Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Maldonado v. Housing Auth. of Austin
No. A-96-CA-330-SC (W.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51568
Description
Public Housing Authority Agrees to Revise Tenant Selection Policy That Automatically Denied Housing to Those with Criminal Record Within Past Ten Years
Abstract
The parties have settled this action against defendant public
housing authority’s policy of automatic denial of application
from persons whose criminal history includes any
incident—even if only an arrest—within ten years of
their application. Two of the plaintiffs were denied public housing
because of a single arrest on which no criminal charges were filed;
a third was denied on the basis of a single, nonviolent,
non-drug-related incident for which she received deferred
adjudication. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to consider
the time, nature, and extent of their conduct, rehabilitation, and
other favorable evidence; that defendant did not notify them of
their right to present rehabilitation or other favorable evidence
at their appeal hearings; and that the policy violated HUD
regulations governing admission criteria (24 C.F.R. §
960.205), their due process and equal protection rights, and the
Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604, 3613). Defendant
agreed to modify its tenant selection policy such that an arrest or
conviction would not in and of itself be a basis for denial of
assistance but might be factored in determining whether the conduct
occurred. Further, the revised policy would consider mitigating
circumstances when unfavorable information was received. Defendant
also agreed to pay plaintiffs $4,450 in attorney fees and $1,500
each in damages and to offer each a public housing unit. Counsel
notes that this case was filed before the enactment of the
congressional prohibition on the recovery of attorney fees by Legal
Services Corporation-funded programs.
