additional sleeping areas. The Occupancy Restriction considers none of these factors. Evidence establishes that the City’s decision-makers never considered any of these factors in deciding upon a maximum occupancy limit. Then-City Council Member Steven Underdahl, for example, testified that, in considering its Occupancy Restriction, the City did not take into account the varying sizes of bedrooms, that is, that certain bedrooms are larger than others and therefore could accommodate more occupants. HUD guidelines also note that occupancy policies may be found to be pretextual where there is evidence of discriminatory statements. Id.
252. Because, as detailed above, Somali families are significantly larger than non-Somali families, this policy has a prohibited disparate impact on families of Somali national origin. The disparate impact of the Occupancy Restriction is enhanced by the extremely limited availability of rental units with enough bedrooms to legally house large families under the Ordinance.
253. In sum, Somali families are far more likely than non-Somali families to be evicted from their homes based upon the size of their families. They are also much more likely than non-Somalis to be forced out of rental housing in Faribault altogether as a result of the Ordinance, because their families are too large to live in any available rental units legally.
254. The Occupancy Restriction is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the City.
60

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 61 of 90
The City’s former and current officials cite varying reasons for the occupancy restriction. Kim Clausen, for example, testified that the occupancy restriction keeps people safe by allowing adequate egress out of each unit, in case there is a fire, but also testified that what is sufficient egress depends on the specific characteristics of the unit, including size. Mayor Voracek testified the occupancy restriction was for safety and mechanical issues due to the occupancy load on a building, but also testified that in deciding on the occupancy restriction the City Council did not know what mechanical assumptions builders make in creating units. He also testified that the occupancy restriction was necessary to allow for sufficient egress in case of an emergency but admitted that he did not have any basis for that assumption.
255. However, an Occupancy Restriction that fails to take into account the total square footage of the unit or its bedrooms, and that fails to account for additional available sleeping spaces—like living rooms—that are not legal bedrooms, cannot be necessary to protect health or safety. A policy that takes these factors into account is a less discriminatory alternative to the Occupancy Restriction.
256. In the 33-page undated memorandum written by Chief Bohlen and Deanna Kuennen explaining the 2019 changes to the Ordinance, they claim that basing an occupacy restriction on square footage would be difficult to enforce because it would require code officials to measure every sleeping room they inspected. See Ex. K at 28. They do not say whether they considered other enforcement mechanisms, such as requiring licensees to record the square footage of sleeping rooms. See id.
257. Because of this lawsuit, the City included in its 2019 Ordinance an exemption for children aged 2 and under.
61

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 62 of 90
258. The discriminatory effect of the Occupancy Restriction is so large and foreseeable, and it is so unnecessary to meet any legitimate public safety goal, that it adds further support to the claim that the Ordinance was adopted with intent to discriminate against people of Somali national origin. Defendant fully understands the effect that the Occupancy Restriction has on the make-up of Faribault’s tenant population and nonetheless intentionally implemented the Occupancy Restriction for the express purpose of limiting the number of people of Somali ancestry in Faribault.
Individual Plaintiffs Thelma Jones 259. Thelma Jones is a Black woman and U.S. citizen. She is the mother of
Plaintiff Priyia Lacey. 260. Ms. Jones moved to Faribault in 2008, in search of a small city which
would be a better environment in which to raise her children. 261. In the fall of 2016, Ms. Jones was told by her landlord that she had two
weeks to move out of the five-bedroom house she had lived in for five years, along with her children.
262. Prior to this, Ms. Jones had always paid her rent on time and had a good relationship with her landlord.
263. Public records show that about this same time, the FPD charged Ms. Jones’ landlord with the criminal misdemeanors of “Rental Dwelling Registration/Fail to Register” and “C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing]-Fail to Attend Training.” Police noted that Ms. Jones had told them that she was a “regular renter with a lease” living in the
62

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 63 of 90
home, making the landlord’s failure to register the property and attend training violations of the Ordinance.
264. The landlord told Ms. Jones that police had made clear Ms. Jones would testify against her on criminal charges if she did not remove Ms. Jones from the house.
265. Ms. Jones and her family were forced to leave their home. The landlord was never convicted of the charges.
266. In discussing the charges against the landlord, police records also state that “The C[rime ]F[ree ]M[ulti-]H[ousing] Ordinance is designed to deter criminal activity and, if necessary, to remove problem tenants from rental properties in order to preserve order in a neighborhood,” before going on to discuss why Ms. Jones and her family constituted “problem tenants.”
267. The records state that police had “responded to complaints at this home 82 times” and characterized Ms. Jones’ home as the site of “ongoing criminal activity.” The records do not note any criminal convictions that would support this assertion.
268. The records also state that the property itself was “often found to be unsightly and unkempt” without any support for this assertion.
269. Rather than being based on any actual “ongoing criminal activity” at Ms. Jones’ home, police focused on her and her children as a result of repeated and harassing calls to the police by her neighbors, all of whom were white. Ms. Jones remembers calls to the police from neighbors with no legitimate basis when she hosted barbecues outside for her large Black family and when she hosted children’s birthday parties. She even recalls visits from the police prompted by calls when her children were outside playing on the trampoline.
63

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 64 of 90
270. On one occasion, one of her white neighbors told Ms. Jones that she should “go back to where [she] came from.”
271. The City of Faribault labelled Ms. Jones and her family as problem tenants not as a result of confirmed criminal activity on her property, but as a result of harassing calls to the police from her white neighbors.
272. The City later admitted in sworn testimony that in deciding upon the total “calls for service” for a given property, calls from complaining neighbors were included, regardless of the merits of the complaint.
273. When Ms. Jones’ landlord told her that she had to leave, Ms. Jones was able to negotiate for some additional time to search for a new home for her family. After extensive searching, Ms. Jones was only able to find a much smaller two-bedroom apartment. As a result, two of her older children could no longer live with her, as they were previously doing in the five-bedroom house. She was also forced to give up her family’s dog because it is not allowed in the new apartment.
274. The move itself was incredibly stressful, and Ms. Jones had to stay in a hotel for three days because she could not move into the new home right away. She was also forced to rent a U-Haul for three days and put her belongings in storage.
275. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family.
276. Two of Ms. Jones’ children, who no longer have bedrooms in their mother’s home, are struggling to find places to live. Neither has been able to find stable housing in Faribault. One of those children, Plaintiff Priyia Lacey, is further discussed below.
64

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 65 of 90
277. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Jones and her family lost their home and were separated from each other.
278. In addition to being too small, that apartment was on the second floor. Climbing the stairs is difficult for Ms. Jones, who has sarcoidosis and uses oxygen.
279. That lease included the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also subjected to the required criminal record screening when she applied for the apartment, and she paid the cost of that screening.
280. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Jones and her family continued to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
281. In her new home, Ms. Jones was constantly nervous about making noise, which could result in disorderly conduct violations or other penalties from the police. Ms. Jones has small grandchildren, one of whom lives with her, and they run around like children do. Although the apartment underneath them is currently vacant, Ms. Jones was constantly worried that someone will move in and complain to the police, leading to eviction.
282. Because of the size of the apartment combined with her concerns that a family gathering could lead to noise complaints and eviction, Ms. Jones has had to rent out other spaces to host family events like Easter. She has decided that she will not host children’s birthday parties at home because of her fear of receiving noise complaints.
283. Ms. Jones and her family were at risk of losing their home again as a result of the Ordinance.
65

