UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

DELROY A. CHAMBERS, JR., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

ALBERTO FAUR, doing business as

EFA REALTY,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

and

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Delroy A. Chambers, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this 

Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees against 

Defendant, Alberto Faur, doing business as EFA Realty, and as good grounds states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action arises as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions perpetrated 

against Black people with respect to the rental of a home located in Miami, Florida (the 

“Dwelling”).

2. Specifically, Defendant has violated the Fair Housing Act by, among other things, 

refusing to negotiate, and otherwise making unavailable and denying the Dwelling to Mr. 

Chambers because of race.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a), in that Plaintiff asserts his

claims of housing discrimination in a civil action, and also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 1 of 9
and 1343(a)(4), in that this is a civil action seeking to redress the deprivation of the right to fair 

housing secured to Plaintiff by the Fair Housing Act. 

4. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Plaintiff 

seeks permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c) in that 

the subject property is located in this division of this district, the events and/or omissions giving 

rise to the claims herein occurred in this district, and the Defendant’s principal place of business 

is in this district. 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Delroy A. Chambers, Jr., is a Black male that serves as a fair housing 

tester who seeks to enforce fair housing laws so that people are protected from discriminatory 

housing practices. Mr. Chambers attempts to accomplish these goals by engaging in testing for 

fair housing violations and pursuing enforcement of meritorious claims, among other things. In 

this capacity, Mr. Chambers poses as a renter or purchaser for the purpose of collecting evidence 

of discriminatory housing practices, without intent to rent or purchase a home. At all relevant 

times, Mr. Chambers was acting in this capacity as a tester when he conducted an investigation 

into the discriminatory actions perpetuated by Defendant.

7. As a fair housing tester and advocate dedicated to advancing the rights of those 

historically discriminated against, Mr. Chambers attempts to locate housing providers and 

advertisers in order to test their compliance with various fair housing laws. Mr. Chambers 

conducts such testing efforts consistent with the guidance and instructions outlined by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing advocacy groups, and 

established case law. 

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 2 of 9
8. Mr. Chambersis deeply committed to fair housing and the goals of the Fair Housing 

Act. Mr. Chambers was and continues to be adversely affected by the acts, omissions, policies, 

and practices of the Defendant. 

9. Defendant, Alberto Faur, doing business as EFA Realty, is engaged in the business 

of real estate and is comprised of licensed real estate professionals, including Nicole Faur.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. While investigating discrimination in the housing market in June 2022, Mr. 

Chambers encountered an advertisement for the Dwelling. The advertisement plainly stated, 

among other things, “clear background” as a requirement for tenancy.

11. The advertisement indicated that the Dwelling was listed by the Defendant and 

provided contact information for Defendant and its licensed real estate sales associate, Nicole Faur.

12. As part of Mr. Chambers’s fair housing testing efforts described above, Mr. 

Chambers, posing as a potential renter, attempted to negotiate for the rental of the Dwelling with 

Defendant by confirming the availability of the Dwelling. 

13. Defendant responded by text message and confirmed the availability of the 

Dwelling and offered to show the Dwelling to Mr. Chambers.

14. Mr. Chambers continued the test by asking Defendant for additional details about 

the “clear background” policy that was noted on the advertisement and inquiring whether any

criminal background would result in a denial of the Dwelling, because of the criminal background

policy.

15. Defendant responded and unequivocally confirmed that the Dwelling was subject 

to a “clear background” policy that would result in an automatic denial of the Dwelling to anyone 

with a criminal record, including Mr. Chambers.

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 3 of 9
16. Defendant did not ask whether Mr. Chambers’s criminal background involved any 

convictions or only arrests, and instead stated and confirmed that Mr. Chambers would be denied 

the Dwelling, based on a policy that constitutes an automatic denial for any potential renter with 

any criminal background. 

17. Defendant therefore ceased negotiating with Mr. Chambers regarding the Dwelling, 

and otherwise made the Dwelling unavailable and denied the Dwelling to him, based on a criminal 

background policy that takes arrests into consideration and includes a blanket prohibition serving 

to refuse rental of the Dwelling to any person with a criminal record, regardless of what the 

underlying conduct entailed, or whether any convictions had ever resulted from any accused 

conduct.

18. These statements clearly indicate that the rental of the Dwelling is subject to a 

blanket prohibition serving to refuse rental of the Dwelling to any person with any criminal record, 

including arrests, which is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act, as it has a disparate impact on 

Black people, and fails to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing 

provider.

19. Such actions and statements serve to discourage Mr. Chambers from applying, 

inspecting and renting the Dwelling; and restrict the choices of Mr. Chambers by word or conduct 

in connection with seeking, negotiating for, renting the Dwelling so as to perpetuate, or tend to 

perpetuate, segregated housing patterns, or to discourage or obstruct choices in a community, 

neighborhood or development. As such, these actions constitute efforts to deprive Mr. Chambers 

of housing opportunities.

20. HUD has found that “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 ... such 

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 4 of 9
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.” See HUD, “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” (April 4, 2016).

21. According to recent local, regional, and national data; media, academic and 

governmental studies; and HUD findings; including, but not limited to, data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. 

Department of Justice, and Florida’s Offender Based Transaction System, Black people are 

arrested, convicted, and imprisoned at vastly disproportional rates in Florida and the country as a 

whole, as well as in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Dwelling is located.

