1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERESA BENTON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

EMILY VICKEY, in her official capacity 

as Executive Director of the FERNDALE 

HOUSING COMMISSION and the 

FERNDALE HOUSING COMMISSION, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1.1. This case arises out of Defendant Ferndale Housing Commission’s (FHC) 

wrongful conduct and discrimination in its administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher Program against TERESA BENTON. FHC arbitrarily and with discriminatory impact 

refused to allow Ms. Benton to use her voucher for a rental home in Detroit where she had been 

residing for five years. FHC found the neighborhood unsafe because of a boarded up house in 

the neighborhood, a house which had been boarded up each of the five previous years when FHC 

approved the home and the neighborhood. 

1.2. Plaintiff protested FHC’s action because her rental home in Detroit was in 

good condition, the rent was reasonable, and family were active in the neighborhood. Plaintiff 

felt safe in her home and community that she had known for 5 years. FHC refused to meet with 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 2 

Plaintiff to discuss its decision to disapprove of the home or Plaintiff’s objections. Without any 

discussion, FHC told Plaintiff she must find another house to rent. 

1.3. FHC stopped payment to Plaintiff’s landlord. Plaintiff did find another 

house in Detroit and requested inspection and approval, but FHC, again, said the house failed 

inspection because of a vacant house in the neighborhood. FHC also said it would not approve 

the rental amount and the landlord would have to accept $200 per month less than requested. 

1.4. Plaintiff realized that FHC’s new policy meant they would not approve 

houses in Detroit. Plaintiff contacted FHC to discuss this policy, and the FHC representative 

confirmed that the new policy was FHC would not approve any home if there was a vacant home 

within a three block radius of the home and urged Plaintiff to look in different “areas.” 

1.5. Plaintiff informed the FHC representative that Plaintiff wanted to stay in 

Detroit because her daughter was enrolled at Cass Technical High School in Detroit. The FHC 

representative told Plaintiff that Plaintiff should put her children “in a different school district.” 

1.6. Plaintiff stayed in her home in Detroit, paying the rent herself, for as long 

as she could. Finally, in May, 2014, Plaintiff was forced to move out of her home and move 

with her children to stay with other family members. Plaintiff and her children have been, in 

effect, homeless, since FHC stopped payment on Plaintiff’s voucher and denied Plaintiff requests 

for extension of the voucher. 

1.7. Through this action, Ms. Benton seeks to restore her voucher subsidy and 

find a home in Detroit, as FHC’s actions violated U.S. Housing and Urban Development 

requirements and constitutional protections. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 3 

1.8. Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as 

compensatory, special and punitive damages. 

II. JURISDICTION 

2.1. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 and § 

1343, and 42 USC § 3613. 

2.2. Venue is proper under 28 USC § 1391. 

III. PARTIES 

3.1. Plaintiff, TERESA BENTON, is a citizen of the United States of America, 

residing in Detroit, Michigan. 

3.2. Defendant, EMILY VICKEY , is the Executive Director of the Ferndale 

Housing Commission. 

3.3. The FERNDALE HOUSING COMMISSION is a political subdivision of the 

City of Ferndale, State of Michigan, and doing business in Michigan pursuant to regulations 

promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

IV. COMMON ALLEGATIONS 

4.1. On or about November, 2005, Plaintiff received a Housing Choice Voucher 

from the Ferndale Housing Commission (FHC). Plaintiff had lived in two homes approved by 

FHC and, after FHC approval, moved into her home at 15803 Prevost in Detroit in 2009. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 4 

4.2. Plaintiff had completed the approval process with FHC before moving into 

the Prevost house. FHC sent inspectors for annual inspection of Plaintiff’s house on Prevost 

each year in January, including 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Each year FHC confirmed that 

Plaintiff’s home at 15803 Prevost passed inspection. 

4.3. In January, 2014, the inspector who had inspected Plaintiff’s home on 

Prevost each of the previous years informed Plaintiff that this year Plaintiff’s home would not 

pass inspection due to the vacant home in the neighborhood of Plaintiff’s home. This same 

vacant home had been a vacant home each of the previous years when Plaintiff’s home passed 

the FHC inspection. 

4.4. Plaintiff’s home at 15803 Prevost was in good condition and wellmaintained. The residents in the neighborhood consider their neighborhood to be safe. 

4.5. Plaintiff’s home and the neighborhood were in the same shape as in the 

previous five years when both the home and neighborhood had passed FHC inspection. 

4.6 Plaintiff is an African-American and that most her neighbors in her 

neighborhood in Detroit were and are African-American. 