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 66 of 90
284. Tired of the ongoing harassment of her children that continued after the initiation of this lawsuit, Ms. Jones moved to Burnsville, MN, in November 2019.
Priyia Lacey 285. Plaintiff Priyia Lacey is a Black woman and a U.S. citizen. She is the daughter of Plaintiff Thelma Jones. She is twenty-three years old. 286. Ms. Lacey resided with her mother, Ms. Jones, before her family was forced out of their home. 287. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Lacey and her family lost their home and have been separated from each other. 288. Ms. Lacey was pregnant at the time she lost her home. She had never lived on her own before and could not afford to pay rent on her own. She wished that she could continue to live with her mother who provided her both emotional and financial support. This time was stressful for Ms. Lacey and she struggled. 289. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance and its impact on her family. 290. Ms. Lacey has a two-year-old son. She has actively sought, and continues to seek, housing in Faribault without success. 291. In 2016, Ms. Lacey applied to the Faribault H.R.A. for public housing. She finally made it to the number two slot on the waiting list and filled out her paperwork for an apartment, which would allow her to be close to her family and would be affordable. Faribault H.R.A. sent her a letter dated February 9, 2018 stating that she is “INELIGIBLE” for an apartment owned by the Faribault H.R.A. because “Criminal background check shows 2015 Assault warrant, 2017 Judgement Assault. HRA policy
66

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 67 of 90
states that the HRA may deny admission to an applicant if any household member has engaged in any violent criminal activity within the last five years.” She appealed this decision, but was immediately denied, without any further explanation, on February 13, 2018.
292. Ms. Lacey was never convicted of this misdemeanor charge, which was based on an incident that took place away from her mother’s home. Her case was closed as of May 18, 2017.
293. Ms. Lacey feels concerned that she will continue to be denied housing in Faribault as a result of the Criminal Records Screening Policy.
294. As Ms. Lacey continues to seek housing in Faribault, the criminal background check required by the Ordinance makes her substantially likely to be denied housing again on the basis of an arrest alone or as a result of an erroneous background check.
295. The error in the H.R.A.’s background check gives Ms. Lacey reason to be concerned that landlords’ future criminal record screening of her will result in the denial of housing.
296. As Ms. Lacey continues to apply for housing in Faribault, she will be forced to pay the costs of the required criminal record screening for each application.
Faisa Abdi 297. Plaintiff Faisa Abdi is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 298. Ms. Abdi and her husband have resided with their children in the same three-bedroom apartment for over four years. The apartment also has a living room.
67

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 68 of 90
299. They have eight children, all of whom are age thirteen or younger. Four of their children attend Faribault public schools.
300. Ms. Abdi’s landlord has threatened that her family will be evicted due to the size of her household.
301. The landlord first made this threat shortly after Ms. Abdi’s third-youngest child was born in June 2015.
302. The landlord informed Ms. Abdi that her family would have to find somewhere else to live or reduce their household size.
303. Since then, Ms. Abdi has searched without success for a new apartment. 304. Ms. Abdi feels extremely stressed that her landlord has threatened that she and her family will be evicted from their home. 305. The Abdis have always paid their rent on time and, other than this household size issue, have not had any conflict with the landlord. 306. Ms. Abdi is desperate for her family to keep the home. She is even considering taking two of her U.S. citizen children, born in Faribault, to Africa so that her family can remain in their home despite the Occupancy Restriction, as she has heard other Somali-American families have done. 307. Ms. Abdi told her landlord about this plan and that she needed to apply for passports. On information and belief, it is on that condition that she has been allowed to stay in her home so far. 308. Ms. Abdi feels that the only way she will be able to stay in Faribault is if her family is separated and members of her family move to a different place.
68

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 69 of 90
309. She does not want to take her children to Africa, where they will not have the same opportunities that they would have in the United States. She would not do so but for the Occupancy Restriction.
310. Ms. Abdi and her family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together.
311. Their current home has ample room for all of them. It has two bathrooms, a single car garage, and a laundry in the home. The children have bunk beds and the youngest baby sleeps in the parents’ room.
312. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Abdi and her family are substantially likely to lose their home. Ms. Abdi has suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
313. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Abdi and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
314. Ms. Abdi and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Ali Ali 315. Plaintiff Ali Ali is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 316. Mr. Ali works at the Viracon glass factory in Owatonna, Minnesota. 317. Mr. Ali and his wife have six children, all of whom are age nine or younger. Three of their children attend Faribault public schools. 318. Mr. Ali and his family were forced to move out of their home in February 2018 because his family had a new baby.
69

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 70 of 90
319. Mr. Ali’s landlord sent a letter on May 10, 2017, a month before his youngest child was born, stating that their family had to move out by August 31, 2017.
320. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in their family, brought the number of people in the Alis’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction.
321. Before they were forced to move, the Alis had lived in the same apartment for three years.
322. Mr. Ali was able to negotiate for extra time to try to find a place to live. 323. It was very difficult to find for a new home for him and his family and he had to spend a lot of time searching online and visiting apartments. 324. Mr. Ali was eventually able to find a new apartment to move into, which is where his family lives now. 325. The new home, however, is significantly more expensive and it is more difficult for Mr. Ali to pay the rent. 326. Additionally, during the move, he was forced to throw away furniture due to the cost of moving it. Moreover, his previous landlord is alleging that he owes money for alleged damage to the apartment that existed before the Ali family moved in. The former landlord is threatening to send this alleged debt “to collection,” which has been stressful for Mr. Ali. 327. As a result of the Ordinance, Mr. Ali and his family lost their home, and Mr. Ali suffered emotional distress. 328. Mr. Ali and his family like living in Faribault and want to stay there together.
70

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 71 of 90
329. The eight people in Mr. Ali’s family now live in a four-bedroom apartment. Mr. Ali’s wife is expecting a baby. If Mr. Ali and his wife have another child after this baby, as they plan to, their family will exceed the number of people allowed to live there under the Ordinance. As a result, he remains at risk of losing his home again as a result of the Ordinance.
330. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Mr. Ali and his family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
331. Mr. Ali and his family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Rukiya Hussein 332. Plaintiff Rukiya Hussein is a Black Somali-American and a U.S. citizen. 333. Ms. Hussein works for Essential Home Health Care as a personal care assistant. Her husband is the lead supervisor on the night shift at the Jennie-O Turkey factory. 334. In late June of 2015, Ms. Hussein gave birth by caesarean section to a baby girl. 335. Her daughter was born with a thyroid problem and needed medication every day. 336. When her baby was just a month old, Ms. Hussein received a letter from her landlord stating that her family would have to move out of her apartment and return the keys within sixty days.
71

