Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/220845799/Blind-homeowner-claims-discrimination-on-the-part-of-her-homeowners-association
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 04:16:16
Document Index: 172939828

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3601', '§ 12955', '§ 51', '§ 54', '§ 3601', '§ 12955', '§ 51', '§ 3613', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 3602', '§ 100', '§ 12926', '§ 3602', '§ 12927', '§ 3601', '§ 3601', '§ 3604', '§ 3604', '§ 3617', '§ 3613', '§12955', '§12955', '§12955', '§12955', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 12989', '§ 52']

Blind homeowner claims discrimination on the part of her homeowners association
BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCase 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 171 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PATRICIA BARBOSA (SBN 125865) BARBOSA GROUP 16531 Bolsa Chica St., #205 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Tel: (714) 465-9486 PBarbosa@barbosagrp.com KBayley@barbosagrp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, ALICE M. DONOVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALICE M. DONOVAN, Plaintiff, v. WOODBRIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION; FREI REAL ESTATE SERVICES AND DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:14-at-00492 Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief For Violations Of: 1. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; 2. California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955 et seq.; 3. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.; 4. California’s Disabled Person’s Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.; and 5. Negligence
Plaintiff ALICE M. DONOVAN (“Plaintiff”) complains of Defendants WOODBRIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION; FREI REAL ESTATE SERVICES and DOES 1-10, inclusive (“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 1
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 17
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action requesting injunctive relief and monetary damages against WOODBRIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION; FREI REAL ESTATE SERVICES AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, for discrimination against Plaintiff ALICE M. DONOVAN on the basis that she is blind and is a disabled individual. The basis of this action is the continuing discrimination against Plaintiff as a blind individual homeowner by Defendants in that Defendants refused and continue to refuse to accommodate Plaintiff’s request for accommodation of her disability by providing her with written Association communication in alternative formats to accommodate her inability to read written documents and ensure her right to effective communication and her right to equal use and enjoyment of her housing by addressing her need for accessible communication. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants caused her severe emotional injury and distress by retaliating against her because she sought accommodations for her inability to read Association documents without the use of alternate formats for blind individuals. As a result of Defendants’ action and inaction, Plaintiff has been made to endure false accusations, was recalled from the Board for seeking accommodations for her disability, and was denied the ability to respond to false accusations or to provide her version of the events discussed by the Board members with the Association members. The refusal to provide Plaintiff with accessible documents related to Association business and notices to the homeowners continues to the present and continues to deny Plaintiff the accommodations she needs for enjoyment of her housing. 2. This action arises under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955 et seq.; and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. 3. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages and a loss of housing opportunities, and has been, and will continue to be, denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 2
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 17
her housing, or participation in the Association’s management of her housing on the basis of her disability, in violation of her civil rights. 4. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks compensation for her damages and an injunction compelling Defendants to modify their policies and to establish procedures to ensure the provision of effective communications with Plaintiff concerning Association and housing issues for her homeowner’s association business. Plaintiff also seeks the reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses incurred for enforcing her fair housing rights. JURISDICTION & VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and determine Plaintiff’s state law claims because they are related to her federal claims and arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. Plaintiff’s state and federal claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the acts and omissions giving rise to these claims occurred within the County of Sacramento, State of California. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ALICE M. DONOVAN is, and at all times relevant herein was, an individual with a disability as that term is defined by the Fair Housing Amendments Act due to blindness (42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); 24 C.F.R. § 100.201), and California law (Cal. Gov. Code § 12926). Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant herein, was and is a resident of Sacramento County, California, and homeowner with a home in the Woodbridge at Natoma Station. 8. Defendant Woodbridge Maintenance Association (“Association”) is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, incorporated in 1993 for the purpose of
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 3
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 4 of 17
establishing a homeowners association for homes locates at Woodbridge at Natoma Station (“Woodbridge”). At all times relevant herein, the Association was and continues to be the homeowners association for Woodbridge, a common interest development located in the City of Folsom, County of Sacramento, California. 9. Frei Real Estate Services (“Frei”) is a real estate and property management company, with its primary place of business located at 8340 Auburn Boulevard, Suite 100, in the City of Citrus Heights, California. At all times relevant herein, Frei provided property management services to Woodbridge residents under contract with the Association. 10. Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and identities of Doe Defendants 1-10, and therefore sues those Defendants by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend her Complaint to allege the Doe Defendants’ legal names and capacities as soon as such information is ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believed, and, thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein mentioned, each and every Defendant was the agent, servant, employee, co-conspirator and/or representative of each and every other Defendant and was, in doing the things complained of herein, acting within the scope of said agency, service, employment, conspiracy and/or representation, and that each and every Defendant was acting within his/her actual or apparent authority with the full knowledge and consent of each other Defendant. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. The stated purpose of Woodbridge’s Association is to own, repair, maintain and manage the common area and common facilities within Woodbridge, to enforce the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Directors, to enforce the terms and conditions of the Association’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), and to otherwise enhance and promote the use and enjoyment of the common areas and common facilities by the Owners in common at Woodbridge. 12. The Board has a fiduciary duty to make decisions that are in the best
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 4
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 5 of 17
interests of the Association, whether that be about certain vendors doing work on the property, or disciplinary matters. The Board makes decisions on information provided to it by voting on issues for the Association. 13. Plaintiff, as a member of the community served on the Association’s Board of Directors (“Board”) from approximately November of 2010 to April, 2013, when she was recalled through a campaign of retaliation by other Board members for seeking written material in an accessible form for her as a blind person. 14. As a member of the Board, Plaintiff was required to review and evaluate written material prior to Board meetings and be prepared to act on this information during Board meetings. However, the material provided to Board members was not provided in an accessible manner to Plaintiff, although she requested this accommodation on a number of occasions during her time as a Director on the Association’s Board. Because she could not read the written material provided to her, Plaintiff requested that Defendants provide her with documents and written communications in “Word” or another computer format compatible with her screen reader, so that she could access the content of the documents and communications, and fully participate on the Board in a manner equal to her peers. This requested accommodation, although initially acknowledged by Defendants, was never effectively or consistently provided. Further, because Plaintiff sought to have Defendants comply with her request for accommodation, she was actively targeted by Board members and made the focus of false accusations regarding her requests for accommodations and the costs for such accommodations. 15. On March 13, 2012, Plaintiff was provided a Board meeting packet that included scanned documents in “PDF” format that were inaccessible to her as a blind individual. In response, Plaintiff made an immediate written request to the Board that she be provided the Board documents in an accessible format for her. Plaintiff’s request was also sent to property manager Jennifer Kehoe of Defendant Frei Real Estate. 16. Board President David Hickok responded to Plaintiff via e-mail that same
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 5
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 6 of 17
day, stating that providing Plaintiff with accessible documents would not be too difficult. Mr. Hickok also asked Plaintiff to educate the Board on its “legal obligation to make documents available and accessible” to Plaintiff. 17. In response to Mr. Hickok’s request for information on the Board’s legal obligations, Plaintiff contacted Disability Rights California, the State of California’s federally mandated protection and advocacy system for people with disabilities, and requested a legal opinion letter on the obligation to provide accessible written materials. An attorney from Disability Rights California provided Plaintiff with the requested opinion letter, and Plaintiff provided the same to the Board members and Ms. Kehoe in hopes that this would assist the Board in providing accessible materials for her to use. 18. Ms. Kehoe responded to the letter from Disability Rights California by informing Plaintiff in writing that she would begin converting scanned “PDF” documents into “Word” documents for her, but noted that she could not guarantee the accuracy of the documents or that they would be free from distortion. Plaintiff informed Ms. Kehoe that her proposal would be fine for the next Board meeting, scheduled for May 2012, but requested that further discussion regarding document accessibility occur at that meeting so that she could ensure accessible documents for future meetings. 19. Despite having asked for information regarding the Association’s obligations, Mr. Hickok responded to the letter from Disability Rights California by saying that Plaintiff’s request for accessible communications involving the Disability Rights California put the issue “in a completely different dynamic”. Plaintiff understood the comments to mean that the Board was considering an adversarial position against her instead of working with her to work on her accommodations. This understanding proved to be correct. 20. documents.
