-
The tenant for life ordinance.
As told to the Los Angeles City government August 2019.
Communications with city employees
Denial of housing services
* The intercom system unit 9 and outside the building is unusable. The intercom needs repair
* Unit 9 tenants are still being denied a tandem parking stall
* The back interior stairs remain unstable and need repair as they are dangerous wobble when walking on them
Updated June 17, 2020
CALIFORNIA. A discrimination complaint has been filed against the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The complaint filed with federal Housing and Urban Development was dated May 21, 2020. The complaint arises after the Department of Fair Employment and Housing refused to investigate racism charges against the DFEH and Kevin Kish. The complaint asks that the HUD strip the DFEH of federal funding.
Fair Housing Complaint re Gov Newsom
Department of fair employment told about anti-semitism at Hi Point Apts
Updated August 4 2016
Are you a member?
DFEH “pre-intake” 37638-201611;37638- 201605;767651-233189
[from tenant – name redacted]
Thu 7/7/2016 9:18 AM Inbox
To:Karina Arabolaza ; Gloria@DFEH Morales ;
Cc:Rep. Karen Bass ; Rep. Karen Bass ;
Racists Among Us at the DFEH
Dear DFEH Karina and Gloria:
I have received your voicemail of or around June 27 2016 that you want to set up a phone interview to see ” if” you can proceed with a complaint.
To set up a phone interview, just give me about five days written notice and email me a time between 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm that is good for you.
“Through the DFEH responses alleged by your Ravinder Rangi, it is conclusive that the property owner has admitted that his actions were due to race discrimination and retaliation on his part and his agents…”
These complaint numbers have been pending for weeks or months. It is not surprising that they have not been made into formal “complaints” on your part, considering the voluminous correspondence forwarded to you. Your complaint numbers seem to be based on the same set of facts in DFEH inquiry 37638-230688 and appeal DFEH 712769-195727. As such it would be a waste of my time to spend more time on DFEH bullshit, futile process under state law, to discuss obvious and undisputed facts already known to you under the case and appeal numbers just quoted. Through the DFEH responses alleged by your Ravinder Rangi, it is conclusive that the property owner has admitted that his actions were due to race discrimination and retaliation on his part and his agents, and also since he has waived his right to offer a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his actions, as alleged in the Complaints.
The state law does not require me to engage in an administrative process that is futile. “ ‘A party need not pursue administrative remedies when the agency’s decision is certain to be adverse.’ (Collins v. Woods (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 439, 442.)
You have been provided sufficient evidence to make a finding of unlawful discrimination against Hi Point Apts LLC and its agents and co-conspirators city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, et al.
Please do so today without further delay. A phone interview with me will not change the facts that you have alleged is the owner’s response that implicates the city and county officials et al.
Karina and Gloria: are you members of the Ku Klux Klan?
“Governor Jerry Brown Gives Ok to Racism”
You have failed to answer this inquiry. I need you to answer this today:
“This is tenant #9 at 1522 Hi Point St. Still trying to get that Intercom. Still trying to get that tandem parking stall. This message is being sent out to the property owner, to the management real estate agency, various city and state officials. Again this is tenant #9 at 1522 Hi Point St; you have the phone number already. The word is “today”, today, today, I’d like to have that intercom installed today, it can be installed today. And also an email went out to you June 14 and I have not received answers from any of you in writing, I need those answers in writing, today, today, today, today is spelled t-o-d-a-y. Again this is tenant #9 , we are available for the intercom to be repaired today, in apt number 9, at 1522 Hi Point St, repaired or replaced. I’m available today to receive a tandem parking stall at 1522 Hi Point St. “Today” is the operative word. Today, I need this taken care of today. Please respond today in writing, non-electronic means: intercom and tandem parking stall. This is tenant #9. Today is June 21 2016.” [taken from voicemail to DFEH]
All rights reserved.
[Tenant name redacted]
Editor Note: Complaints have been filed against Hi Point Apts LLC and Phoenician Construction with the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and the Contractor State License Board with Armida Cadena. Stay tuned to see copies of those complaints.
Updated June 15 2016
A new video has posted with questions to the state department of fair employment and housing.
“One of the purposes of the intercom system is for security and safety. Why does the owner, city, county, and state government entities continue to allow and create unsafe conditions at 1522 Hi Point Street Apartments due to the lack of fully operational intercom system?”
See the Video at
“Questions about KKK at 1522 Hi Point St 90035”
Updated June 8 2016
Supplement to the Damage Claim against Department Fair Employment and Housing re Racism by Hi Point Apts LLC et al.