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 72 of 90
337. The birth of this baby, the sixth child in the family, brought the number of people in the Husseins’ three-bedroom apartment to eight, one more than allowed under the Occupancy Restriction.
338. The Husseins had lived in the apartment since October 2010. On the date they received notice of their eviction, their six children were all age ten or younger. There was a girls’ bedroom, a boys’ bedroom, and a room for Ms. Hussein and her husband.
339. The apartment was large enough for the Husseins to live in safely. 340. The landlord was aware the Husseins had a newborn baby. 341. On previous occasions, the landlord had asked Ms. Hussein if she was pregnant. 342. The Husseins always paid their rent on time and never had a complaint from the landlord. 343. The landlord was compelled to evict the Husseins to comply with Faribault’s Rental Licensing Ordinance. As a result of the Ordinance, Ms. Hussein and her family lost their housing. 344. When Ms. Hussein received the notice of eviction she was extremely distraught. She was required not to engage in physical activity as she recovered from the caesarian section surgery. Additionally, her newborn daughter was sick and she had to put her energy into caring for her baby. 345. Moreover, she knew it was extremely difficult to find rental housing in Faribault. Family and friends had been forced to leave Faribault after they were unable to find homes to rent.
72

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 73 of 90
346. Despite these challenges, Ms. Hussein had no choice but to try to find a new home very quickly.
347. Because her husband worked the night shift, she had to look for a new home daily, in spite of having just come home with a sick newborn. Ms. Hussein took her baby with her every day to look for housing.
348. Ms. Hussein was anxious that her family would not be able to find a place to live in Faribault. The whole family was worried. Her children asked her to explain why the landlord had evicted them. They could not understand why they would have to leave their home just because their family had a newborn baby.
349. Both Ms. Hussein and her husband were extremely sad to lose their home of over five years. Ms. Hussein cried in front of the landlord.
350. Ms. Hussein found it physically painful and stressful to look for a new home for her family in these circumstances. She suffered emotional distress as a result of the Ordinance.
351. Ms. Hussein loves Faribault, which is home to her. The Husseins now have seven children, five of whom attend Faribault public schools.
352. As tenants of a licensed landlord, Ms. Hussein and her family continue to be subject to the Ordinance, including its broad and vague prohibition on “disorderly conduct.”
353. Ms. Hussein’s current lease includes the crime-free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. She was also forced to submit to the required criminal record check, and to cover the costs of this screening for her and her husband.
354. Ms. Hussein and her family plan to continue to live in Faribault.
73

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 74 of 90
355. Ms. Hussein and her family remain at risk of being evicted pursuant to the Ordinance in the future.
Lucia Porras 356. Plaintiff Lucia Porras is a Latina woman and a U.S. citizen. 357. She was born and raised in Faribault. Her boyfriend, who is the father of all of her children, is from Northfield. 358. Both Ms. Porras and her boyfriend work in Faribault. 359. Ms. Porras and her boyfriend have three children, a nine-year-old daughter, a five-year-old son and a one-year-old daughter. The two oldest children attend school in Faribault. The children’s grandparents also live in Faribault. 360. Ms. Porras and her family moved into a licensed rental apartment in Faribault in February of 2018. They signed the crime free lease addendum required by the Ordinance. 361. On April 19, 2018, the Department of Social Services removed Ms. Porras’s children from her home, accompanied by law enforcement. 362. Two days later, on April 21, 2018, the FPD sent a “Lease Termination Demand Notice” to Ms. Porras’s landlord. 363. The letter stated that “Law enforcement responded on 4/19/2018 to 416 8 St. NW #1 for a disorderly violation warranting removal proceedings for all occupants of the residence. At this point in time, I am requesting that you move forward with steps to have the tenants vacate the unit. Please send written confirmation of this.”
74

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 75 of 90
364. The letter cites “Laws contributing to the need for protection or services or delinquency of a minor as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 260C et seq.” as the basis for the Lease Termination Demand Notice.
365. The landlord sent a letter to Ms. Porras on April 26, 2018 stating “According to the police there was an issue on 4/19/2018 that prompted the police to send us a lease termination notice. They, and in turn your landlord, is demanding you move out before noon April 28, 2018.”
366. Ms. Porras and her entire family lost their home within ten days of the removal of her children, before any resolution of the validity of the Petition for Child in Need of Protection Services filed against her.
367. Ms. Porras has not been charged with any crime. 368. Ms. Porras did everything possible to comply with every requirement from the Department of Social Services including attending group therapy, undergoing a parental assessment, and having a chemical dependency assessment. 369. However, the judge hearing the petition made it clear on the record that Ms. Porras’s children could not be returned until she has secured safe and stable housing. She did not have stable housing, as a result of the Ordinance. 370. Ms. Porras actively searched for rental housing in Faribault and the surrounding area so that she can regain custody of her children. She obtained housing in Waseca, MN, and her children were returned to her. 371. The landlord for the Waseca address told her that he should not rent to her but was going to give her a chance anyway. Upon information and belief, the City of
75

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 76 of 90
Waseca’s crime-free housing program is not as restrictive on landlords as Faribault’s crime-free housing program.
372. Ms. Porras has never been convicted of a felony. She was, however, convicted of two theft misdemeanors in 2010, as well as several more recent petty misdemeanors related to driving.
373. Ms. Porras feels concerned that she was denied housing in Faribault as a result of the Criminal Records Screening Policy. She had applied for rental housing in Faribault and paid criminal records screening fees only to be denied.
374. As Ms. Porras continues to seek housing in Faribault, the criminal background check required by the Ordinance makes her substantially likely to be denied housing on the basis of her prior convictions.
375. As Ms. Porras continues to apply for housing in Faribault, she will be forced to continue to pay the costs of the required criminal record screening for each application.
David Trotter-Ford 376. Plaintiff David Trotter-Ford is a Black man and a U.S. citizen. 377. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his wife live and co-parent eight children together. Mr. Trotter-Ford is the primary caregiver for the children that reside with the couple. 378. Mr. Trotter-Ford takes pride in how he raises all of his children, irrespective of whether they are biologically related. He is a father to all of the children he and his wife co-parent together, although three of them are his wife’s biological children. For Mr. Trotter-Ford, his family is his priority.
76

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 77 of 90
379. In the fall of 2015, Mr. Trotter-Ford, his then fiancée and current wife, and their children, were evicted from their home at the behest of the Faribault Police Department after a warrant for Mr. Trotter-Ford’s arrest was issued.
380. In mid-July 2015, Mr. Trotter-Ford was arrested in a parking lot outside 1520 Western Avenue and charged by FPD with “disorderly conduct.” At the time, Trotter-Ford’s then-fiancée and current wife, Makyala Trotter-Ford, nee Boudreau (“Ms. Trotter-Ford”) was living with her children at 1520 Western Avenue. 1520 Western Avenue was and still is owned and administered by the Faribault Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“Faribault HRA”). At the time, Kim Clausen was both head of the City’s Housing Division and Executive Director of the Faribault HRA.
381. After Mr. Trotter-Ford’s mid-July 2015 arrest, Officer Krenik said he wanted to investigate whether that arrest violated the City’s crime-free housing Crime Free Housing Program. Kim Clausen thereafter decided to evict Ms. Trotter-Ford and her family from 1520 Western Avenue based, in part, on that arrest. Clausen later admitted, in sworn testimony, that her decision, in July 2015, to evict Ms. Trotter-Ford was based, in part, on Mr. Trotter-Ford’s July 2015 arrest.
382. . Ms. Clausen’s decision to evict Ms. Trotter-Ford was expressed in a letter she sent to Ms. Trotter-Ford dated July 22, 2015 (the “July 22 letter”). Clausen’s records were searched by the City in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The City did not produce the July 22 letter to Plaintiffs.
383. On August 28, 2015, Mr. Trotter-Ford spanked two of the children with a belt several times.
77

