Holdings:
(1) In design and construction cases, the Ohio Fair Housing Act’s one-year statute of limitations applicable to private citizen enforcement begins to run upon completion of construction of any non-conforming buildings, regardless of when the non-conformance is discovered or causes injury. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission is without lawful authority to enforce any claim of non-compliance after one year of construction, even if the buildings continue to violate state and federal accessibility requirements. (Triangle Realty)
(2) In design and construction cases, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission may initiate its own enforcement action without regard to any statute of limitations. However, in such cases it is authorized only to prevent future violations, and has no authority to remedy a past injury or obtain a mandatory injunction. Specifically, it has no authority to seek an order retrofitting the non-conforming buildings upon which it sued. (Fairmark Development)
Significance:
These two cases, in combination, mean that dwelling units built in flagrant and open violation of the State of Ohio’s 1992 mandatory accessibility requirements can never be remedied, and their designers and developers can never be held accountable, unless they are discovered and prosecuted by a private citizen within one year of construction. After one year, they are immune from enforcement by either private citizens or by the State of Ohio.
Holding:
Private fair housing organizations have no standing to sue under Ohio’s Fair Housing Act, R.C. §4112.051:
“The Ohio legislature could have provided for enforcement of Ohio’s Fair Housing laws by private enforcement agencies, i.e., FHAAs. The statutes reflect that the legislature chose a different method of enforcement. Accordingly, there is no need for private enforcement under Ohio’s Fair Housing laws.”
Significance:
By holding that private fair housing organizations cannot ever be “aggrieved” person within the meaning of Ohio’s fair housing statute, the appellate court rejected almost 40 years of fair housing jurisprudence from the federal courts, as well as other state supreme courts.
The decision has already jeopardized the work-sharing agreement between HUD and the OCRC, which is worth millions of dollars to Ohio. HUD has decided to no longer refer to the OCRC fair housing complaints that arise from the Ohio counties of Lorain, Medina, Summit, or Wayne that are filed by private fair housing organizations. If this interpretation of the law is adopted by other courts of appeal of the Ohio Supreme Court, HUD will withdraw Ohio’s substantial equivalency status, and terminate the work-sharing agreement.
Holding:
A landlord may not be held liable under R.C. 4112.02(H)(4) for failing to take corrective action against a tenant whose racial harassment of another tenant created a hostile living environment.
Significance:
Tenants may not sue landlords who, with full knowledge and awareness of the existence of a hostile living environment, refuse to protect them from the severe and pervasive harassment of their neighbors based on race, religion, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics. The decision has already jeopardized the work-sharing agreement between HUD and the OCRC, which is worth millions of dollars to Ohio. HUD has decided to no longer refer to the OCRC fair housing complaints that involve tenant-on-tenant harassment.
Read our page about fair housing enforcement in Ohio through substantial equivalency and our page about federal cases that are in conflict with Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Akron Metropolitian Housing Authority.
Copyright 2009, Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc.