At the May 16, 2012 Board meeting the Board ignored Plaintiff’s formal
request for accommodations and took no action on Plaintiff’s request for accessible
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 6
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 7 of 17
Following the May 16, 2012 board meeting, Plaintiff again received
Board documents as scanned PDF documents that were not accessible to her as a blind person. Plaintiff again notified Ms. Kehoe that she could not read scanned PDF files, and further noted that without accessible files, she would not be able to fully participate in Board meetings. It had been Plaintiff’s experience that materials included in the Board packet and submitted by Board members were not fully discussed at the Board meeting due to time constraints; the inability to review materials in advance severely hindered her ability to actively and fully participate in Board meetings as a Board member. 22. In response to Plaintiff’s continued requests for accommodations, Ms. Kehoe converted the scanned PDF documents into “Word” format documents and sent them to Plaintiff with the following advisement: “Please be advised that the content of the converted word document may or may not be accurate or may even be distorted from the conversion process”. Unfortunately, the converted documents provided to Plaintiff by Ms. Kehoe were even less accessible to Plaintiff than the original scanned PDFs. The content of the documents was very distorted and unable to be captured by Plaintiff’s screen reader. 23. After months of no progress in having the Board take her request for accommodations seriously by providing her accessible documents, Plaintiff retained Disability Rights California to formally advocate for her right to accommodations by receiving accessible communications from the Board. After a one-day negotiation between the Board and Plaintiff on August 29, 2012, the parties believed that they had reached a verbal agreement wherein the Board agreed that: (1) Defendants would ask third party vendors to make reasonable efforts to provide written bids and correspondences in a format that is accessible to persons with visual impairments; (2) Defendants would ask vendors to submit their proposals in “Word” format if possible; and (3) Defendants would provide Plaintiff with Board packets of communication seven days in advance of Board meetings so she would have enough time to work with her personal reader to review any documents that could not be made accessible despite
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 7
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 8 of 17
Defendants’ good faith efforts to do so. Following the negotiation, the parties had agreed to work on a written agreement memorializing the proposal agreed to in an effort to communicate effectively with Plaintiff. 24. However, instead of working with Plaintiff to finally resolve her requests for accommodations, Plaintiff was subjected to hostile and adverse treatment by the Board, and the negotiated agreement to accommodate her disability was disregarded and no accommodations were provided. 25. One of the actions that Plaintiff believed were directed against her was a proposed Board Member Code of Ethics and Board Member Commitment Pledge, a document whose purpose was to set up Plaintiff for alleged ethical violations, and then have her recalled from the Board—an action that was indeed taken by the Board. In September 2012, Plaintiff drafted comments in response to the Board’s proposed ethics code, but her comments were not part of the Board’s communication with Association members and were ignored. 26. On October 16, 2012, Plaintiff was copied, along with other Board members, on an e-mail from Mr. Hickok to Treasurer/CEO Anita Marlowe wherein Hickok commented that necessary tree replacements at Woodbridge should be put on hold because of unknown future legal costs. Hickok added “[i]t’s sad we have to spend association money [on legal costs] rather than using it to benefit the community and all members”, clearing referring to Plaintiff’s advocacy efforts in an ploy to tie accommodations to Plaintiff with injury to the Association. Communication to members of the Association from the Board that accommodating Plaintiff’s disability was to the detriment of the Association is just part of the smear campaign that culminated with recalling Plaintiff as Board member. 27. Based on the tone and content of Mr. Hickok’s October 16, 2012 email, Plaintiff became concerned that her accommodation request and advocacy would be used by the Board to place Plaintiff in an unfair and negative light with Association members, and create a hostile living environment for her on the basis of her disability. Accordingly, Plaintiff requested that her representatives at Disability Rights California
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 8
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 9 of 17
