Our mission is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the status quo. Independent journalism with a focus on politics and satire, public safety, judicial misconduct, government corruption, HOA/CID, senior advocacy, sanctity of life & marriage and a voice to the voiceless
Pages
- Home
- QTRAX Classic
- Parasites
- Elder Abuse
- TCBJ Data Mining Tools
- Prison Reform- Mental Health
- Suggested Christian Businesses
- Public Safety
- Letters to the Editor
- For the Birds
- Public Education
- Judicial Misconduct Tracker
- HOA Legal Resources
- Other HOA Sites
- Advertise
- HOA Advocate D. Vanitzian
- The American Divide
- CDN
Saturday, May 07, 2016
Castillo Condo. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev. (emotional support dog) - Justia
When Carlo Gimenez Bianco (Gimenez) refused to remove his emotional support dog from his condominium unit in violation of the Castillo Condominium Association’s “no pets” bylaw, the Association forced Gimenez to vacate and sell the unit. Gimenez brought a complaint of disability discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which filed a charge of discrimination against the Association. An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a recommended decision concluding that the Association had not violated the Fair Housing Act. The Secretary of HUD set aside the ALJ’s recommended decision and found the Association liable for discrimination. On remand, the ALJ issued a recommended decision proposing to award Gimenez $3,000 in emotional distress damages and assessed a $2,000 civil penalty against the Association.
The Secretary increased the proposed award of emotional distress damages to $20,000 and increased the civil penalty to $16,000. The First Circuit denied the Association’s petition for review and granted the Secretary’s cross-petition for enforcement of his order, holding (1) the Secretary’s final order was supported by substantial evidence in the record; (2) the ALJ did not err in refusing to apply res judicata to pretermit Gimenez’s HUD charge; and (3) the Secretary’s final order was not tainted by procedural error.
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment