Everyday Idioms Book One and Book Two, by Ronald E. Feare, bring the challenge of learning typical American English expressions within any student's reach. Each book presents over 600 idioms within tightly organized semantic categories. No other idiom texts give as comprehensive coverage of essential American idioms or make them as accessible to students.
On July 11, 2000, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs in Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (M.D. Tenn.). In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants' practice of permitting Nissan dealers to set finance charges at their discretion resulted in African-Americans paying higher finance charges, and that these higher charges could not be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In our amicus brief in support of plaintiffs 'opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, we argue that a lender has a non-delegable duty to comply with ECOA, and, thus, is liable under ECOA for discriminatory pricing in loans that it approves and funds. The United States further argue that plaintiffs do not need to prove that defendant was on notice regarding the alleged discrimination, but that, in any case, plaintiffs have offered evidence that defendant was on notice. The court subsequently denied summary judgment for the defendants, and the case is currently on appeal regarding class certification.
Practice With Idioms By Ronald Feare.pdf
Download File: https://jinyurl.com/2vExPl
On June 28, 2000, the United States signed a settlement agreement with a real estate company settling our allegations that one of its former agents violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination in the sale of a dwelling. The settlement agreement obligates the real estate company, First Boston Real Estate, to implement a non-discriminatory policy, which will be displayed in its offices and distributed to any persons who inquire about the availability of any properties, as well as to all agents. There are reporting requirements and the Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma will receive $3,000.00 in compensatory damages.
In this lawsuit against Capital City Mortgage Corp. and its president and Thomas Nash, private plaintiffs contend that the company targeted minorities for loans that were designed to fail, due to unfair payment terms and income levels of the borrowers that would not sustain the loan payments. In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Capital City's lending practices violated several federal laws, including the Fair Housing and the Equal Credit Opportunity Acts by engaging in a pattern or practice of targeting African American communities, a practice known as "reverse redlining," for abusive or predatory lending practices. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that reverse redlining does not violate either law because they have provided credit to African Americans, and on the same terms that they would provide to whites. On March 23, 2000, the United States filed an amicus brief, which supported the view that lending practices designed to induce minorities into loans destined to fail could violate the fair lending laws. The brief argues that by targeting minorities for predatory loans, a lender discriminates in the terms and conditions of home financing, even if it makes all or most of its loans in minority areas. The fact that a lender does business only in minority neighborhoods does not shield its business from scrutiny under federal fair lending laws. In addition, racially targeted loans that are designed to fail make housing unavailable because of race since the borrowers are likely to lose their homes through foreclosure. The matter was settled and dismissed on March 27, 2002. The Federal Trade Commission has filed a separate action charging the same defendants with violating a number of federal consumer protection laws. FTC v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., No. 98-237 (JHG/AK) (D.D.C. filed Jan. 29, 1998). The matter was settled on March 14, 2005.
On July 6, 2017, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with J & R Associates, the owner and operator of the Royal Park Apartments, a 224-unit multi-family housing complex in North Attleboro, Massachusetts. The settlement resolves allegations that J & R Associates discriminated against tenants of South Asian descent in violation of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Under the terms of the agreement, J & R Associates will establish a $70,000 settlement fund to compensate victims of the discriminatory practices. J & R Associates also has agreed to train any new employees and to comply with the Fair Housing Act going forward. In a related matter resolved in 2015, J & R Associates agreed to make changes to its rental practices to resolve allegations that it had been steering families with children to certain buildings and units in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
On March 14, 2001, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with Trop-Edmond, L.P.; Trail Properties, Inc.; and Danielian Associates (respondents), thereby resolving the United States' claims that respondents discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct units at West Trop Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada, to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. This case was referred to the Division by HUD as a pattern or practice case. After respondents were contacted by HUD regarding a complaint of design and construction deficiencies, respondents took corrective actions at an approximate cost of $41,000. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents Trop-Edmond, L.P. and Trail Properties, Inc. will donate $5000 to an organization in Nevada that serves the housing needs of persons with disabilities. Respondent Danielian will conduct annual in-house training for a period of three years to its employees involved in the design of multi-family dwellings.
On October 1, 2007, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Adams (W.D. Ark.). The complaint, which was filed silumtaneously with the consent order on September 28, 2007, alleged a pattern or practice of discrimination and a denial of rights to a group of persons on the basis of familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act by the owners and management of Phoenix Village Apartments, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Under the terms of the consent order the defendants are required to pay up to $165,000 to compensate victims and $20,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The consent order also calls for injunctive relief, including training, a nondiscrimination policy, record keeping and monitoring. The consent order will remain in effect for four years. This case was based on evidence developed through the Division's Fair Housing Testing Program.
On October 22, 2010, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. (N.D. Ind.), a Fair Housing Act pattern or practice/election case alleging discrimination on the basis of race and familial status. The complaint, filed on July 14, 2008, alleged that the Condominium Association and the members of its Board of Directors in located in Munster, Indiana, maintained a written policy that prohibited families with minor children from living in the condominium complex The complaint further alleged that members of the Board made oral statements indicating a preference against families with children and that the policy was enforced in a discriminatory manner to exclude African-Americans from living in the condominium complex. The consent order, provides for monetary relief in the amount of $106,500 to compensate seven aggrieved persons, and a $13,500 civil penalty. The consent order also provides for extensive injunctive relief, including fair housing training, reporting requirements, and the resignation of the president of the condominium board. The case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.
The United States filed a fair housing election complaint alleging that the defendants discriminated against the complainant and her son on the basis of their familial status, by refusing to rent an apartment and falsely telling her that an apartment was not available. Defendants own a single-family home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as well as a number of other small rental properties in that area. In the consent order, filed on June 20, 2001, the Defendants agreed to pay $5,000 in damages to the complainant and her son. Additional relief includes: an injunction prohibiting discriminatory housing practices by the defendants in the future; mandatory fair housing training for Mr. Barone and his employees; and an agreement that Ms. Barone will withdraw from the management of rental properties.
On May 2, 2012, the court entered a consent order in United States v. B.C. Enterprises, Inc. ("Aristocrat") (E.D. Va.), a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) pattern or practice case. The complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2008, and amended on November 2, 2009, alleged that a towing company in Norfolk, Virginia towed and sold a Navy Lieutenant's car without a court order, in violation of the SCRA. The complaint also alleged that the defendants may have towed and sold at least twenty servicemembers' cars without court orders. Pursuant to the consent order, the defendants must pay $75,000 in damages and repair the credit of the aggrieved servicemembers. On November 6, 2009, the court issued an order on summary judgment resolving "a question of first impression" by adopting the United States' position that Section 537 of the SCRA is a strict liability statute and finding that servicemembers need not notify towing companies of their active duty status in order to benefit from the SCRA's protections. The court rejected defendants' arguments that it is impractical to verify a vehicle owner's military status and ruled that, "even if the defendants exercised the utmost care in investigating their victims' military status, they face liability for their actions." The United States Navy referred this matter to the Department of Justice.
2ff7e9595c
Comentários