[from Black tenant]
Wed 6/8/2016 11:29 PM
To:contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov ; Ravi@DFEH Rangi ; Agent Walter Barratt Hi Point Apts LLC ; Hi Point Apts LLC Agent C. Renfrew ; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org ; Hi Point Resident Manager Cynthia Ogan ; RSO Contact ;
Cc:welcomehome@williamsrea.com ; Lorrie Sakauchi Hi Point Apts LLC Manager ; Charles Garcia ; David Greene ; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org ; Rep. Karen Bass ; Rep. Karen Bass ; Da Lacounty Info ; raymond.chan@lacity.org ; Debbie L. Harmon ; Fair Housing Doj ; Larry Galstian ; deron.williams@lacity.org ; Alan Chen ; Lincoln Lee ; George Cerda ; sylvia.lacy@lacity.org ; Ifa Kashefi ; Steve Ongele ; Justice Department ; Karen Penera ; steve.davey@lacity.org ; Rodney Arias ; LAHD RSO ; Leila Ajalova ; Richard Brinson ; Ali Maintenance ;
To: State Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Street Suite 1200 San Francisco CA 94104-4430
The Ku Klux Klan Fights Hard By Authority of Kevin Kish and Governor Jerry Brown
Dear DFEH, et al.
I further respond to the case closure by the DFEH dated May 18 and May 31 2016 as part of this claim for damages as dates of injury. This email shall also supplement documents from me of DEFH complaint May 30 2016 DFEH number 37638-230688; DFEH citizen damage complaint May 19 2016; May 18 20016 email at 9:55 p.m., and the June 6 2016 email at 11:18 p.m.
The Lynching
The decision of the DFEH of May 18 and may 31 is saying that if there are ten Blacks and seven are being treated ok, then it is ok to lynch the other three. I don’t agree with that. Every Black citizen is entitled to equal rights and privileges, the same as those granted to white citizens. The decision of the DFEH is not in compliance with the Unruh Act which states, “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. “ [Emphasis added.]
The decision of the DFEH May 18 and May 31 letters, and the admitted actions of the Hi point Apts LLC and Williams Realty Advisors et al. regarding the intercom and tandem parking stalls, violate my rights under the state California Unruh act to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”.
42 U.S.C. 3604 Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful–
(a) To refuse 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, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
Hi Point Apts LLC Admits Racial Discrimination
Against Black Tenants
But what does Governor Jerry Brown and Mayor Eric Garcetti have to say?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
“SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution…”
“CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”
The decision of the DFEH May 18 and May 31 letters, and the admitted actions of the Hi point Apts LLC and Williams Realty Advisors, city government of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and County government, et al. regarding the intercom and tandem parking stalls, violate the California Constitution in that said government agencies have conspired with the property owner to deny me, and have denied me, equal protection under city, state, and federal laws, and/or regulations, stated herein. Government entities mentioned herein are liable under government code 815.6 (sic) for failure to perform mandatory duties under the California Constitution.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently in 2015 “acknowledged the validity of “disparate impact” claims, which look not at intent to discriminate but at outcome.” The DFEH decision herein ignores the Supreme Court ruling and ignores that the outcome of the actions of Hi Point Apts LLC is that I as a Black tenant continue to be unjustly denied the housing service of an intercom and tandem parking stall, rights granted freely to white tenants, and in violation of my right to equal treatment, i,e, “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Sufficient evidence has been presented to the DFEH, in particular the words of the Respondent, to make a finding that a violation of the Fair Housing Act has occurred, and continues to occur.
From the Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.02 et seq:
“410.02 The Rent Adjustment Commission (the Commission) promulgates these regulations on reduction in housing services so that a corresponding reduction in rent can be determined to avoid an increase in rent in violation of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Rent Increase).
410.03 A tenant rents an apartment with the appurtenant housing services available at the time of renting the apartment. Landlords who reduce housing services without a corresponding reduction in rent effectuate an increase in rent. The purpose of these regulations is to guide the Los Angeles Housing Department in its evaluation of a corresponding reasonable reduction in rent.
410.04 Housing services are services that are connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance including painting. The term also includes the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities. (LAMC Sec. 151.02, Definition of Housing Services).”
Jerry Brown’s Klan at 1522 Hi Point Street: equal protection of the law? Not at 1522 Hi Point St in Faircrest Heights
TH RENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE LAMC SECTION 151.02
The rental agreement 2010 with Hi Point Apts LLC and tenants #9, as of the owner purchase 2014, shows that the previous manager as well as tenants apt 9 accepted the apartment with all facilities in good working order. Under rent agreement, section “6. Good Condition Receipt”, it states, “Renter has examined the premises, including but not limited to, the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, appliances, and equipment provided by Owner and set out on Section M. windows, doors, plumbing and electrical facilities, hot and cold water supply, building grounds and appurtenances, accepts the same “AS IS” and acknowledges that the same are in good, clean, and sanitary order, condition and repair…”. [Emphasis added.] This is signed by both tenants and the apartment resident manager. These is no indication the intercom was not working.
My recollection is that our intercom was working at the inception of tenancy. Neither the city of Los Angeles or the property owner or the DFEH has presented any verifiable evidence that the intercom apt 9 was not working prior to April 2014. If the intercom was not working it would represent an illegal rent , reg 410.03 above, entitling myself a a Black tenant, to a rent reduction. The current owner assumes the conditions of repairs when purchasing the building. His own letters to tenants admit his liability to make repairs. But even if the intercom was not working prior to 2014, and it needed repairs or replacement, myself as a Black am entitled to such repairs under the LAMC sections above because repair and replacement is a housing service by way of the rental agreement, as stated in sections 410.03 and 410.04 above. And such entitlement of repair or replacement is a right protected under city, state and federal civil rights laws or regulations and the California and United States Constitutions.
