Brown v. Pfeiffer

Background

The order addresses two related cases involving alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, a federal law prohibiting discrimination in housing.

In Brown v. Pfeiffer, Shatara Brown, Nikoe Lee, and Colleana Young sued Reese Pfeiffer, Fruen & Pfeiffer LLP, Michael Fruen, and M Fruen Properties, LLC, alleging sexual harassment in housing. In the related action, the United States alleged that Reese Pfeiffer, acting as an agent for Jeanne Pfeiffer, Michael Fruen, Jeremy Martineau, Fruen & Pfeiffer, LLP, and M. Fruen Properties, LLC, discriminated against tenants and prospective tenants based on sex in the rental of dwellings. The United States alleged that, from at least 2009 through the present, Reese Pfeiffer subjected multiple female tenants to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment and retaliation, constituting a pattern or practice that raised an issue of general public importance.

The parties jointly asked the court to enter a proposed consent decree. The decree was a compromise of the disputed claims and expressly was not an admission of liability by any defendant.

Court’s analysis

Because the cases involved important public interests and a decree requiring obligations over an extended period, the court reviewed whether the proposed decree was procedurally fair, substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Fair Housing Act.

For procedural fairness, the court noted that all parties were represented by counsel, participated in multiple settlement and status conferences with United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez over several months, and signed the decree with their counsel. The court found the decree procedurally fair.

For substantive fairness, the court considered the decree’s requirements that defendants be prohibited from future Fair Housing Act violations, implement prevention measures including training focused on sex discrimination and sexual harassment, compensate people for alleged past injuries, and pay a civil penalty to the United States. The court found the decree substantively fair.

The court also found the decree reasonable. It concluded that the decree’s injunctive relief, monetary relief, and civil penalties were legally available and reflected the claims in the complaints. The decree identified enforcement procedures, including United States review through testing and records inspection, the ability of the United States to seek an extension of certain nonpermanent terms for violating defendants, and the ability to seek remedies authorized by law or equity. The court found no evidence of improper collusion or corruption and concluded that the decree served the public interest.

Finally, the court found the decree consistent with the Fair Housing Act’s purposes and enforcement provisions.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of the proposed consent decree. The court entered the fully executed decree and retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The filed decree had been revised to correct typographical errors identified by the court but had not been substantively altered.