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 78 of 90
384. On September 10, 2015, before Mr. Trotter-Ford had been convicted of any crime and before charges had even been filed against him, the FPD sent an “Eviction Demand Notice” to the landlord of the home where Mr. Trotter-Ford, his then-fiancée, and their children resided together.
385. The letter stated that “Law enforcement responded on 8/28/2015 to 1520 Western Ave. for a disorderly violation warranting removal proceedings for all occupants of the residence. At this point I am requesting that you move forward with steps to have the tenant vacate the unit.”
386. The letter cites “MN Statutes, Section 609.221 through Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.2231, which prohibit assault” as the basis for the Eviction Demand Notice. Mr. Trotter-Ford was never charged with or convicted of a crime in this portion of the criminal code, although his entire family lost their home on this ground.
387. When a criminal complaint was later filed against Mr. Trotter-Ford, it charged him with the gross misdemeanor of Malicious Punishment of a Child in violation of Minnesota Statute 609.377.1. That charge was eventually dismissed. On February 16, 2016, he pled guilty to Neglect of a Child in violation of Minnesota Statute 609.378.1(a)(1), a gross misdemeanor. He was sentenced to serve a term of thirty days of electronic home monitoring and two years of probation.
388. The Social Services Department took custody of the couple’s children as a result of the criminal charge. Mr. Trotter-Ford continued to have visitation with his biological children.
389. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his wife were forced to move out of their home under threat of eviction. They could find nowhere else to go, and had to stay in a low-
78

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 79 of 90
quality hotel for approximately two months before they were able to find a new place to live.
390. Mr. Trotter-Ford suffered emotional distress as a result. 391. It was very difficult for Mr. Trotter-Ford to find a new home for his family. 392. Mr. Trotter-Ford applied for several units and had his application denied, at least in part because of the criminal background check required by the Faribault Rental Licensing Ordinance. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s criminal record shows that he has several convictions for misdemeanors, but no felony convictions. 393. Mr. Trotter-Ford and his wife did everything possible to get their children back into their custody—including participating in parenting classes and working closely with their case worker. They were deeply concerned that being unable to secure housing would prevent them from being reunited with their children. 394. Full custody rights were restored as a result of their cooperation with the intense scrutiny of the Social Services Department. 395. The family has now been reunited and lives together in Rosemont, MN. Mr. Trotter-Ford, his wife, and four of their children (including a baby born in 2017) reside together. Mr. Trotter-Ford’s other four children spend weekends and some vacations with them. Mr. Trotter-Ford has returned to his role as the primary full-time caretaker of the children who reside with them.
79

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 80 of 90
Organizational Plaintiff 396. Plaintiff Somali Community Resettlement Services, Inc. (“SCRS”) is a
nonprofit organization that has been providing services to the refugee population in southeastern Minnesota since 1999.
397. SCRS has two offices: one in Faribault, Minnesota and one in Rochester, Minnesota. Nine staff members work in SCRS’s Faribault office.
398. SCRS’s mission is to promote and advance the social well-being and the welfare of its members by providing community and resettlement services. SCRS assists refugee families to secure basic needs and resources for self-sufficiency and to acclimate to a new way of life.
399. Defendants have interfered with SCRS’s mission to assist refugee families to secure their basic needs by making it considerably more difficult for members to find and keep housing in Faribault.
400. The Ordinance has also forced SCRS to divert significant organizational resources from other planned activities. Because members of the Somali community seek help from SCRS when threatened with the loss of housing due to the birth of a new baby, SCRS has redirected and continues to redirect staff time, office space, and emergency assistance funds to assist these members with housing issues created by the Ordinance.
401. SCRS staff provides interpretation, transportation and other assistance to members who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction. SCRS assists approximately five families each week who are at risk of losing their homes because of the addition of a new baby to their family.
80

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 81 of 90
402. Two of SCRS’s thirteen staff members now work exclusively on housing issues, at a cost to the organization of approximately $70,000 per year. Together, they spend about seventy hours each week assisting families who are at risk of losing their housing due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction.
403. For example, when a family comes to SCRS with an eviction notice because of the birth of a new baby, SCRS employees help by: translating documents; providing interpretation services that allow clients to communicate with landlords and lawyers from Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services; filling out forms; negotiating with landlords; printing, faxing, and mailing documents, and paying for printing supplies and postage; and hand-delivering documents, including traveling to the surrounding area where landlords or management companies might be located.
404. Although two staff members work specifically on housing issues, in reality all nine staff members must spend time dealing with housing issues that arise because of the Ordinance.
405. In part as a result of the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction, SCRS has also expended resources to create an emergency assistance program for families who are at risk of losing their homes or who have lost their homes. This emergency assistance program began in November 2017 with $53,000 and was supposed to last a full year, but due to the depth of the need for this funding, SCRS ran out of funding for emergency assistance by April 2018. Approximately 90% of the funding in this program was used to secure new housing for families whose housing was in jeopardy due to the Ordinance and its Occupancy Restriction. Specifically, the emergency assistance fund was used to help
81

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 82 of 90
evicted families pay the upfront costs of renting a new home, such as deposits or last month’s rent required upfront.
406. As a result of the resources SCRS has diverted to addressing housing needs created by the Ordinance, SCRS has fewer resources to devote to other priorities critical to its mission, including resettlement services, civic engagement, education, health, employment, and programs for youth and the elderly.
407. For example, SCRS has had to curtail its employment services. Employment is an area of great need, and SCRS would have prioritized it in the last few years had it not been for the Ordinance. Instead, SCRS has been forced to stop driving community members to job orientations and to their first week of work, as SCRS had previously done. As a result, community members now miss out on job opportunities because they cannot afford transportation before receiving a first paycheck.
408. SCRS has also been forced to divert resources from its youth programming. SCRS would like to provide tutoring and recreation opportunities for youth, but it can do only a very limited amount of this work because of the volume of housing work created by the Ordinance. SCRS had hired a staff member with the title of Youth Program Administrator, but that staff member now works exclusively on housing issues.
409. SCRS will continue to divert resources to stem the housing crisis facing the Somali-American community in Faribault for as long as the Ordinance continues to cause Somali-American families to lose their homes in Faribault.
82

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 83 of 90
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 410. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 411. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 412. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Fair Housing Act because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to make unavailable and deny dwellings in Faribault to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin. 413. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE –
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 414. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 415. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
83

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 84 of 90
416. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin.
417. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF § 1981 – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE 418. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 419. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws . . .” Making and enforcing contracts “includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” § 1981(b). 420. Section 1981 protects these rights from “impairment under color of State law.” § 1981(c). 421. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates § 1981 because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to deny the equal right to make and enforce contracts for rental housing to Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or ancestry.
84

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 85 of 90
422. Direct evidence exists demonstrating a specific link between this animus and the passage of the Ordinance. Circumstantial evidence of the role of animus in the passage of the Ordinance also exists, and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-pretextual justification for the Ordinance.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – CRIMINAL HISTORY POLICY 423. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 424. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 425. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means. 426. By causing potential tenants to be barred from housing based upon their criminal records, the Criminal Records Screening Policy has a large discriminatory impact on the basis of race and national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
85

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 86 of 90
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR HOUSING ACT – OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION (art. V, § 7-40(h)) 427. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 428. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal “to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 429. A policy has a discriminatory effect prohibited under the Fair Housing Act where it actually or predictably results in a significant adverse impact on members of a protected class and it is either not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective, or that objective could be achieved through a less discriminatory means. 430. By barring families from residing in otherwise-suitable housing based on family size, and by causing tenants to be evicted from housing upon the birth of additional children, the Occupancy Restriction has a large discriminatory impact on persons of Somali national origin. It is not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose; moreover, any such purpose that did exist could be achieved through a less discriminatory alternative. As a result, it violates the Fair Housing Act.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(RACE DISCRIMINATION) 431. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above.
86

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 87 of 90
432. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1.
433. The Rental Licensing Ordinance violates Minnesota equal protection because it was enacted with the purpose and intent to discriminate against Black and Somali people on the basis of race and/or national origin.
434. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MINNESOTA EQUAL PROTECTION – RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
(ANIMUS AGAINST RENTERS) 435. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth above. 436. Article I of the Minnesota Constitution guarantees that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Minnesota Constitution protects a right to equal protection there and elsewhere. Id. Art. X, § 1; id. Art. XII, § 1; id. Art. XIII, § 1. 437. In order to survive rational basis scrutiny under the Minnesota Constitution, a policy must satisfy three requirements: (1) the distinctions separating those included within a classification from those excluded must be genuine and substantial rather than arbitrary or fanciful; (2) there must be an evident connection
87

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 88 of 90 between needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; and (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the government can legitimately attempt to achieve.
438. The Rental Licensing Ordinance explicitly treats renters differently from homeowners and those residing in owner-occupied housing. Renters’ private information, including their dates of residency, are available to the City of Faribault at all times; renters can lose their homes as a consequence of contact with the police; and renters are responsible if guests or others “under the resident’s control” engage in criminal conduct. None of these requirements apply to homeowners or those who reside in owner-occupied homes. There is no evident connection between this classification and any legitimate government purpose, and there is evidence that the Ordinance was adopted with animus toward renters.
439. As a result, the Rental Licensing Ordinance violates the right to equal protection found in the Minnesota Constitution.
88

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 89 of 90

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and their officials, employees, and agents from implementing or enforcing the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program;
B. A declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law, Minn. Stat. § 555.01, that the Rental Licensing Ordinance, including the Crime-Free Housing Program, is unlawful and invalid;
C. Compensatory damages, including “garden variety” emotional distress damages, for the Plaintiffs;
D. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and
E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

Dated: December 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Alejandro A. Ortiz Alejandro Ortiz (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Jennesa Calvo-Friedman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2500 ortiza@aclu.org jcalvo-friedman@aclu.org
Teresa Nelson
89

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118 Filed 12/18/19 Page 90 of 90
Ian Bratlie American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: 651-529-1692 tnelson@aclu-mn.org ibratlie@aclu-mn.org Scott M Flaherty Brandon Blakely O. Joseph Balthazor, Jr Briggs & Morgan, PA 2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-977-8745 sflaherty@briggs.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
90

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 23
EXHIBIT A

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 7 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 8 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 9 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 10 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 11 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 12 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 13 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 14 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 15 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 16 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 17 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 18 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 19 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 20 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 21 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 22 of 23

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 23 of 23

 
 CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 23
EXHIBIT B

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 23 Faribault 14532

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 23 Faribault 14533

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 23 Faribault 14534

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 23 Faribault 14535

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 23 Faribault 14536

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 7 of 23 Faribault 14537

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 8 of 23 Faribault 14538

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 9 of 23 Faribault 14539

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 10 of 23 Faribault 14540

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 11 of 23 Faribault 14541

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 12 of 23 Faribault 14542

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 13 of 23 Faribault 14543

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 14 of 23 Faribault 14544

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 15 of 23 Faribault 14545

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 16 of 23 Faribault 14546

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 17 of 23 Faribault 14547

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 18 of 23 Faribault 14548

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 19 of 23 Faribault 14549

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 20 of 23 Faribault 14550

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 21 of 23 Faribault 14551

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 22 of 23 Faribault 14552

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-2 Filed 12/18/19 Page 23 of 23 Faribault 14553

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-3 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT C

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-3 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3

10/6/2017

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JInRtimTid-aHteBd byDFaoricbauumlt Seonmtali1s 1| O8p-i3nion F| sioleutdhe1rn2m/in1n8.c/o1m9 Page 3 of 3

A recent article in the Faribault Daily News reported "The Somalis live in fear," well, I live in fear of them. This incident has not diminished this fear.

Anita Underdahl

Faribault

Eric Dolski (https://www.southernminn.com/users/profile/ericdolski)

Exhibit P 4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d_w0zs5xdkIJ:www.southernminn.com/faribault_daily_news/opinion/article_880560a4-f927-5… 2/2

 
 CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-4 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT D

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-4 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-4 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-5 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT E

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-5 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3 P Exhibit 110 Faribault 1115

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-5 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3 P Exhibit 110 Faribault 1116

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-6 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT F

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-6 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-6 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-6 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-6 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 5

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-7 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT G

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-7 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-7 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-8 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT H

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-8 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit P 90
Faribault 1264

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT I

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 6
Exhibit P. 55
Faribault 1259

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 6
Exhibit P. 55
Faribault 1260

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 6
Exhibit P. 55
Faribault 1261

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 6
Exhibit P. 55
Faribault 1262

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-9 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit P. 55
Faribault 1263

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-10 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT J

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-10 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-10 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 34
EXHIBIT K

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 7 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 8 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 9 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 10 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 11 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 12 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 13 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 14 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 15 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 16 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 17 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 18 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 19 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 20 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 21 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 22 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 23 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 24 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 25 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 26 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 27 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 28 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 29 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 30 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 31 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 32 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 33 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-11 Filed 12/18/19 Page 34 of 34

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-12 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT L

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-12 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 2

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT M

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 11
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-0500
April 4, 2016
Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by
Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions
I. Introduction
The Fair Housing Act (or Act) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.1 HUD’s Office of General Counsel issues this guidance concerning how the Fair Housing Act applies to the use of criminal history by providers or operators of housing and real-estate related transactions. Specifically, this guidance addresses how the discriminatory effects and disparate treatment methods of proof apply in Fair Housing Act cases in which a housing provider justifies an adverse housing action – such as a refusal to rent or renew a lease – based on an individual’s criminal history.
II. Background
As many as 100 million U.S. adults – or nearly one-third of the population – have a criminal record of some sort.2 The United States prison population of 2.2 million adults is by far the largest in the world.3 As of 2012, the United States accounted for only about five percent of the world’s population, yet almost one quarter of the world’s prisoners were held in American prisons.4 Since 2004, an average of over 650,000 individuals have been released annually from federal and state prisons,5 and over 95 percent of current inmates will be released at some point.6 When individuals are released from prisons and jails, their ability to access safe, secure and affordable housing is critical to their successful reentry to society.7 Yet many formerly incarcerated individuals, as well as individuals who were convicted but not incarcerated, encounter significant barriers to securing housing, including public and other federally-subsidized housing,

1 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
2 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2012, 3 (Jan. 2014), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/244563.pdf. 3 Nat’l Acad. Sci., Nat’l Res. Couns., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences 2 (Jeremy Travis, et al. eds., 2014), available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-ofincarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes. 4 Id. 5 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at 29, appendix tbls. 1 and 2, available at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387. 6 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Reentry Trends in the United States, available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf. 7 See, e.g., S. Metraux, et al. “Incarceration and Homelessness,” in Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, #9 (D. Dennis, et al. eds., 2007), available at: https://www.huduser.gov/portal//publications/pdf/p9.pdf (explaining “how the increasing numbers of people leaving carceral institutions face an increased risk for homelessness and, conversely, how persons experiencing homelessness are vulnerable to incarceration.”).

www.hud.gov

espanol.hud.gov

Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 11
because of their criminal history. In some cases, even individuals who were arrested but not convicted face difficulty in securing housing based on their prior arrest.
Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.8 Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability).9 Additionally, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).
III. Discriminatory Effects Liability and Use of Criminal History to Make Housing Decisions
A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had no intent to discriminate.10 Under this standard, a facially-neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification. Thus, where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.11 Discriminatory effects liability is assessed under a three-step burden-shifting standard requiring a fact-specific analysis.12
The following sections discuss the three steps used to analyze claims that a housing provider’s use of criminal history to deny housing opportunities results in a discriminatory effect in violation of the Act. As explained in Section IV, below, a different analytical framework is used to evaluate claims of intentional discrimination.
8 See infra nn. 16-20 and accompanying text. 9 The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. This memorandum focuses on race and national origin discrimination, although criminal history policies may result in discrimination against other protected classes. 10 24 C.F.R. § 100.500; accord Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015). 11 24 C.F.R. § 100.500; see also Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. at 2514-15 (summarizing HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Standard in 24 C.F.R. § 100.500); id. at 2523 (explaining that housing providers may maintain a policy that causes a disparate impact “if they can prove [the policy] is necessary to achieve a valid interest.”). 12 See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500.
2
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 4 of 11
A. Evaluating Whether the Criminal History Policy or Practice Has a Discriminatory Effect
In the first step of the analysis, a plaintiff (or HUD in an administrative adjudication) must prove that the criminal history policy has a discriminatory effect, that is, that the policy results in a disparate impact on a group of persons because of their race or national origin.13 This burden is satisfied by presenting evidence proving that the challenged practice actually or predictably results in a disparate impact.
Whether national or local statistical evidence should be used to evaluate a discriminatory effects claim at the first step of the analysis depends on the nature of the claim alleged and the facts of that case. While state or local statistics should be presented where available and appropriate based on a housing provider’s market area or other facts particular to a given case, national statistics on racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system may be used where, for example, state or local statistics are not readily available and there is no reason to believe they would differ markedly from the national statistics.14
National statistics provide grounds for HUD to investigate complaints challenging criminal history policies.15 Nationally, racial and ethnic minorities face disproportionately high rates of arrest and incarceration. For example, in 2013, African Americans were arrested at a rate more than double their proportion of the general population.16 Moreover, in 2014, African Americans comprised approximately 36 percent of the total prison population in the United States, but only about 12 percent of the country’s total population.17 In other words, African Americans were incarcerated at a rate nearly three times their proportion of the general population. Hispanics were similarly incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to their share of the
13 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c)(1); accord Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. at 2522-23. A discriminatory effect can also be proven with evidence that the policy or practice creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(a). This guidance addresses only the method for analyzing disparate impact claims, which in HUD’s experience are more commonly asserted in this context. 14 Compare Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 330 (1977) (“[R]eliance on general population demographic data was not misplaced where there was no reason to suppose that physical height and weight characteristics of Alabama men and women differ markedly from those of the national population.”) with Mountain Side Mobile Estates P’ship v. Sec’y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 56 F.3d 1243, 1253 (10th Cir. 1995) (“In some cases national statistics may be the appropriate comparable population. However, those cases are the rare exception and this case is not such an exception.”) (citation omitted). 15 Cf. El v. SEPTA, 418 F. Supp. 2d 659, 668-69 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (finding that plaintiff proved prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII based on national data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Statistical Abstract of the U.S., which showed that non-Whites were substantially more likely than Whites to have a conviction), aff’d on other grounds, 479 F.2d 232 (3d Cir. 2007). 16 See FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Crime in the United States, 2013, tbl.43A, available at https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 (Fall 2014) (reporting that African Americans comprised 28.3% of all arrestees in 2013); U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Postcensal Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 2013 to December 1, 2013, available at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2014/2014-nat-res.html (reporting data showing that individuals identifying as African American or Black alone made up only 12.4% of the total U.S. population at 2013 year-end). 17 See E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at tbl. 10, available at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387; and U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Postcensal Resident Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: July 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014, available at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2014/2014-nat-res.html.
3
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 5 of 11
general population, with Hispanic individuals comprising approximately 22 percent of the prison population, but only about 17 percent of the total U.S. population.18 In contrast, non-Hispanic Whites comprised approximately 62 percent of the total U.S. population but only about 34 percent of the prison population in 2014.19 Across all age groups, the imprisonment rates for African American males is almost six times greater than for White males, and for Hispanic males, it is over twice that for non-Hispanic White males.20
Additional evidence, such as applicant data, tenant files, census demographic data and localized criminal justice data, may be relevant in determining whether local statistics are consistent with national statistics and whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact. Whether in the context of an investigation or administrative enforcement action by HUD or private litigation, a housing provider may offer evidence to refute the claim that its policy or practice causes a disparate impact on one or more protected classes.
Regardless of the data used, determining whether a policy or practice results in a disparate impact is ultimately a fact-specific and case-specific inquiry.
B. Evaluating Whether the Challenged Policy or Practice is Necessary to Achieve a Substantial, Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Interest
In the second step of the discriminatory effects analysis, the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove that the challenged policy or practice is justified – that is, that it is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider.21 The interest proffered by the housing provider may not be hypothetical or speculative, meaning the housing provider must be able to provide evidence proving both that the housing provider has a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest supporting the challenged policy and that the challenged policy actually achieves that interest.22
Although the specific interest(s) that underlie a criminal history policy or practice will no doubt vary from case to case, some landlords and property managers have asserted the protection of other residents and their property as the reason for such policies or practices.23 Ensuring
18 See id. 19 See id. 20 E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Prisoners in 2014 (Sept. 2015) at table 10, available at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387. 21 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c)(2); see also Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. at 2523. 22 See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(b)(2); see also 78 Fed. Reg. 11460, 11471 (Feb. 15, 2013). 23 See, e.g., Answer to Amended Complaint at 58, The Fortune Society, Inc. v. Sandcastle Towers Hsg. Dev. Fund Corp., No. 1:14-CV-6410 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2015), ECF No. 37 (“The use of criminal records searches as part of the overall tenant screening process used at Sand Castle serves valid business and security functions of protecting tenants and the property from former convicted criminals.”); Evans v. UDR, Inc., 644 F.Supp.2d 675, 683 (E.D.N.C. 2009) (noting, based on affidavit of property owner, that “[t]he policy [against renting to individuals with criminal histories is] based primarily on the concern that individuals with criminal histories are more likely than others to commit crimes on the property than those without such backgrounds … [and] is thus based [on] concerns for the safety of other residents of the apartment complex and their property."); see also J. Helfgott, Ex-Offender Needs Versus Community Opportunity in Seattle, Washington, 61 Fed. Probation 12, 20 (1997) (finding in a survey of 196