The decision of the DFEH May 18 2016 and the owner stated actions violate my entitlement as a Black tenant to repair and replacement of the intercom under the LAMC above.
By letter to all tenants April 4, 2014, the owner thru Renfrew states, “the building is undergoing a series of necessary utility repairs and vacant apartment upgrades.” This is evidence at that exact moment he has the unfettered chance to repair the intercom of apartment 9 Black tenants, but by design he chooses to injure the tenants Apt 9 by not repairing or replacing the intercom. The letter gives the name and phone number of the maintenance person “if you have concerns” but the intercom is still not repaired or replaced. As stated many times, the California civil code mandates that a new apartment owner assumes responsibility for items not repaired by a previous owner. For the DFEH or any government agency to mandate less is a violation of and obstruction of the letter and intent of owner obligations under state law.
The Alleged Words of Hi Point Apts LLC
Again I examine the discriminatory statements as noted in the DFEH self serving May 18 2016 letter:
“The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.”
1. The words appear vague and lacking in specificity. On what dates did the owner determine the intercoms were not working? Were they not working because they were broken in each apartment, were they not working at the front of the building? Was the wiring broken and needing repair, was the wiring simply disconnected? What were tenants told about the repairs to the units? Were tenants offered a rent reduction due to the non-working intercom? On what dates did tenants vacate which units? Why did the owner skip over current tenants who could have benefitted from the intercom as housing service? Was source of income a factor to only fix the intercoms after tenants ended their tenancy? On what dates did the owner enter which apartments to make other repairs and what were those repairs? Did Governor Edmund Brown live in the building? Did Mayor Eric Garcetti live in the building? Did Kamala Harris live in the building? Who made it and why was the decision made to not repair the intercoms of the majority Black tenants?
2. How much time per unit was needed to install the new intercoms? Could the new units have been installed while tenants were living in the units?
3. Would it be safe to conclude that the owner made the decision that the majority of Black tenants at the time April 2014 were not entitled to intercom service, repair, or replacement?
4. Is it stated in any of the tenant rental agreements that they were not entitled to a working intercom because they were Black?
“They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.”
- The words again appear vague and lacking in specificity. The sentence is convoluted.
2. Is the owner saying that the intercoms do not work because the apartments are occupied by long term tenants?
3. Are these not code words for “Blacks who complain are not entitled to fair housing”?
4. I fail to see the connection, other than racial discrimination, as between the fact someone is a long term tenant and that is why their intercom does not work. Of course if the owner is saying he has not made the repairs because they are long term tenants, that would violate their rights under the civil rights laws and health and safety codes, for the period beginning April 2014 and continuing.
5. Please provide a written copy of when and how this was communicated to the long term tenants by the property owner or agent.
6. Please provide a copy of how this was communicated by the owner or agent to new tenants moving into the building. 7. Please explain in writing why the owner feels that long term tenants who are Black, as an effect or outcome of this practice, are not entitled to fair housing while living at Hi Point Apts?
8. Examining the word “continue”, when will this condition cease to exist for those tenants who have not vacated?
9. Is this practice in place to intimidate and harass long term Black tenants to vacate their apartment?
The owner cannot collect rents at this property because he has engaged in rental agreement conditions as stated by the DFEH that are not lawful because they are in conflict with the civil rights laws and housing and habitability laws.
“[t]he object of a contract must be lawful [citation]; i.e., it must not be in conflict either with express statutes or public policy. [Accordingly, i]f the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful (whether in whole or in part), the entire contract is void.” (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, § 420, p. 461.) “- Carter v Cohen. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California. – 2010
Jerry Brown’s House of KKK.
The tenants number nine on the left side of the building are Black; their intercom has not been repaired or replaced. The tenants number one on the right side of the building are white; their intercom is new and working.
What more evidence of racism does Jerry Brown’s DFEH need?
All rights reserved.
[Black tenant name redacted]
1522 Hi Point St Los Angeles CA 90035
c: via email to Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Department; Williams Realty Advisors at welcomehome@williamsrea.com.
Updated June 7 2016
Attachment to Damage Claim Against Department Fair Employment and Housing
TEXT ATTACHMENT TO DEPARTMENT FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING COMPLAINT
JUNE 7 2016
[Redacted]
Against DFEH, Hi Point Apts LLC, and Williams Real Estate Advisors.
Racist Apartment Owner Admits Discrimination
Jerry Brown’s DFEH Says Black Not Entitled to Fair Housing
Apartment owner admits discrimination says DFEH
Complainant has been denied a working intercom and tandem parking stall, housing services available at 1522 Hi Point St. I am a member of a protected class. I qualify for an apartment with an intercom and tandem parking stall. I have been rejected from housing with an intercom and tandem parking stall. The housing service intercom and tandem parking stalls are still available. I continue to be injured and denied an intercom and tandem parking stall.
“You won’t get anywhere talking to the Klan”
The DFEH letters of May 18 and May 31 2016 admit that the Respondent has discriminated against the complainant due to his race, Black, and age, over 60.