4.7. On January 14, 2014, the FHC notified Plaintiff that her home had failed the 

annual recertification, stating: “The contract unit has failed to meet the housing Quality 

Standards of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, and this office cannot continue 

Housing Assistance Payment contract on a unit that has abandoned and/or boarded up 

properties...” 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 5 

4.8. Plaintiff contacted FHC to ask why they were saying Plaintiff’s home failed 

inspection now when it had passed in previous years, was in good shape and client wanted to 

remain in the home. FHC representative, Jennifer Mondy, told Plaintiff that this was their new 

policy and they were failing homes if there are vacant homes in the neighborhood so Plaintiff 

must move. 

4.9. Plaintiff then looked for another home in the Detroit area and found one at 

Hubbell and Pembroke. Plaintiff asked FHC to inspect and approve that home. The same 

inspector from FHC came to this home and said the house also failed inspection because there 

was a vacant house on the next block. 

4.10. Plaintiff realized that Ferndale Housing Commission was refusing to 

approve homes in Detroit. Plaintiff called Ferndale Housing Commission and spoke with Ms. 

Amber Pitrago, an employee of Ferndale Housing Commission, who told Plaintiff that the new 

policy of Ferndale Housing Commission was that there could be no abandoned houses within 

three blocks east or west of the block being inspected. If there were any vacant house within that 

three block radius, then the home would fail inspection for neighborhood standards. 

4.11. Ms. Pitrago then asked Plaintiff why Plaintiff was not looking for homes in 

different “areas.” Plaintiff informed Ms. Pitrago that Plaintiff and her daughter had worked very 

hard to get Plaintiff’s daughter into Cass Technical High School in Detroit, that her daughter was 

attending that school and wanted very much to remain in that school. Plaintiff explained that 

she wanted to stay in Detroit and in the general neighborhood of the school so her daughter could 

continue her education there. Ms. Pitrago told Plaintiff they would not approve any homes if 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 6 

there vacant or abandoned homes anywhere in the area so Plaintiff should put her children in “a 

different school district.” Plaintiff is African-American and her children are African-American. 

The school district and the school are majority African-American. 

4.12. Plaintiff could not find any houses in Detroit or the 48227 zip code in 

Detroit, which Ferndale Housing Commission would approve. Plaintiff continued to stay at her 

home at 15803 Prevost in Detroit. Plaintiff struggled to pay the rent for the home, after Ferndale 

Housing Commission stopped paying on the voucher. 

4.10. The rent on the home was $750 per month, and Plaintiff could not afford to 

continue paying. In May, 2014 Plaintiff no longer could afford the rent, because Ferndale 

Housing Commission had stopped paying on the voucher some months before. Plaintiff and her 

children became homeless and now live with a family member in Detroit. Plaintiff has been 

able to keep her daughters in their schools in Detroit, but it has been very difficult to be forced to 

move from a home they liked and to move in with family members so they are not on the street. 

Plaintiff seeks to have her voucher reinstated and to be able to find a decent, affordable home she 

can rent in Detroit. 

4.11. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, Plaintiff 

BENTON has sustained damages, including, but not limited to, humiliation, anxiety, emotional 

distress, mental anguish, deprivation of her rights, physical pain and suffering, homelessness and 

eviction from her home. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 7 

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I: Violation of Procedural Due Process – 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 

5.1. Plaintiff’s participation in and receipt of Housing Choice Voucher assistance 

is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

5.2. Defendants are governmental actors; at all relevant times Defendant Emily 

Vickey acted under the color of law in her capacity as Executive Director of the Ferndale 

Housing Commission. 

5.3. Defendant’s refusal to meet with Plaintiff regarding this decision or to 

explain the decision and Defendant’s refusal to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to provide 

mitigating circumstances for why she should be allowed to stay in her home of seven years 

violates Plaintiff’s right to due process under the Housing Choice Voucher Program. This Due 

Process right is implicit in the “housing choice” policy underlying the entire voucher program 

pursuant to 24 CFR, §982.353(f). 

5.4. Where, as in this case, the impact of FHC’s decision is to force Plaintiff to 

move or give up her voucher, fairness and due process dictates that FHC should hear from the 

tenant who will be adversely affected by the decision. FHC refused Plaintiff’s request for a 

meeting, a discussion or a hearing on this issue. 

5.5. In rescinding Plaintiff’s Voucher, and in refusing to review that decision or 

provide Plaintiff with a hearing or an opportunity to defend herself at a hearing, Defendants were 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 8 

acting under color of state law; accordingly, their conduct violates the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in violation of 42 USC § 1983. 

Count II. Violation of Substantive Due Process – 14th Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution 

5.6. Defendant FHC terminated Plaintiff’s Section 8 contract and Housing 

Choice Voucher payments to Plaintiff’s landlord based on alleged violation of Housing Quality 

Standards when Defendant failed even to inspect Plaintiff’s home. 

5.7. FHC’s action in terminating payment of the subsidy to Plaintiff’s landlord 

denied Plaintiff the right to use the subsidy in her home of seven years. In difficult housing 

markets such as Detroit, where good, alternative, reasonably priced housing, equivalent to 

Plaintiff’s current home, is impossible to locate, the termination of the landlord’s contract was in 

effect termination of the subsidy as well. 

