Case: Hawkins v. HUD

On February 2, 1990, four public housing residents in Omaha filed this class action lawsuit against the Omaha Housing Authority (OHA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the City of Omaha in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The plaintiffs alleged that the manner in which federal housing assistance programs were administered in Omaha was discriminatory and served to maintain a system of racially segregated housing. According to the Galster Report (a study commissioned by the Urban Institute on housing desegregation lawsuits), “the plaintiffs alleged that OHA deliberately sited public housing developments in the minority areas of Omaha and used special criteria to screen applicants to the housing authority’s scattered-site program that were discriminatory.” Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief.

Following the filing of the compliant, the parties entered into a long and hotly disputed discovery process that lasted nearly four years.

Chief Judge Lyle E. Strom granted a preliminary injunction on November 13, 1991, which enjoined the OHA from imposing any criteria on residents who needed to relocate from a planned demolition (because at that time no existing residents could meet the program’s requirements for scatter-site housing), and permitted HUD to authorize departures from the OHA tenant selection and assignment plan based on the findings of its occupancy audit. However, on August 11, 1992 Chief Judge Strom dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the housing practices also discriminated against elderly persons and denied their motion to certify a class. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the same day.

The case went to trial on August 9, 1993, but before it was completed, the parties agreed to a settlement that Chief Judge Strom approved on January 21, 1994. According to the Galster Report, the settlement defined a class of “all past and present applicants for and past and present recipients of federal housing assistance administered by OHA for low-income persons in Omaha; past and present residents of Tommie Rose Gardens [a private Section 8 development]; residents (as of July 31, 1991) of Logan Fontenelle Homes eligible for, but excluded from, scattered site single-family dwellings operated by OHA.” The agreement provided for “the demolition and replacement of public housing units, issuance of new Section 8 subsidies, establishment of a housing mobility program, and inspections of properties accepting Section 8 subsidies.”

Following the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement. On January 10, 1995 Chief Judge Strom granted the motion to enforce based on the "continuing hostility between the parties," which caused the difficulties in implementing the settlement agreement, and ordered OHA to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

By October 1998, “the majority of the elements have been implemented, although one key element, the provision of replacement housing, had not been completed.” The three main reasons given for lack of implementation were the “timing of demolition, opposition to replacement plans, and replacement costs.” The demolition happened almost immediately and totally after settlement, and as result there was not sufficient replacement housing ready following the demolition. OHA then attempted to purchase property for scatterer-site public housing, but it received considerable opposition from residents of the neighborhoods in which the units were to be located. And finally, somewhere between 1996 and 1997 OHA realized that the remaining $29 million would be insufficient to acquire the necessary replacement housing under the settlement. OHA requested an additional $10 million from HUD, but HUD required a full audit of the program and, as of October 1998, it had yet to approve the request.

However, the other four elements of the settlement were successfully implemented by October 1998:

1) Demolition: “OHA demolished the public housing units at the three developments named in the settlement.”

2) Issuance of new section 8 subsidies: “OHA received from HUD the 100 new Section 8 subsidies and issued them in accordance with the settlement.”

3) Establishment of a housing mobility program: “FHAS, the organization chosen, established Project Jericho and the program continues to function. The program had served 930 households and placed 663 households in housing from when it began through May, 1998. Of the households placed, 59 percent moved into or within nonimpacted areas of the city.”

4) Inspections of properties accepting Section 8 subsidies: “HUD conducted the required HQS reviews of Section 8 properties.” (Galster Report.)

On February 2, 2005 the replacement of public housing units required by the settlement was still unfulfilled, so the parties agreed on a modification to the original settlement agreement, which (1) established express deadlines for completion of the replacement housing; and (2) stated that completion required either total rehabilitation of existing housing or total completion of new housing.

On November 17, 2005 the case was dismissed as the terms of the settlement agreement had been satisfied. The case is now closed.