inform Defendants’ counsel that she wanted to include a confidentiality clause in the not yet drafted agreement memorializing the parties’ August 29, 2012 negotiation or, in the alternative, that she wanted the parties to issue a joint statement informing Association members about the dispute and resolution of her request for accommodations. Plaintiff’s representative conveyed Plaintiff’s request. 28. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff was mistakenly copied on an e-mail exchange between Ms. Kehoe and other Board members discussing her request for confidentiality and her underlying request for accommodation. The e-mail began with Ms. Kehoe e-mailing President Hickok claiming that providing Plaintiff with a Board packet seven days before a Board meeting would take up “too much of her time,” thereby denying Plaintiff with the needed material in a timely manner. President Hickok responded by directing Ms. Kehoe not to provide the Board packet in advance of the Board meeting, as no written agreement was yet in place obligating her to do so. Mr. Hickok then stated his opinion that the Board had “spent way too much money” on Plaintiff’s concerns and that he had “given way more personal time than [he’d] like to be dictated to by someone of [Plaintiff’s] small caliber”. Mr. Hickok also stated he would resign from the Board due to Plaintiff’s requests for accommodation. VicePresident Jacobs stated that she too would resign from the Board, and alleged that Plaintiff was costing the Association over $5,000 in legal costs. Ms. Marlowe weighed in with the suggestion that all Board members resign and write a letter to the Woodbridge community explaining their resignations as the result of Plaintiff’s request for accommodations to receive Association documents in a manner she could read. Marlowe also suggested that Ms. Kehoe should go back to doing the Board agenda the way she had before Plaintiff “started making demands”, thereby, ensuring that Plaintiff would not receive any Association documents in an accessible format. 29. Following the November 13, 2012 e-mail, settlement efforts ceased, as it appeared the Board was now intent of throwing Plaintiff off of the Board, rather than accommodate her needs for effective communication of Association documents. 30. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter in the mail signed by all
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 9
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 10 of 17
Board members. The letter was only provided in a printed copy; no accessible version was provided to Plaintiff. An accessible copy of the letter could have been emailed in “Word” format when it was created, and it would have been readable by Plaintiff’s computer program. Instead the Board members continued their campaign of denying Plaintiff accessible and effective communication; requiring her to have others read the letter to her. The letter claimed that Plaintiff had violated the Board Member Code of Ethics and Board Member Commitment Pledge by pursuing personal goals, costing the Association money and burdening staff with requests for “special favors”. Plaintiff was given the choice of resigning from the Board or enduring a special election to remove her from office. Plaintiff did not respond to the letter as she did not believe that providing her effective communication was a “special favor” that violated her responsibility as a Board member. 31. resigned. At the December 19, 2012, Board Meeting, Vice-President Jacobs Jacobs read her resignation letter to the Board, insinuating that her
resignation was due to Plaintiff’s request for accommodations. Plaintiff’s accommodation request and dispute with the Board were then discussed by the Board in front of the Association members. Board members falsely asserted that Plaintiff’s dispute would require a special assessment to cover legal expenses for providing her accommodations, which in turn would either result in an increase in monthly Association dues from $90 a month to between $200 and $400 per month, or force the dissolution of the Association. This campaign by the Board to pit the concerns of the Association members against Plaintiff’s need for accommodations was intended to promote hostility and anger towards Plaintiff for seeking accommodations for her blindness. There was also no verification as to why accommodating Plaintiff’s need for accessible documents should cost hundreds of dollars more a month in Association fees. 32. At the next Board meeting, January 16, 2013, Plaintiff submitted amendments to the draft December 19, 2012 Board meeting minutes to address misleading and false statements by Board members and convey her side of the issue
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 10
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 11 of 17
regarding her requests for accommodations. The amendments were accepted by the Board and approved along with the draft minutes, but were never published by the Board for the Association members to evaluate. 33. 34. In January 2013, Plaintiff became aware that she was the subject of a Towards the end of January 2013, Plaintiff noticed that her amendments recall campaign to remove her from the Association’s Board. to the December 19, 2012 Board minutes were not posted along with the minutes on the Association’s website. Plaintiff became concerned that the Board’s version of her request for accommodations, and the ensuing dispute regarding the costs for such accommodations was distributed to Association members who would not know the facts regarding her requests and affect the recall election still pending. 35. In early February 2013, Mr. Hickok distributed flyers to the Woodbridge community alerting members of the Association of a February 20, 2013 town hall meeting to discuss the recall election; but did not provide notice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s reader happened to see Mr. Hickok placing flyers on doors and went to investigate and found that the flyer asked Association members to attend a town hall meeting; claiming that the recall election was critical to the future of the community. This fear-mongering flyer also provided an email address for members to write for further information or questions about the recall, but provided no information concerning Plaintiff’s actual requests for effective communication, or any way for Plaintiff to provide her side of the dispute. 36. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Ms. Kehoe attaching Word versions of the Association’s bylaws, articles of incorporation and CC&Rs. The “Word” version was not a document created in Word, which is readable by Plaintiff’s computer, but actually a PDF document saved as a “Word” reformatted version. The resulting reformatted version was full of serious distortions and inaccuracies that were difficult to read and understand. As she had done in the past, Ms. Kehoe said she could not guarantee the accuracy of the documents; which she knew would be full of inaccuracies and distortions. Plaintiff responded later in the day