4
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 6 of 11
resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider, and courts may consider such interests to be both substantial and legitimate, assuming they are the actual reasons for the policy or practice.24 A housing provider must, however, be able to prove through reliable evidence that its policy or practice of making housing decisions based on criminal history actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property. Bald assertions based on generalizations or stereotypes that any individual with an arrest or conviction record poses a greater risk than any individual without such a record are not sufficient to satisfy this burden.
1. Exclusions Because of Prior Arrest
A housing provider with a policy or practice of excluding individuals because of one or more prior arrests (without any conviction) cannot satisfy its burden of showing that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. 25 As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he mere fact that a man has been arrested has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense.”26 Because arrest records do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct and are often incomplete (e.g., by failing to indicate whether the individual was prosecuted, convicted, or acquitted), 27 the fact of an arrest is not a reliable basis upon which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or property posed by a particular individual. For that reason, a housing provider who denies housing to persons on the basis of arrests not resulting in conviction cannot prove that the exclusion actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property.
landlords in Seattle that of the 43% of landlords that said they were inclined to reject applicants with a criminal history, the primary reason for their inclination was protection and safety of community). 24 As explained in HUD’s 2013 Discriminatory Effects Final Rule, a “substantial” interest is a core interest of the organization that has a direct relationship to the function of that organization. The requirement that an interest be “legitimate” means that a housing provider’s justification must be genuine and not false or fabricated. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 11470; see also Charleston Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 419 F.3d 729, 742 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that, “in the abstract, a reduction in the concentration of low income housing is a legitimate goal,” but concluding “that the Housing Authority had not shown a need for deconcentration in this instance, and in fact, had falsely represented the density [of low income housing] at the location in question in an attempt to do so”). 25 HUD recently clarified that arrest records may not be the basis for denying admission, terminating assistance, or evicting tenants from public and other federally-assisted housing. See Guidance for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) and Owners of Federally-Assisted Housing on Excluding the Use of Arrest Records in Housing Decisions, HUD PIH Notice 2015-19, (November 2, 2015), available at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PIH2015-19.pdf. 26 Schware v. Bd of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 241 (1957); see also United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273, 282 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[A] bare arrest record – without more – does not justify an assumption that a defendant has committed other crimes and it therefore cannot support increasing his/her sentence in the absence of adequate proof of criminal activity.”); United States v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57, 60 (1st Cir. 2006) (“[A] mere arrest, especially a lone arrest, is not evidence that the person arrested actually committed any criminal conduct.”). 27 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks at 3, 17 (June 2006), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ag bgchecks report.pdf (reporting that the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index system, which is the national system designed to provide automated criminal history record information and “the most comprehensive single source of criminal history information in the United States,” is “still missing final disposition information for approximately 50 percent of its records”).
5
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 7 of 11
Analogously, in the employment context, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has explained that barring applicants from employment on the basis of arrests not resulting in conviction is not consistent with business necessity under Title VII because the fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct occurred.28
2. Exclusions Because of Prior Conviction
In most instances, a record of conviction (as opposed to an arrest) will serve as sufficient evidence to prove that an individual engaged in criminal conduct.29 But housing providers that apply a policy or practice that excludes persons with prior convictions must still be able to prove that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. A housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any conviction record – no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then – will be unable to meet this burden. One federal court of appeals held that such a blanket ban violated Title VII, stating that it “could not conceive of any business necessity that would automatically place every individual convicted of any offense, except a minor traffic offense, in the permanent ranks of the unemployed.”30 Although the defendant-employer in that case had proffered a number of theft and safety-related justifications for the policy, the court rejected such justifications as “not empirically validated.”31
A housing provider with a more tailored policy or practice that excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions must still prove that its policy is necessary to serve a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” To do this, a housing provider must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.32
28 See U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, EEOC Enforcement Guidance, Number 915.002, 12 (Apr. 25, 2012), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest conviction.cfm; see also Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 401, 403 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (holding that defendant employer’s policy of excluding from employment persons with arrests without convictions unlawfully discriminated against African American applicants in violation of Title VII because there “was no evidence to support a claim that persons who have suffered no criminal convictions but have been arrested on a number of occasions can be expected, when employed, to perform less efficiently or less honestly than other employees,” such that “information concerning a … record of arrests without conviction, is irrelevant to [an applicant’s] suitability or qualification for employment”), aff’d, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972). 29 There may, however, be evidence of an error in the record, an outdated record, or another reason for not relying on the evidence of a conviction. For example, a database may continue to report a conviction that was later expunged, or may continue to report as a felony an offense that was subsequently downgraded to a misdemeanor. See generally SEARCH, Report of the National Task Force on the Commercial Sale of Criminal Justice Record Information (2005), available at http://www.search.org/files/pdf/RNTFCSCJRI.pdf. 30 Green v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 523 F.2d 1290, 1298 (8th Cir. 1975). 31 Id. 32 Cf. El, 479 F.3d at 245-46 (stating that “Title VII … require[s] that the [criminal conviction] policy under review accurately distinguish[es] between applicants that pose an unacceptable level or risk and those that do not”).
6
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 8 of 11
A policy or practice that fails to take into account the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction is unlikely to satisfy this standard.33 Similarly, a policy or practice that does not consider the amount of time that has passed since the criminal conduct occurred is unlikely to satisfy this standard, especially in light of criminological research showing that, over time, the likelihood that a person with a prior criminal record will engage in additional criminal conduct decreases until it approximates the likelihood that a person with no criminal history will commit an offense. 34
Accordingly, a policy or practice that fails to consider the nature, severity, and recency of criminal conduct is unlikely to be proven necessary to serve a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest” of the provider. The determination of whether any particular criminal history-based restriction on housing satisfies step two of the discriminatory effects standard must be made on a case-by-case basis.35
C. Evaluating Whether There Is a Less Discriminatory Alternative
The third step of the discriminatory effects analysis is applicable only if a housing provider successfully proves that its criminal history policy or practice is necessary to achieve its substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff or HUD to prove that such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.36
Although the identification of a less discriminatory alternative will depend on the particulars of the criminal history policy or practice under challenge, individualized assessment of relevant mitigating information beyond that contained in an individual’s criminal record is likely to have a less discriminatory effect than categorical exclusions that do not take such additional information into account. Relevant individualized evidence might include: the facts or circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct; the age of the individual at the time of the conduct; evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or after the conviction or conduct; and evidence of rehabilitation efforts. By delaying consideration of criminal history until after an individual’s financial and other qualifications are verified, a housing provider may be able to minimize any additional costs that such individualized assessment might add to the applicant screening process.