By the letters of the DFEH of May 18 and May 31, the Respondents DFEH, Hi Point Apts, and Williams Real Estate Advisors have admitted that Respondent has been discriminated against due to his race, Black, and age.
Complainant further responds that Respondents, each and every one et al., continue to discriminate against him as retaliation because he has opposed practices made unlawful by the government code 12955 and Unruh Act section 51, et seq.
The evidence of retaliation is in the statementS that the DFEH alleges the Respondents have made. The statements from the May 18 2016 letter DFEH are repeated here: “The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.” “They [Respondents] stated the four units with non- working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.”
The statements of May 18 2016 indicate the owner has not provided the required good cause for not repairing apt 9 intercom, etc. In addition, the Respondent statements do not establish the necessity “to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” No support for the practice by the Respondent has been provided to show that a nondiscriminatory interest is provided or achieved.
The two statements by the Respondent, if they are truly the Respondents speaking and not the words of Kevin Kish and Jerry Brown, do not provide any reasonable explanation as to why the tenant apt 9 has not been provided with a working intercom, etc.
Courts have held that 30-35 days is a reasonable length of time for repairs, yet the Respondent does not deny or explain why no repairs to apt 9 intercom have occurred past the 30 day period after September 2015. Respondent states they need a “chance” to renovate “empty units” but this does not reasonably explain why no “chance” has existed for two years to repair intercom apt 9, nor when will that “chance” [deadline] occur; nor is it explained the implication, barring the fact the owner may want the building to be completely empty of all tenants anyway, as to why the apt 9 has to be “empty” to repair a non-working intercom, which of course repairs can be made without the apartment being empty. Stating that the long term tenants is the reason why the intercoms are not working is irrational and does not excuse the owner from his legal obligation to repair or replace the intercom. The owner cannot blame the tenant for his own discriminatory act not to repair the intercom, etc.
Neither of the two statements of the owner, et al., are supported by the rental agreement, city, state, and federal laws or regulations. In fact the rental agreement, city, state, and federal law requirements stand opposite to the Respondents position.
The rental agreement 2010 states in relevant part: “Resident shall advise landlord, in writing, of any items requiring repair (dripping faucets, light switches, etc). Repair requests should be made as soon as the defect is noted.” The Resident has performed his obligation of the rental agreement; the Landlord has not performed his obligation to repair or replace the intercom. It is understood that by reporting the need for repair, the owner will respond in kind and make the repair. Repair is what the Black tenant is entitled to by the rental agreement and also entitled to if the owner acts in “good faith” towards his obligation to provide fair housing that is “equal terms, conditions, advantages, and privileges.” I am not trying to engage the DFEH in a discussion of breach of the agreement; I am simply showing the terms and conditions of this rental agreement as it reflects on the lack of legitimacy of the Response to the complaint.
There is nothing in the rental agreement that states the owner can deny apt 9 a working intercom repair or replacement because we are “long term tenants” or because our unit is not “empty” or because he the owner has not had a “chance” to repair or renovate, in this case “renovate” meaning repair, not meaning primary renovation.
The rental agreement states, “These rules and any changes or amendments have a legitimate purpose and are not intended to be arbitrary or work as a substantial modification of resident rights. They will not be unequally enforced.” These are the terms and conditions that are opposite to the owner’s Response to the complaint, in that he admits to an arbitrary practice regarding the intercom repair, etc.
The owner reasons are pretextual to cover up the discrimination that is occurring.
By the DFEH decision, and the Respondents’ answer, it is proven that the complainant has been denied “equal terms, conditions, advantages and privileges” as granted to those
tenants who are white.
By stating he is separating the housing services afforded to the new tenants from those services afforded the long term tenants, the owner has engaged in unlawful “separate and unequal” housing.
There is nothing in the federal or state fair housing laws that states the owner can deny apt 9 a working intercom repair or replacement because we are “long term tenants” or because our unit is not “empty” or because he the owner has not had a “chance” to repair or renovate, in this case “renovate” meaning repair but not primary renovation.
The owner admits his statements are pretextual; by admitting that fourteen of 18 units have undergone renovations, he admits that he “began installing intercoms”, proving that he had the chance to repair the intercom of apt 9; thus his excuse implying they did not have a “chance” to repair apt 9 intercom is contradicted by his own words they had a chance to repair other units intercoms, thus the chance was there to repair apt 9 intercom, but the owner intentionally disregarded the repair of apt 9 intercom. Neither of the two Respondents statements give any legitimate reason why the tenant apt 9 was denied intercom repair or replacement, etc.
The DFEH, property owner, and Williams Realty Advisors has engaged in retaliation made unlawful by the government code 12940(h):
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 2505. Retaliation (Gov. Code, § 12940(h))
[Black tenant] claims that DFEH, property owner, and Williams Realty Advisors retaliated against for filing a housing discrimination complaint with the DFEH. To establish this claim, BLACK TENANT must prove all of the following:
1. That [Black tenant] filed numerous housing discrimination complaints with the DFEH that named Hi Point Apts, Williams Realty Advisors, et al.;
2. That DFEH, property owner, and Williams Realty Advisors failed to order claimant’s intercom repaired, or failed to repair plaintiff’s intercom, failed to provide a tandem parking stall, and made statements recounted May 18 2015 that further deny claimant fair housing and equal terms, conditions, advantages, and privileges as those enjoyed by white tenants who have a working intercom and tandem parking stall;
3. That [tenant’s] DFEH and discrimination complaints were a motivating reason for DFEH, property owner, and Williams Realty Advisors, et al. decision to not make a finding of discrimination, not repair claimant’s intercom and to deny a tandem parking stall;
4. That claimant was harmed; and
5. That DFEH, property owner, and Williams Realty Advisors’s retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing claimant’s harm.
