Robinson+Cole understands all aspects of fair housing law, including the federal Fair Housing Act. Our Real Estate + Development Group lawyers represent landlords in claims alleging discriminatory practices in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and state housing laws. We also represent would-be tenants who were wrongfully barred from renting apartment units.
Our lawyers routinely represent owners and operators in obtaining permits to build, expand, and operate new or additional facilities that assist the disabled and other protected classes. Sometimes, obtaining a permit may involve bringing an action in federal district court when a municipality wrongfully denies approval of the proposed use and location of a facility. Typically, our clients serve populations that desperately need help with special needs, ranging from physical disabilities to drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act is to ensure that communities reasonably accommodate people with these special needs.
Robinson+Cole has consistently employed a multidisciplinary approach to team its lawyers and planners with focused land use law experience with lawyers who focus on the transactional side and help clients secure real estate by purchase or lease and obtain financing once the project has received its approvals. Depending on client needs, we may call on Litigation Group lawyers, who are conversant with federal court practice; Health Law Group lawyers, who are experienced in obtaining certificates of need when required; and Business Transaction Group lawyers, who can help structure the ownership and operation of the facility. Our knowledge of the Fair Housing Act’s legal requirements, and the case law that has developed over the years, has been, many times, the linchpin in achieving a positive outcome for our clients.
We have enjoyed sharing in the success of a number of our clients who own or operate clinics and rehabilitation facilities.
Prevailed on source of income discrimination claim under the Connecticut Fair Housing Act in a case involving a prospective tenant who was refused housing based on her lawful source of income (State of Connecticut guaranteed security deposit). Secured damages and attorneys' fees in excess of $100,000.