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 11
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 12 of 17
to Ms. Kehoe’s e-mail asking that steps be taken to guarantee the accuracy of these very important documents. Plaintiff has not received a response to this request, and she is continuing to receive inaccessible documents from the Association. 37. Plaintiff attended the February 20, 2013 town hall meeting with her partner and her reader. The majority of the meeting was spent discussing Plaintiff’s accommodation requests, pursuit of which was framed as a violation of the Board Member Code of Ethics and Board Member Commitment Pledge, and an unnecessary expense on the Association. During the meeting, Plaintiff became aware that all Association members, except her, were provided documentation in the mail and at the meeting setting forth the reasons for Plaintiff’s proposed recall. During the meeting, Mr. Hickok indicated to Association members that if Plaintiff was recalled from the Board there would be less risk of discrimination liability for the Association, as there are limited mailings to Association members, as opposed to Board members who receive additional documents. Board members also asserted again that the legal costs involved with Plaintiff’s dispute with the Association would result in increased dues or a special assessment. All of this misinformation was disseminated as retribution for the original request for accommodations, and as an excuse to throw her off of the Board. The campaign to recall Plaintiff was successful and Plaintiff was recalled by the Association for having sought accommodations for her disability by requesting accessible communication of Association documents. 38. Disgusted by her treatment by the Board, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment on March 5, 2013, tolling the statute of limitations for her discrimination claims. 39. 40. Plaintiff’s DFEH case was closed on October 8, 2013. Plaintiff is an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of federal and state
fair housing law, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i) and Cal. Gov’t Code § 12927(g). Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her housing has been severely diminished by the difficulty she has experienced after requesting an accommodation for her blindness in obtaining accessible communications from the Board. Plaintiff has also been the subject of
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 12
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 13 of 17
retaliation by Defendants because she sought to have Board and Association documents delivered to her in an accessible format as is her right to effective communication. Without accessible communication of Association rules, business and board agenda, Plaintiff’s ability to abide by the Association’s rules and covenants, participate in Association meetings, engage in informed discussions of Association business, and make informed votes on issues impacting the Woodbridge community, not only as a Board member, but as a member of the Association in which she resides, has been and is significantly impaired; thereby effecting her quiet enjoyment of her home. Moreover, Defendants’ retaliation against and harassment of Plaintiff for pursuing her right to accessible communications from the Board has significantly interfered with Plaintiff’s fair housing rights, not to mention her quiet enjoyment of her property, and has caused her severe emotional distress and fear. She has been made the subject of scurrilous allegations and the focus of false accusations by members of the Board so that she has been diminished in the eyes of her neighbors due to her disability. She was also forced out of the Board as a member due to the false allegations and manipulation of the procedures for her recall to her injury. These action have detrimentally affected Plaintiff emotionally and physically as she has had to seek medical help for the emotional and physical distress resulting from Defendants’ acts and omissions. 41. Until Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices are stopped and modified so that Plaintiff can obtain the effective and accessible communications to which she is entitled, Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her housing will continue to be severely diminished and she will suffer ongoing discrimination on the basis of her disability and her request for accommodations. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer emotional distress on the basis of her disability because she is unable to obtain effective communication and because the Board has wilfully determined not to accommodate her requests for accessible communication. 42. The unlawful practices of the Defendants as described herein were and are wanton, willful, malicious, fraudulent or oppressive; were intended to cause injury to
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 13
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 14 of 17