The actions of the DFEH, and the statements of the Hi Point Apts LLC recalled May 18 2016 are unlawful discrimination:
[California Consumer Affairs website:] Unlawful housing discrimination can take a variety of forms. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against any person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, medical condition, or age in any of the following ways:
Refusing to sell, rent, or lease [tandem parking stall]
Refusing to negotiate for a sale, rental, or lease [intercom, tandem parking stall]
Representing that housing is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when it is, in fact, available [intercom, tandem parking stall]
Otherwise denying or withholding housing accommodations [intercom, tandem parking stall]
Providing inferior housing terms, conditions, privileges, facilities, or services [intercom, tandem parking stall]
Providing segregated or separated housing accommodations [intercom, tandem
parking stall]
The decision of the DFEH May 18 2016 and the statements alluded to of the Respondent, are unlawful as defined in Government code 12955.
(a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information of that person.
(f) For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations when the owner’s dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful under this section, informed law enforcement agencies of practices believed unlawful under this section, has testified or assisted in any proceeding under this part, or has aided or encouraged a person to exercise or enjoy the rights secured by this part. Nothing herein is intended to cause or permit the delay of an unlawful detainer action.
(g) For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the
doing of any of the acts or practices declared unlawful in this section, or to attempt to do so.
(k) To otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, or national origin.
Respondent’s statements quoted herein refusal to repair or replace the apt 9 intercom, and the decision of the DFEH May 18, amount to a violation under Health and Safety code 17920.3. “Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building:
(a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(14) General dilapidation or improper maintenance.
(b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(c) Any nuisance.
(d) All wiring, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly.”
The DFEH decision, and the actions and statements of the Hi Point Apts LLC and Williams Realty Advisors, prohibit the owner from the collection of rent:
California Civil Code Section 1942.4
“(a) A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:
(1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
(2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions. [The inspection of Public Health employee Alan Chen circa October 2015; the letter of city employee Charles Garcia re abatement of asbestos conditions]
(3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond the date of service of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail.
(4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2.
The names of former or current tenants at the 1522 Hi Point St property include …. No tenant is neutral.
The foregoing is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a complete statement of the facts or a waiver of any of my rights or remedies. All rights reserved.
[Tenant name redacted.]
June 7 2016.
[original] Word count 3,116.
Update June 6 2016
[Editor note: How many members of the Los Angeles city government are members of the Ku Klux Klan?]
New amended Damage claim against
Department Fair Employment and Housing
[from tenant name- redacted]
Mon 6/6/2016 11:18 PM Inbox
To:contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov ; Ravi@DFEH Rangi ;
Cc: councilmember.wesson@lacity.org ; RSO Contact ; Charles Garcia ; Rep. Karen Bass ; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org ; Rep. Karen Bass ; David Greene ; Da Lacounty Info ; raymond.chan@lacity.org ; Debbie L. Harmon ; Fair Housing Doj ; Larry Galstian ; deron.williams@lacity.org ; Lincoln Lee ; Alan Chen ; George Cerda ; sylvia.lacy@lacity.org ; Ifa Kashefi ; Steve Ongele ; Justice Department ; Karen Penera ; steve.davey@lacity.org ; Hi Point Resident Manager Cynthia Ogan ; Agent Walter Barratt Hi Point Apts LLC ; Hi Point Apts LLC Agent C. Renfrew ; Leila Ajalova ; Rodney Arias ; giovani.dacumos@lacity.org ; Richard Brinson ; Ali Maintenance ; welcomehome@williamsrea.com ; LAHD RSO ;
Claim for Damages Against the State California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
SENT VIA EMAIL and US Mail
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7
“Slavery is prohibited”
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 6. Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
“SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution…”
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
Government code section 12920:
“…discriminating…foments domestic strife and unrest” .
“12920.5. In order to eliminate discrimination, it is necessary to provide effective remedies that will both prevent and deter unlawful employment practices and redress the adverse e!ects of those practices on aggrieved persons. To that end, this part shall be deemed an exercise of the Legislature’s authority pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIV of the California Constitution. ”
[Los Angeles Municipal Code:]
RAC 410.03 A tenant rents an apartment with the appurtenant housing services available at the time of renting the apartment. Landlords who reduce housing services without a corresponding reduction in rent effectuate an increase in rent. The purpose of these regulations is to guide the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department in its evaluation of a corresponding reasonable reduction in rent.
RAC 410.04
Housing services are services that are connected with the use or occupancy of a rental unit including, but not limited to, utilities (including light, heat, water and telephone), ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance including painting. The term also includes the provision of elevator service, laundry facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities, janitor service, resident manager, refuse removal, furnishings, food service, parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities.
