Source: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/documents/arlingtoncomp.php
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 13:53:34
Document Index: 525734465

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3601', '§ 3612', '§ 1331', '§ 3612', '§ 1391', '§3602', '§ 3610', '§ 3610', '§ 3610', '§ 3601', '§ 3612', '§ 3612', '§ 3604', '§ 3604', '§ 3604', '§ 3602', '§ 3614', '§ 3614', '§3602', '§3601', '§\n3612', '§ 3612', '§3614']

United States v. Arlington Park Racecourse, LLC and Churchill Downs, Inc. (N.D. Ill.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,	Plaintiff,	No.
v.	ARLINGTON PARK RACECOURSE, L.L.C.
AND CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC.	Defendants. COMPLAINT
1.	This action is brought by the United States to enforce the Fair Housing Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619 ("the Act"). It is brought on behalf of HOPE Fair Housing
Center ("HOPE"), pursuant to Section 812(o) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o), and
2.	This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345
and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(o) and 3614(a). 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because Defendants reside in, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in this action arose in, the
Northern District of Illinois. 4. Defendant Churchill Downs, Inc. ("Churchill") is a Kentucky corporation that
does business in the Northern District of Illinois.
5. Defendant Arlington Park Racecourse, L.L.C. ("Arlington Park") is an Illinois limited liability company that does business in the Northern District of Illinois. 6.	Since at least 2000, and continuing to the present, Defendants have owned and operated dormitory style buildings at the Arlington Park Racecourse where backstretch
workers reside. 7. The housing units in the buildings at Arlington Park Racecourse are dwellings within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §3602(b).
8.	Complainant HOPE is a not-for-profit fair housing advocacy and enforcement organization based in Wheaton, Illinois. 9. On or about June 24, 2004, HOPE filed a timely complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, ("HUD") pursuant to section 810(a) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 3610(a). The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Defendants had discriminated based on
familial status, in violation of the Act. 10. Pursuant to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3610(a) and (b), the Secretary of HUD ("the Secretary") conducted and completed an investigation of the complaint, attempted
conciliation without success, and prepared a final investigative report. Based on the information gathered in the investigation, the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(1), determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory housing
practices had occurred. Accordingly, on August 23, 2005, HUD issued a Charge of Discrimination,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3610(g)(1)-(2), charging Defendants with engaging in discriminatory
housing practices on the basis of familial status, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.
11.	On September 14, 2005, Complainant HOPE made a timely election to have its claims resolved in federal court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a).
12. Following the election described in the previous paragraph, on September 16, 2005, the Secretary of HUD authorized the Attorney General to commence a civil action, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o).
13. At all times relevant to the complaint, Defendants have provided housing during the horse-racing season for backstretch workers at Arlington Park Racecourse and, where
applicable, the families of those workers. The trainers who employ the backstretch workers pay a
deposit or other fee to Defendants in return for the housing occupied by the workers. Defendants
are responsible for assigning housing to the backstretch workers. The horse-racing season at
Arlington Park Race Course runs from approximately May through at least part of September each
14. At all times relevant to the complaint, the Defendants provided housing for backstretch workers in dormitory-style housing units. Until the 2005 racing season, dorm units
were provided in buildings 1-8. The units in buildings 4-8 have private bathrooms. The units in
buildings 1-3 do not have private bathrooms. After HOPE filed its complaint with HUD,
Defendants constructed two new buildings at Arlington Park Racecourse which have dwelling units
with private bathrooms. Defendants housed back stretch workers in the these new buildings, and in
buildings 1-8, during the 2005 racing season. 15. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants have stated, maintained, and enforced a policy and practice whereby Defendants have excluded families with children from
residing in buildings 1, and 4-8 at Arlington Park. Pursuant to this stated policy and practice,
Defendants required families with children to live in buildings 2-3 and, during the 2005 racing
season, in the two newly constructed buildings. COUNT I
16.	The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15, above.
17. By their actions as described above, Defendants have:
Denied or refused to negotiate for the rental of, and/or otherwise made
unavailable dwellings to persons because of familial status, in violation of
Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
Discriminated against persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the
rental of a dwelling because of familial status, in violation of Section 804(b)
the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); and
Made, printed, or published, or caused to be made, printed, or published,
statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference,
limitation, or discrimination based on familial status or an intention to make
such a preference, limitation, or discrimination, in violation of Section
804(c) the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
18. As a result of the actions of Defendants, Complainant HOPE suffered injury and damages, including the diversion of its resources from its counseling, referral, educational, and
other programs and is an aggrieved person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). 19. The discriminatory conduct of the Defendants was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of the rights of HOPE and others.
20.	The United States re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 above.
21.	The conduct of Defendants described above constitutes:
A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by
the Fair Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a); or
A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by the Fair Housing Act,
which denial raises an issue of general public importance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
22. In addition to HOPE, there are other persons who have suffered damages as a result of Defendants' conduct, and they are aggrieved persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §3602(i). Such persons have suffered actual injury and damages as a result of Defendants' discriminatory
housing practices. WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that this Court enter an ORDER that:
1.	Declares that the discriminatory housing practices of Defendants, as set forth above,
violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§3601, et seq.;
2.	Enjoins Defendants, and their employees, agents, successors, and all other persons
in active concert or participation with any of them from continuing to discriminate on the basis of
familial status against any person in any aspect of the rental of a dwelling, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
3612(o)(3), 3613(c)(1) and 3614(d)(1)(A).
3.	Awards monetary damages to complainant HOPE and to other aggrieved persons
pursuant to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3612(o)(3), 3613(c)(1) and 3614(d)(1)(B); and
4.	Assesses a civil penalty against each Defendant in an amount authorized by 42 U.S.C. §3614(d)(1)(C), in order to vindicate the public interest.
_________________________________ JOAN LASER	Assistant U.S. Attorney	219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 5000
Phone: (202) 616-2606
Email:	Shennie.Patel@usdoj.gov
Document Filed: September 30, 2005