Plaintiff; and/or were done in conscious, callous, reckless or deliberant disregard for the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. 43. The nature of Defendants’ discrimination constitutes an ongoing violation, and unless enjoined by this Court, will result in ongoing and irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Among the communication which Association members receive, but which Plaintiff continues to be denied in an accessible format, or not receive at all, are: Board Meeting notices and agenda; notices of community events; Board election materials; Association financial documents, Association CC&R’s, By-laws, and Articles of Incorporation. As a member of the Association, although no longer a Board member due to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has the right to receive accommodation for her blindness and receive Association documents in an accessible format for her. Her continual denial of this communication segregates and isolates Plaintiff and makes her an unwanted member of the community as she is not able to respond to Association business, or show up to community events. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. 44. herein. 45. In acting as herein alleged, Defendants have injured Plaintiff by committing discriminatory housing practices, in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Defendants unlawful conduct under the FHAA includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Discriminating in the terms, conditions or privileges of housing, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2); Plaintiff hereby repleads, restates, realleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, as though fully set forth
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 14
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 15 of 17
b. Refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations were necessary to afford Plaintiff equal opportunity to use and enjoy her housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); and c. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with Plaintiff in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by FHAA, 42 U.S.C. § 3617. 46. Defendants’ duties under FHAA are mandatory and well-established. Defendants are deemed to have had knowledge of their duties at all times relevant herein; their failure to carry out said duties was willful and knowing and/or the product of deliberate indifference. 47. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1) and (2), Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION California Fair Employment and Housing Act California Government Code §12955 et seq. 48. herein. 49. In acting as herein alleged, Defendants have injured Plaintiff by committing discriminatory housing practices, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code §12955 et seq. Defendants’ unlawful conduct under the FEHA includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability, Cal. Gov’t Code §12955(a); b. Aiding, so; and
Plaintiff hereby repleads, restates, realleges and incorporates by reference
all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, as though fully set forth
performance of acts unlawful under FEHA, or attempting to do
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 15
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 16 of 17
c. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with Plaintiff in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by FEHA, Cal. Civ. Code §12955.7. 50. Defendants’ duties under FEHA are mandatory and long-established. Defendants are deemed to have had knowledge of their duties at all times relevant herein; their failure to carry out said duties was willful and knowing and/or the product of deliberate indifference. 51. forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unruh Civil Rights Act California Civil Code § 51 et seq. 52. herein. 53. 54. Defendants are business establishments and, as such, must comply with The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are the provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). 55. Defendants have violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ rights to full and equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at the Woodbridge, by denying Plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to participate in the running of the Association Board and by failing to provide her with accessible documents that allow her to participate in community events, and comply with the rules, regulations and covenants of the Association as a homeowner. 56. Defendants’ duties under the Unruh Act are mandatory and longPlaintiff hereby repleads, restates, realleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, as though fully set forth Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 12989.2, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 16
Case 2:14-cv-00995-JAM-EFB Document 2 Filed 04/23/14 Page 17 of 17
established. Defendants are deemed to have had knowledge of their duties at all times relevant herein; their failure to carry out said duties was willful and knowing and/or the product of deliberate indifference. 57. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: 1. Issue an injunction ordering Defendants to provide Plaintiff with communications in an accessible format for her as a blind individual, and requiring Defendants to undergo fair housing training; 2. Award Plaintiff damages in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court for the emotional distress inflicted on her on the basis of her disability; 3. Award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, as provided by law; and 4. Award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: April 22, 2014 BARBOSA GROUP By: Patricia Barbosa Attorney for Plaintiff ALICE M. DONOVAN DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury for all claims for which a jury is permitted. Dated: April 22, 2014 BARBOSA GROUP § 52, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.