“Housing services are ‘…parking and any other benefits, privileges or facilities’.”
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
“The Ku Klux Klan Act,
42 USC section 1983.”
“Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. “ The Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 USC section 1983.
Unruh Act
“All persons …….are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
52.1. (a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed individually against each person who is determined to have violated this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights under this section are determined to have been violated.
(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (a).
52. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action
for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.
To: State Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Department of Fair Employment and Housing 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 Elk Grove, CA 95758
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development San Francisco Regional Office
One Sansome Street Suite 1200
San Francisco CA 94104-4430
The Ku Klux Klan Fights Hard By Authority of Kevin Kish and Governor Jerry Brown
I further respond to the case closure by the DFEH dated May 18 and May 31 2016 as part of this claim for damages as dates of injury.
THE LYNCHING
The decision of the DFEH appears to saying that if there are ten Blacks and seven are being treated ok, then it is ok to lynch the other three. I don’t agree with that. Every Black citizen is entitled to equal rights and privileges, the same as those granted to white citizens. The decision of the DFEH is not in compliance with the Unruh Act which states, “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. “ [Emphasis added.] The decision of the DFEH regarding Hi Point Apts denies me as a Kushite Jew Black American the “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”.
HEARSAY
The decision of the DFEH was made after I was denied fair opportunity to review the statement, if any, of Hi Point Apts LLC. As such the emails of May 18 and May 31 represent a kind of “done deal” where the outcome has been pre-determined practice and pattern of the DFEH to deny fair housing to myself as a Black American. I was denied the opportunity to review the Hi Point response before the DFEH made its biased decision. What the DFEH provided May 18 must be viewed as unverified hearsay, and without waving that, I frame my response herein.
THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court recently in 2015 “acknowledged the validity of "disparate impact" claims, which look not at intent to discriminate but at outcome.” The DFEH decision herein ignores the Supreme Court ruling and ignores that the outcome of the actions of Hi Point is that I as a Black tenant continue to be unjustly denied the housing service of an intercom and tandem parking stall, rights granted freely to white tenants, and in violation of my right to equal treatment, i,e, “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
INFER DEFINED
The DFEH decision states as “inference” that other tenants under 62 and non-Black do not have a working intercom, “infer” being an educated guess, not a fact, without admitting that the broader picture that the DFEH had actual constructive knowledge that in 2014-2015 the majority of the tenants in the building were Black, and now with the remaining three Black tenants of the “long term tenants”, none of those majority of Blacks, as the owner admits, received a working intercom, clearly a violation of the fair housing rights of those tenants and clearly an intentional act of the owner, according to the DFEH recall of the owner response.
THE UNRUH ACT- DAMAGES- JURY INSTRUCTIONS
“If you decide that [name of plaintiff] has proved [his/her] claim against DFEH , you also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate [him/her] for the harm. This compensation is called “damages.”
[Name of plaintiff] must prove the amount of [his/her] damages. However, [name of plaintiff] does not have to prove the exact amount of the harm or the exact amount of damages that will provide reasonable compensation for the harm. You must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.
The following are the specific items of damages claimed by [name of plaintiff]: [Insert item(s) of claimed harm.]
In addition, you may award [name of plaintiff] up to three times the amount of [his/her] actual damages as a penalty against DFEH. “
PREVIOUS CLAIMS BY BLACKS
Presumably, Blacks who vacated the building but never had their intercom repaired or replaced while they were tenants, would be owed damages from the DFEH because the DFEH failed to take reasonable steps to protect those Blacks from the risk of injury. That would include about eleven apartments occupied by Blacks including two current apartments #15 and #9.
I remind the DFEH that previous tenants apt 18 and apt 10, both Black, made written complaints of discrimination and lack of working intercom, complaints ignored by the owner, city, and DFEH, of which I have copies.
“The owner admits he engaged by his actions in representing that a working intercom was unavailable to the Blacks in the building”
When the current owner purchased Hi Point in 2014, thirteen units out of 18 were occupied by primarily Black tenants. And the owner intentionally did not repair those intercoms before the majority moved out. Denial of fair housing to Blacks. “The law makes it illegal for an owner or his agent to represent to any member of any statutorily protected class that a dwelling is unavailable for inspection, rental, or sale, when, in fact, it actually is available. The act has been found to have been violated by a realty firm that posted “sold” signs on the lawns of a white neighborhood in an attempt to discourage minorities from purchasing houses in the neighborhood.”
The owner admits he engaged by his actions in representing that a working intercom was unavailable to the Blacks in the building while at the same time renovating five vacant units and replacing those intercoms with new ones. That two white tenants may have been subject to the same treatment does not negate the disparate impact/treatment on the majority of tenants who were Black.
FUTURE DAMAGES
The DFEH decision fails to address the lack of availability of the intercom and tandem parking stalls housing services to tenants apt 9. “The law makes it illegal for an owner or his agent to represent to any member of any statutorily protected class that a dwelling is unavailable…”. The owner has illegally represented that the working intercom and the tandem parking stall housing services are unavailable to me as a Black tenant.