33 Cf. Green, 523 F.2d at 1298 (holding that racially disproportionate denial of employment opportunities based on criminal conduct that “does not significantly bear upon the particular job requirements is an unnecessarily harsh and unjust burden” and violated Title VII). 34 Cf. El, 479 F.3d at 247 (noting that plaintiff’s Title VII disparate impact claim might have survived summary judgment had plaintiff presented evidence that “there is a time at which a former criminal is no longer any more likely to recidivate than the average person….”); see also Green, 523 F.2d at 1298 (permanent exclusion from employment based on any and all offenses violated Title VII); see Megan C. Kurlychek et al., Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending?, 5 Criminology and Pub. Pol’y 483 (2006) (reporting that after six or seven years without reoffending, the risk of new offenses by persons with a prior criminal history begins to approximate the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record). 35 The liability standards and principles discussed throughout this guidance would apply to HUD-assisted housing providers just as they would to any other housing provider covered by the Fair Housing Act. See HUD PIH Notice 2015-19 supra n. 25. Section 6 of that Notice addresses civil rights requirements. 36 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(c)(3); accord Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507.
7
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 9 of 11
D. Statutory Exemption from Fair Housing Act Liability for Exclusion Because of Illegal Manufacture or Distribution of a Controlled Substance
Section 807(b)(4) of the Fair Housing Act provides that the Act does not prohibit “conduct against a person because such person has been convicted … of the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).”37 Accordingly, a housing provider will not be liable under the Act for excluding individuals because they have been convicted of one or more of the specified drug crimes, regardless of any discriminatory effect that may result from such a policy.
Limitation. Section 807(b)(4) only applies to disparate impact claims based on the denial of housing due to the person’s conviction for drug manufacturing or distribution; it does not provide a defense to disparate impact claims alleging that a policy or practice denies housing because of the person’s arrest for such offenses. Similarly, the exemption is limited to disparate impact claims based on drug manufacturing or distribution convictions, and does not provide a defense to disparate impact claims based on other drug-related convictions, such as the denial of housing due to a person’s conviction for drug possession.
IV. Intentional Discrimination and Use of Criminal History
A housing provider may also violate the Fair Housing Act if the housing provider intentionally discriminates in using criminal history information. This occurs when the provider treats an applicant or renter differently because of race, national origin or another protected characteristic. In these cases, the housing provider’s use of criminal records or other criminal history information as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals because of race, national origin or other protected characteristics is no different from the discriminatory application of any other rental or purchase criteria.
For example, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act may be proven based on evidence that a housing provider rejected an Hispanic applicant based on his criminal record, but admitted a non-Hispanic White applicant with a comparable criminal record. Similarly, if a housing provider has a policy of not renting to persons with certain convictions, but makes exceptions to it for Whites but not African Americans, intentional discrimination exists.38 A disparate treatment violation may also be proven based on evidence that a leasing agent assisted a White applicant seeking to secure approval of his rental application despite his potentially disqualifying criminal record under the housing provider’s screening policy, but did not provide such assistance to an African American applicant.39
37 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(4). 38 Cf. Sherman Ave. Tenants’ Assn. v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 673, 683-84 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (upholding plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim based on evidence that defendant had not enforced its housing code as aggressively against comparable non-Hispanic neighborhoods as it did in plaintiff’s disproportionately Hispanic neighborhood). 39 See, e.g., Muriello, 217 F. 3d at 522 (holding that Plaintiff's allegations that his application for federal housing assistance and the alleged existence of a potentially disqualifying prior criminal record was handled differently than those of two similarly situated white applicants presented a prima facie case that he was discriminated against because of race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act).
8
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 10 of 11
Discrimination may also occur before an individual applies for housing. For example, intentional discrimination may be proven based on evidence that, when responding to inquiries from prospective applicants, a property manager told an African American individual that her criminal record would disqualify her from renting an apartment, but did not similarly discourage a White individual with a comparable criminal record from applying.
If overt, direct evidence of discrimination does not exist, the traditional burden-shifting method of establishing intentional discrimination applies to complaints alleging discriminatory intent in the use of criminal history information.40 First, the evidence must establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment. This may be shown in a refusal to rent case, for example, by evidence that: (1) the plaintiff (or complainant in an administrative enforcement action) is a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff or complainant applied for a dwelling from the housing provider; (3) the housing provider rejected the plaintiff or complainant because of his or her criminal history; and (4) the housing provider offered housing to a similarly-situated applicant not of the plaintiff or complainant’s protected class, but with a comparable criminal record. It is then the housing provider’s burden to offer “evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse housing decision.”41 A housing provider’s nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged decision must be clear, reasonably specific, and supported by admissible evidence.42 Purely subjective or arbitrary reasons will not be sufficient to demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for differential treatment.43
While a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider, a plaintiff or HUD may still prevail by showing that the criminal record was not the true reason for the adverse housing decision, and was instead a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. For example, the fact that a housing provider acted upon comparable criminal history information differently for one or more individuals of a different protected class than the plaintiff or complainant is strong evidence that a housing provider was not considering criminal history information uniformly or did not in fact have a criminal history policy. Or pretext may be shown where a housing provider did not actually know of an applicant’s criminal record at the time of the alleged discrimination. Additionally, shifting or inconsistent explanations offered by a housing provider for the denial of an application may also provide evidence of pretext. Ultimately, the evidence that may be offered to show that the plaintiff or complainant’s criminal history was merely a pretextual
40 See, generally, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (articulating the concept of a “prima facie case” of intentional discrimination under Title VII); see, e.g., Allen v. Muriello, 217 F. 3rd 517, 520-22 (7th Cir. 2000) (applying prima facie case analysis to claim under the Fair Housing Act alleging disparate treatment because of race in housing provider’s use of criminal records to deny housing). 41 Lindsay v. Yates, 578 F.3d 407, 415 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citations omitted). 42 See, e.g., Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032, 1039-40 (2d Cir. 1979) (“A prima facie case having been established, a Fair Housing Act claim cannot be defeated by a defendant which relies on merely hypothetical reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.”). 43 See, e.g., Muriello, 217 F.3d at 522 (noting that housing provider’s “rather dubious explanation for the differing treatment” of African American and White applicants’ criminal records “puts the issue of pretext in the lap of a trier of fact”); Soules v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 967 F.2d 817, 822 (2d Cir. 1992) (“In examining the defendant’s reason, we view skeptically subjective rationales concerning why he denied housing to members or protected groups [because] ‘clever men may easily conceal their [discriminatory] motivations.’” (quoting United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, 508 F.2d 1179, 1185 (8th Cir. 1974)).
9
Exhibit P 13

CASE 0:18-cv-01643-JRT-HB Document 118-13 Filed 12/18/19 Page 11 of 11
justification for intentional discrimination by the housing provider will depend on the facts of a particular case.
The section 807(b)(4) exemption discussed in Section III.D., above, does not apply to claims of intentional discrimination because by definition, the challenged conduct in intentional discrimination cases is taken because of race, national origin, or another protected characteristic, and not because of the drug conviction. For example, the section 807(b)(4) exemption would not provide a defense to a claim of intentional discrimination where the evidence shows that a housing provider rejects only African American applicants with convictions for distribution of a controlled substance, while admitting White applicants with such convictions.
V. Conclusion
The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin or other protected characteristics. Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans are likely to lack a legally sufficient justification. Thus, a discriminatory effect resulting from a policy or practice that denies housing to anyone with a prior arrest or any kind of criminal conviction cannot be justified, and therefore such a practice would violate the Fair Housing Act.
Policies that exclude persons based on criminal history must be tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction. Where a policy or practice excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions, a housing provider will still bear the burden of proving that any discriminatory effect caused by such policy or practice is justified. Such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Selective use of criminal history as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on race, national origin, or other protected characteristics violates the Act.
Helen R. Kanovsky, General Counsel
10
Exhibit P 13