By: PATRICIA BARBOSA Attorneys for Plaintiff ALICE M. DONOVAN
Complaint For Damages And Injunctive Relief 17
Press Release - Stockton MayorSilva, Anthony - ComplaintSilva CPRA Gun2016 Oscars BallotCriminal complaint against Samer Mohammed Al-JayabCriminal Complaint against Aws Mohammed Younis Al-JayabWest Sac v Harbor Park Invesment 2006 ComplaintComplaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages for housing discrimationEWG to Sac City Council CalEPA Email the CIty Initiated the StoryContracting Processes ReviewNTU Technologies Payment LetterFamily StatementLetter from Sacramento Water Quality Superintendent to a state department of public health associate sanitary engineerSacramento Sheriff Jones Response to Thom JennsonThom Jensen's email to Sacramento sheriffSac Sheriff Non DisclosureDOJ Cell Site SimulatorUC Davis Air SamplesUC Davis Asbestos AnalysisA Heist Gone Bad Critical Incident ReviewAffidavit in Korey Kauffman investigationMHSA AsAmendedIn2012 AB1467AndOthers 0108132013HomelessPoint in TimeCountCA Auditor Mental Illness Fact Sheet
Blind homeowner claims discrimination on the part of her homeowners association by Harvey Ward183 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionHomeowner ALICE M. DONOVAN, who is blind, files lawsuit alleging discrimination on the part of WOODBRIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION and FREI REAL ESTATE SERVICES for refusing to accommodate her reque...Homeowner ALICE M. DONOVAN, who is blind, files lawsuit alleging discrimination on the part of WOODBRIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION and FREI REAL ESTATE SERVICES for refusing to accommodate her request for accommodation of her disability by providing her with written Association communication in alternative formats.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedIn Re Vasquezby John Charel Sabandal PongaseBraddock j Huesman
by api-267840199.10.2013 True the Vote - Doc. 48 - Motion for Ext. to Answer by Ind. Defs.by True The VoteAminadad Natanael Mendez-Perez, A099 623 872 (BIA Oct. 30, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRakesh Kumar Natvarbhai Patel, A200 961 784 (BIA Dec. 18, 2014)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCRoundabout Lawsuit (file 4) - Notice of Judgmentby evelynvdrConnally et al v. Robert Louis Stevenson Plaza Association - Document No. 3by Justia.comBoard of Trustees of The Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Golden State Excavation - Document No. 3by Justia.comMemorandum of Law In Support of Snyder's Motion for Reconsiderationby Cryuff14Fine's Notice of Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - LASC - BS092794by Honor in JusticeSocial Security: september1963by Social SecurityNorthern California River Watch v. Waste Management Inc. et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comMacQuigg - # 143 - Memorandum Opinion & Orderby ched macquiggEva Hernandez, A093 291 466 (BIA Aug. 30, 2011)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC14 Joson vs. Executive Secretaryby carmineGarden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Reman - Document No. 4by Justia.comDavid v. Alphin et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comMontes v Civil Service Board of Appealsby misterdodiLynam v. Trustees of the Printers&apos; Long-Term Disability Trust Plan - Document No. 4by Justia.com2:04-cv-08425 #118by Equality Case Files33. 210-cv-00213by Voice_MDAndella v. Nvidia Corporation et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comU.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee et al v. Map Plumbing, Inc. - Document No. 3by Justia.comBolton v. Patton - Document No. 5by Justia.comOracle Corporation v. Saudi Systems Corporation - Document No. 5by Justia.comCases FOR open space lawby Malen Roque SaludesPierce v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comUS Department of Justice Court Proceedings - 06042007 objectionsby legalmattersSimilar to Blind homeowner claims discrimination on the part of her homeowners associationIn Re VasquezBraddock j Huesman
9.10.2013 True the Vote - Doc. 48 - Motion for Ext. to Answer by Ind. Defs.Aminadad Natanael Mendez-Perez, A099 623 872 (BIA Oct. 30, 2013)Rakesh Kumar Natvarbhai Patel, A200 961 784 (BIA Dec. 18, 2014)Roundabout Lawsuit (file 4) - Notice of JudgmentConnally et al v. Robert Louis Stevenson Plaza Association - Document No. 3Board of Trustees of The Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Golden State Excavation - Document No. 3Memorandum of Law In Support of Snyder's Motion for ReconsiderationFine's Notice of Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - LASC - BS092794Social SecurityNorthern California River Watch v. Waste Management Inc. et al - Document No. 3MacQuigg - # 143 - Memorandum Opinion & OrderEva Hernandez, A093 291 466 (BIA Aug. 30, 2011)14 Joson vs. Executive SecretaryGarden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Reman - Document No. 4David v. Alphin et al - Document No. 3Montes v Civil Service Board of AppealsLynam v. Trustees of the Printers&apos; Long-Term Disability Trust Plan - Document No. 42:04-cv-08425 #11833. 210-cv-00213Andella v. Nvidia Corporation et al - Document No. 3U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Management Committee et al v. Map Plumbing, Inc. - Document No. 3Bolton v. Patton - Document No. 5Oracle Corporation v. Saudi Systems Corporation - Document No. 5Cases FOR open space lawPierce v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. et al - Document No. 3US Department of Justice Court Proceedings - 06042007 objectionsDickens et al v. A.O. Smith Corporation et al - Document No. 13Connally et al v. Sol Food et al - Document No. 3