UNRUH CACI
3020. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51, 52) – Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that DFEH denied [him/ her] full and equal [accommodations/advantages/facilities/ privileges/services] because of [his/her] [sex/race/color/religion/ ancestry/national origin/disability/medical condition/[insert other actionable characteristic]]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That DFEH [denied/aided or incited a denial of/discriminated or made a distinction that denied] full and equal [accommodations/advantages/facilities/privileges/ services] to [name of plaintiff];
2. [That a motivating reason for DFEH’s conduct was [its perception of] [name of plaintiff]’s [sex/ race/color/religion/ancestry/national origin/disability/medical condition/[insert other actionable characteristic];]
[That the [sex/race/color/religion/ancestry/national origin/ disability/medical condition/[insert other actionable characteristic]] of a person whom [name of plaintiff] was associated with was a motivating reason for DFEH]’s conduct;]
3. That [tenant name] was harmed; and
4. That DFEH’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [tenant’s ] harm.
LIABILITY UNDER GOVERNMENT
CODE 815.6
The DFEH, Ravinder Rangi, director Kevin Kish, and Governor Jerry Brown are liable for abuse of process, fraudulent omission and obstruction of civil rights in the May 18 2016 and May 31 2016 decision to deny myself as tenant fair housing services.
MAY 18 2016 TO THE DFEH
“The email chain is witness that I have asked you to supply me a written copy of the respondents’ answer. You have refused to cooperate.”
“There is already an intercom in the apt 9, just to clarify. The intercom needs to be repaired or replaced per California civil code and health and safety code requirements, and my rights under federal civil rights statutes. “
“Your letter admits the property owner has not given you a work order that the intercom of two Black tenants in apt 9 will be repaired or replaced.”
“No government whether it is local, state, or federal, has the authority to direct the property owner to continue to engage in unlawful “denial of equal terms, conditions, advantages, and privileges” to the Black tenants of apt 9. No government entity has the authority to deny myself as a Black male the equal protection of the law.”
a. I am a member of a protected class
b. I was qualified for an apartment with an intercom
c. I was rejected from housing with an intercom
d. The housing service intercoms are still available
e. I have been injured.
I quote from the Ch 3 HUD Jurisdiction document, 8024.1:
“To establish standing the complainant need only claim to have suffered an injury as a result of the alleged discriminator’s actions. It is not required that the complainant prove his or her injury as part of a showing of his or her right to file a complaint under the Act.”
“Example: An Hispanic couple inquires about an apartment for rent. The building manager tells them that no “Latinos” will be accepted as tenants. In this case, showing that there were no available apartments in the subject building on the day in question would not invalidate the complainants’ claim of injury and would not affect the complainants’ standing to file a complaint because the effect of the discriminatory statement amounts to an injury under the Act.” *
“Prohibited acts of housing discrimination include: a refusal to sell, rent, or negotiate for housing; the provision of inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of housing; discrimination in lending; harassment; and refusal to provide reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability. Certain types of communications about housing are also illegal: falsely representing that housing is unavailable; inquiring about a person’s race or sexual orientation; or making any statement that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination for or against a protected group.”
The owner as well as the DFEH decision has falsely represented that working intercoms and tandem parking stall are unavailable to me as a Black tenant.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
“A plaintiff fair housing organization seeking punitive damages in a fair housing case must show that the Defendants acted with “reckless or callous indifference” for the fair housing rights of others. See Fair Housing of Marin, 285 F.3d at 906-07 (citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983)); Szwast v. Carlton Apartments, 102 F.Supp.2d 777, 780 (E.D.Mich.2000) (standard used for punitive damages for 1983 violations is the same for FHA violations).”
Herein, the DFEH has acted with reckless and callous indifference to my fair housing rights.
“The owner’s direct participation in the discriminatory practice is not necessary; punitive damages may be awarded where the owner ignored its duties under the law or otherwise engaged in “knowledgeable inaction.” See Miller v. Apartments and Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101, 111 (3d Cir.1981); Badami v. Flood, 214 F.3d 994 (8th Cir.2000); see also Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). Nor must the conduct be outrageous to warrant punitive damages. Preferred Properties v. Indian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799-801 (6th Cir.2002).”
Herein, the DFEH has participated in the discriminatory practices of the owner.
INJURY
Herein, the effect of the owner’s denial of working intercom and tandem parking stall amounts to an injury under the Fair Housing Act.
THE KU KLUX KLAN DECISION
The KKK decision of the DFEH does not even address how a Black tenant such as myself can get a working intercom or tandem parking stall, housing services at this address. That is the power of racism under Governor Jerry Brown and in the Faircrest Heights area of Los Angeles.
DECISION AS A WHOLE
Since the DFEH decision is institutionalized pattern and practice discrimination, I reserve the right to dissect it at some later point. But I do address the scant so called response of Hi Point Apts. I note here that contrary to what the owner may say, there has been no face to face conversation or otherwise with the owner regarding the intercom or the parking stalls complaints I have made.
The DFEH states of me “you allege the owner has renovated or repaired 14 of the 18 units, and all the newly repaired units have working intercoms, majority of which are occupied by white/caucasian tenants under the age of 40.” The owner inexplicably denies this.