5.8. Pursuant to 24 CFR § 982.401(4)(iv), Public Housing Authorities such as 

FHC cannot use Site and Neighborhood Standards which “severely restrict housing choice.” 

FHC’s Site and neighborhood standards do severely restrict housing choice in violation of 24 

CFR § 982.401(4)(iv). 

5.9. FHC’s determination to deny approval for the subject rental home violated 

Plaintiff’s substantive due process as the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and lacked any 

proper basis. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 9 

Count III. Violation of the United States Housing Act 

5.10. Pursuant to 42 USC 1437f(o)(8)(B), Housing quality standards are 

standards for safe and habitable housing established the Secretary or by local housing codes or 

by codes adopted by public housing agencies that: “(ll) do not severely restrict housing choice.” 

Where FHC apparent guidelines find that a good house in a stable neighborhood in Detroit fail to 

meet FHC guidelines because there is a vacant house in the area, does severely restrict housing 

choice in violation of 42 USC 1437f(o)(8)(B). 

5.11. Pursuant to 24 CFR 982.401(4)(iv), Public Housing Authorities such as 

FHC cannot use Site and Neighborhood Standards which “severely restrict housing choice.” 

FHC’s Site and neighborhood standards do severely restrict housing choice in violation of 24 

CFR 982.401(4)(iv). 

5.12. HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook (7420.10g) states as follows at 

Chapter 10-13 on Site and Neighborhood and Acceptability Criteria: “PHAs should be careful 

not to restrict housing choice in deciding acceptability. Failing a unit because the neighborhood 

is considered “bad” is not appropriate 

5.13. In the case of Plaintiff, her home was in excellent condition, had been 

approved by FHC for six years in a row and now, in the seventh year, FHC says Plaintiff must 

move because FHC considers the neighborhood “bad” with a vacant building on the next street. 

FHC is in violation of the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and HUD’s 

Guidebook. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 10 

Count IV. Violation of Fair Housing Act 

5.14. Defendant’s policy and practice of denying Plaintiff and her family, who 

are African-American, the right to live in good housing in Detroit, which is more than 80% 

African-American, makes unavailable and denies rental housing because of race, in violation of 

the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 3604(a). 

5.15. Defendant’s policy and practice of discriminating in the terms, conditions, 

or privileges of the rental of a dwelling because of race, where Defendant refuses to approve 

good housing because the housing is in Detroit which is a predominately African-American city, 

is a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 3604(b). 

5.16. Plaintiff and her children have been injured by Defendants’ discriminatory 

conduct and have suffered damages as a result. 

5.17. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, and make in reckless 

disregard for the known rights of others. 

5.18. FHC’s policy of finding that good housing does not pass the Housing 

Quality Standards inspection for site and neighborhood if there is a vacant house in the 

neighborhood has a discriminatory impact on classes of African-American and other minority 

residents of the City of Detroit, of which class, Plaintiff is a member. 

5.19. FHC’s policy of stopping voucher payments where the house is in excellent 

shape and has been approved for voucher payments for six years in a row because an inspector 

found a vacant building in the neighborhood is not reasonably related to the FHC’s legitimate 

mission of providing safe and affordable housing. 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 11 

5.20. Defendants’ actions give rise to a cause of action under 42 USC Sect. 3604 

and 3613 and 42 USC Sect. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s 

fees. 

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff requests jury trial in this matter. 

 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff does request that the Court order as follows: 

A. Order that the acts complained of herein, violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional 

rights of Due Process, as well as her statutory rights under the Housing Act. 

B. Order that the acts complained of herein, violate Plaintiff’s rights under 

the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sect. 3601, et. seq., and discriminate against Plaintiff and her 

family based on race. 

C. Issue Order permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in the 

conduct describe above and ordering it to take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the 

effects of the conduct described above and to prevent additional occurrences of such conduct or 

similar conduct. 

D. Award all available damages to Plaintiff, including but not limited to 

punitive damages in an amount that would punish Defendant for the willful, wanton and reckless 

conduct alleged herein and that would effectively deter similar conduct in the future. 

E. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. Sect. 3613(c). 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - 12 

F. Issue an emergency temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and 

permanent injunctions, requiring Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff BENTON’S voucher and to 

continue making housing assistance payments on behalf of Plaintiff BENTON. 

G. Award compensatory, special and punitive damages to Plaintiff in that 

amount as is just, fair and equitable. 

H. Such other and further relief as this court deems equitable. 

Dated this 14 of January, 2015. 

/s/ Robert Day 

Robert Day (P44222) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

613 Abbott 

Detroit, MI 48226 

313-967-5642 

rday@ladadetroit.org 

2:15-cv-10158-DPH-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 12