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
McCook v. Housing Auth. of Austin
No. A-96-CA-331-SC (W.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51569
Description
Housing Authority Agrees to Consider Circumstances Preventing Applicants from Timely Response to Information Requests
Abstract
The parties have settled this action opposing defendant housing
authority’s decision to remove plaintiff applicant from the
waiting list for Section 8 existing housing. At a December 27,
1995, meeting with a housing authority employee, plaintiff was told
to complete and return various documents by January 3. Despite her
best efforts, plaintiff was unable to turn in all of the documents
by the deadline. One day later plaintiff was summarily removed from
the waiting list she had been on for nearly ten years. The letter
she received informing her of her removal did not notify her of any
hearing or appeal rights. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s
action violated Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.552, .554, and her
procedural and substantive due process rights. Defendant agreed to
modify its occupancy policies on tenant selection and removal from
the waiting list for failure to respond, supply requested
information, or appear for an appointment. In deciding whether to
reinstate applicants a hearing officer would consider (1) their
efforts to respond, supply information, or attend interviews or
meetings; (2) their record, if any, of responding to other
information requests from defendant; and (3) the reasons—such
as illness, lack of transportation or child care, disabilities, and
educational or language barriers—they offer for failing to
respond timely, provide information, or attend a meeting. Defendant
also agreed to reinstate plaintiff on the Section 8 waiting list
immediately, to give her an appropriate unit by December 31, 1996,
and to pay her $1,000 in damages and $2,870 in attorney fees.
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.