“The Respondents asserted none of the intercoms in the building were working when they took over management, but they began installing working intercoms as tenants vacated the premises and they had a chance to renovate the empty units.”
My response: Under California civil code, a new owner is liable to make repairs not made by a previous apartment building owner. City of Los Angeles municipal code states that a “housing service” comes with the apartment and includes maintenance. The owner admits here his intentional act of denying myself a working intercom. He practices “separate and unequal” housing that reserves intercoms for those new vacant units while denying such service to myself and subjecting me to inferior housing service as a Black tenant. There is no explanation here from owner why he does not feel he did not have a “chance” to repair apt 9 intercom [“renovate” can mean bring up to good working condition] from April 2014 to the current date. Nor does the DFEH question this as unreasonable and discriminatory.
“They [Respondents] stated the four units with non-working intercoms, including your apartment, are occupied by long term tenants, which is why those units continue to have intercoms that do not work.”
My response: Again this is clear indication of discriminatory intent and evidence that the end result has resulted in injury to myself of not having the use of a working intercom. The brief statements of the Respondent prove they have failed to mount a legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their refusal to repair or replace the intercom apt 9. The effect is discriminatory as well as unlawful arbitrary discrimination.
None of the Respondent reasons has been made known to me prior to the DFEH decision. For the DFEH, on what date time and place and by whom, if any, were the Respondents’ statement told to all tenants in the building?
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS ANALYSIS
[BASED ON HUD ARTICLE]
“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.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. “
“…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.”
“…that it is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider. 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.”
“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.”
Herein, the DFEH has failed to comply with the HUD three step process.
“That is the power of racism under Governor Jerry Brown and in the Faircrest Heights area of Los Angeles.”
All rights and remedies are reserved. I reserve the right to modify, revoke, or amend this email at any time. It is not intended as a remedy or resolution of any claims against the parties named.
[Tenant name and address redacted]
c: Site manager Cynthia Ogan; Property owner agent Walter Barratt,
Updated May 30 2016
A housing discrimination complaint has been filed against an employee of the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing of California. Dated May 30 2016.
[Redacted]
“Discrimination and retaliation; because of my Race, age, engagement in protected activity; as a result I was denied equal terms and conditions, subjected to restrictive covenant by Califomia Department of Fair Employment and Housing and employee Ravinder Rangi. On said date, I requested that Rangi provide me with the written response or a written summary of the response of Hi Point Apts, LLC. Rangi refused. See the exchange of emails that occurred May 18 2016 at 12:46 pm, 12:56 pm and 9:55 pm from myself as [tenant name redacted]. This complaint is based on these emails. I believe that Rangi refused to allow me fair opportunity to review the Hi Point Apts LLC response due to my race, Black, age, and because I engaged in protected acrivity of filing a DFEH complaint, Rangi, at the point of the emails , also refused to order the property owner to issue a work order that the intercom would be repaired, replaced, or removed, such authority coming from state of California abatement of nuisance statutes, and DFEH authority to eliminate the discriminatory practice regarding the intercom complaint and the parking stalls complaint and complaints against the city government of Los Angeles and County govemment of Los Angeles. The DFEH by its actions in the emails exchange has authorized and directed illegal separate and unequal housing at Hi Point Apts. As of this complaint my intercom has not been repaired or replaced, my questions about tandem parking have not been answered and I am denied “equal terms, conditions, advantages, and privileges” by DFEH employee Ravinder Rangi. Rangi cannot mount any legitimate reason for not providing me the written response as requested, etc. Institutionalized racism authorized by Kevin Kish and Governor Jerry Brown. The DFEH has engaged in the illegal provision of inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of housing. Damages joint and several with Hi Point Apts, LLC, …against a state employee Rangi and the DFEH.”
“Institutionalized racism authorized by Kevin Kish and Governor Jerry Brown.”
[Pictures do not appear in the Complaint. 1. For the Black tenant, the non-working intercom. 2. Debris in parking stall and tandem stall denied to the Black tenant 3. Outside “Google Racism at Hi Point Apts.”]
Updated September 19 2016
Los Angeles, California officials say Black tenant treated as “Nigger” not entitled to full and equal housing privileges. Select tenants are named. United States Central District Court case CV16-03236 JLS.
Attorneys for the defendants are ATTORNEY FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ALAN CHEN Renee E Jensen lduarte@fwhb.com, rjensen@fwhb.com; ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, Inc. Thomas L Watters twatters@hartwattersandcarter.com; ATTORNEY FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA Martin Ageson martin.ageson@doj.ca.gov, marsha.petty@doj.ca.gov; ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CHARLES GARCIA, BARBARA BRASCIA, RICHARD BRINSON, ARMIDA-OLGUIN FLORES Robert P Moore robert.p.moore@lacity.org, julie.martinez@lacity.org; ATTORNEY FOR HI POINT APTS, LLC, WALTER BARRATT, CLIFF RENFREW Jared A Barry jared@barrylawgroup.com [UPDATED SEPT. 19, 2016]
Click below link for more information on the lawsuit:
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 