Woods v. Foster: Illinois Federal Court Finds Plaintiffs' Claim of Sexual Harassment Valid Under Fair Housing Act

In Woods v. Foster an Illinois federal court addressed allegations of sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The court held that a homeless shelter funded by HUD qualified as a "dwelling" under the FHA and that the three plaintiffs, all female and former residents of the shelter, stated a claim of sexual harassment.

New Life Outreach Ministries (NLOM) operated a homeless shelter. House was the Chairman of the Board and Foster was the executive director. Both men were employees. In 1992, NLOM contracted with the City of Chicago to house families and assist with finding permanent housing. Under the contract, NLOM received $125,000 in funding from HUD. During 1993, Woods, Greene, and Harmon (plaintiffs) lived in the shelter with their children.

The plaintiffs alleged that House subjected them to sexual advances, lewd touching, sexually suggestive remarks, and requests for sexual favors. One plaintiff alleged similar treatment by Foster. Each plaintiff alleged that both men made it known that continued residence at the shelter was dependent upon a willingness to provide sexual favors. Two plaintiffs gave in to requests for sexual favors. Eventually, all of the plaintiffs and their families left or were forced to leave the shelter. The Plaintiffs sued House, Foster, and NLOM for violations of the FHA. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.

The district court addressed defendants' contention that the shelter was not a "dwelling." It stated: "a structure, or portion thereof, is a dwelling' if it is designed or intended for occupancy as a residence by one or more families." The court quoted U.S. v. Hughes Memorial Home 396 F. Supp 544 (W.D. Va. 1975) which stated that the "ordinary meaning" of residence implies "a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from the place of temporary sojourn or transient visit."

In previous FHA cases, structures found to be "dwellings" included a summer home, a cooperative apartment building, and a converted office building used as a hospice for individuals with AIDS. Conversely, a motel, vacant land held for commercial use, and a grocery store were not dwellings. The district court concluded that the shelter was a dwelling under the FHA since it was provided for those in need of shelter and although not designed to be a place of permanent residence, its residents intend to return there and live there and not in any other place.

The district court also rejected defendants' contention that the FHA did not apply because there was no "sale or rental" of the premises. The FHA makes it unlawful to refuse to "rent or sell. . .or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of. . . sex." The court found that the controlling language was the "otherwise make unavailable" portion and held that the FHA does not simply apply to sales or rentals. The court also found that if there was a rental requirement, the HUD funding constituted "rent." It noted that the FHA does not require rent to be paid by the occupant. The court found that the plaintiffs had a valid claim for sexual harassment and denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Woods v. Foster 884 F. Supp. 1169 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Notice: The information on this page may not be current. The archive is a collection of content previously published on one or more NAR web properties. Archive pages are not updated and may no longer be accurate. Users must independently verify the accuracy and currency of the information found here. The National Association of REALTORS® disclaims all liability for any loss or injury resulting from the use of the information or data found on this page.

Advertisement