22. As such, the policy, which was the basis for Defendant’s refusal to negotiate with 

Mr. Chambers, making the Dwelling unavailable to Mr. Chambers and denying it to him, actually 

and predictably results in a disparate impact to Black people and therefore impacts and 

disadvantages Black people at significantly higher rates than White people, which in turn, reduces 

the availably of housing for Mr. Chambers and other Black people, as compared to White people. 

23. HUD has found that no substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest can be 

served where “[a] housing provider ... imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any 

conviction record – not matter ... what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted 

person has done since then.” Id.

24. HUD has further found that “[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.” Id.

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 5 of 9
25. As such, Defendant’s actions in refusing to negotiate with Mr. Chambers and 

making the Dwelling unavailable to Mr. Chambers and denying it to him based on a criminal 

background policy that includes a blanket prohibition that takes an applicant’s arrest history into 

consideration is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act, as it has a disparate impact on Black people, 

and fails to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider.

26. Mr. Chambers was angered and insulted that Defendant was refusing to negotiate 

and making the Dwelling unavailable to him and denying it to him based on its criminal 

background policy, which takes an applicant’s arrest history into consideration. 

27. As a Black person who has been the subject of discrimination throughout his life, 

Mr. Chambers is particularly sensitive to discriminatory practices. Mr. Chambers was insulted 

and emotionally distressed by being denied housing based on Defendant’s criminal background 

policy, which includes a blanket prohibition based on any criminal record, including arrests, and 

by being subjected to such discriminatory policies.

28. Mr. Chambers was and is saddened, angered, and insulted by the fact that the 

Defendant refused to negotiate and otherwise made unavailable and denied the Dwelling to him 

based on a policy that has a discriminatory impact and serves no substantial, legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory interest. Mr. Chambers has spent a significant amount of time thinking about 

what occurred and all the other Black people who may have had housing made unavailable to them 

by Defendant based on the criminal background policy that includes a blanket prohibition and

takes arrest history into consideration, and while doing so, has felt the aforementioned emotions.

29. Defendant’s unlawful conduct proximately caused Mr. Chambers to suffer the 

aforementioned emotions, which have manifested into stress, unpleasant rumination, mental strain, 

and feelings of indignity, hopelessness and anxiety about race discrimination in housing.

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 6 of 9
30. Consistent with his fair housing testing efforts, Mr. Chambers has a practice of 

continuing to monitor and test those entities and individuals found to have been discriminating. 

To those ends, Mr. Chambers has and will continue monitoring Defendant and its agents in order 

to determine its ongoing compliance with the Fair Housing Act and will continue to do so 

throughout the pendency of this matter and after its conclusion.

COUNT 1: 

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

31. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 as if fully set forth herein.

32. This Count 1 is brought by Plaintiff against the Defendant, Alberto Faur, doing 

business as EFA Realty.

33. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for all injuries caused by the Fair Housing Act 

violations committed by Defendant, and its agents. 

34. Defendant, Alberto Faur, doing business as EFA Realty, authorized its agents to act 

for it when they committed the Fair Housing Act violations alleged herein. Defendant’s agents

accepted the undertaking of acting on behalf of Defendant when they committed the Fair Housing 

Act violations alleged herein. Defendant had control over its agents when they committed the Fair 

Housing Act violations alleged herein.

35. Defendant has violated the Fair Housing Act by, among other things, otherwise 

making unavailable and denying the Dwelling to Mr. Chambers because of race.

36. A discriminatory purpose, not any legitimate reason, was a motivating factor behind 

Defendant’s aforementioned discriminatory actions and/or omissions.

37. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct - committed despite being 

engaged in the business of real estate, coupled with Plaintiff’s ongoing monitoring efforts -

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 7 of 9
Plaintiff has suffered, is continuing to suffer, and will in the future suffer irreparable loss and injury 

and a real and immediate threat of future discrimination by Defendant.

38. Defendant’s unlawful conduct and actions constitute direct evidence of 

discrimination and proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages as described above.

39. In engaging in this unlawful conduct described above, Defendant acted recklessly 

or intentionally. This is evidenced, in part, by the fact that Defendant is engaged in the real estate 

business, and despite that fact, chose to engage in unlawful discrimination.

40. As a tester who has been treated in a discriminatory fashion by Defendant, Mr. 

Chambers has suffered an injury in precisely the form the Fair Housing Act was intended to guard 

against, and therefore he has standing to maintain his claims under the Act's provisions.

41. Accordingly, Plaintiff is aggrieved by Defendant's discriminatory actions in 

violation of the Fair Housing Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. declare the actions, omissions, policies, and procedures of Defendant, 

complained of herein to be in violation of the Fair Housing Act;

B. enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its successors, and its

servants, agents and employees, and all those acting in concert with it, from engaging in

discrimination based on race;

C. enter a permanent injunction compelling Defendant, its successors, and its 

servants, agents and employees, and all those acting in concert with it, to amend any and all 

policies, procedures and practices, which discriminate against persons based on race;

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 8 of 9
D. award compensatory damages to Plaintiff against Defendant, to compensate 

Plaintiff for, among other things, the emotional distress, anger, insult and injury caused by 

Defendant’s discriminatory actions;

E. award Plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action; and

F. award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury 

on all issues so triable in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 43994

josh@sjlawcollective.com

Shawn A. Heller, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 46346

shawn@sjlawcollective.com

Social Justice Law Collective, PL

974 Howard Ave.

Dunedin, FL 34698

(202) 709-5744

(866) 893-0416 (Fax)

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

By: s/ Joshua A. Glickman .

Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.

Case 1:22-cv-22345-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 9 of 9