Filed Date: Dec. 11, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about accessibility for people with disabilities in senior living communities. On December 11, 2020, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit against fourteen companies who had designed, built, and/or owned fifteen buildings that housed independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DOJ sued the defendants under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that these facilities contained numerous violations that made them inaccessible for people with disabilities, and that this was a pattern or practice of discrimination by the defendants. They sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The case was initially heard by Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. However, Judge John M. Gallagher took over the case on April 7, 2022.
The DOJ relied on property plans and inspections to allege that the buildings had been constructed and designed with inaccessible multifamily units and public spaces; the former violated the Fair Housing Act, and the latter violated both the Fair Housing Act and the ADA. In the complaint, the DOJ listed numerous alleged violations at each building. In public areas, the violations included various barriers that made the areas inaccessible for people using wheelchairs, such as high slopes on walkways and around accessible parking spaces, inaccessible routes to public amenities, high shelves and mailboxes, too little space around automatic door switches, and inaccessible public bathrooms. The DOJ alleged similarly inaccessible features in the units, including narrow doorways, inaccessible paths within rooms, bathrooms and kitchens without enough floor space, high electrical controls, and shower walls on which grab bars could not be installed.
The DOJ asked the court for declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, and for injunctions requiring the defendants to retrofit their buildings to make them compliant as well as to ensure any future buildings they designed or built would be compliant. The DOJ also requested monetary damages to people who had been discriminated against by the defendants, as well as a civil penalty against the defendants.
There were three types of defendants in the case: the architectural firm that had designed the buildings, eight companies that had owned the buildings and been part of the design and construction process, and six companies that owned some of the buildings but had not been part of the design and construction process. The last were Rule 19 defendants, meaning that they had to be added to the lawsuit so that the relief the DOJ wanted, such as retrofits to the buildings, would be possible.
On March 1, 2021, the DOJ filed an amended complaint to fix the name of a defendant. A few weeks later, on March 22, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the defendants Two Douglassville Properties and Care HSL Newtown Propco. About two weeks later, on April 8, a default was entered for the defendant AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, which had failed to respond to the lawsuit. Two weeks later, on April 23, the DOJ again amended its complaint to remove the two defendants that it had voluntarily dismissed, and to add an additional defendant.
On the same day, April 23, the court granted the DOJ's unopposed motion to stay the case for 150 days so the parties could negotiate settlements. On September 14 of the same year, the court extended the stay for another two months. Two months later, on November 24, the court extended the stay until the parties had completed mediation in late February 2022. Another stay was granted on July 20, 2022, which was later extended through September 19, 2022.
On March 6, 2022, the architectural firm, J. Randolph Parry Architects, filed a third-party complaint in which they alleged that the buildings’ violations were largely the fault of other parties rather than the firm itself. The firm sought to add thirty-nine other defendants that it alleged were at fault, including construction, engineering, and interior design firms. The firm also made three state law crossclaims against every other defendant in the case. The firm requested that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction to bring these many state law claims into the present lawsuit. Later that month, on March 28, several defendants moved to dismiss the firm’s crossclaims, and two days later the DOJ filed a motion to strike or dismiss the third-party complaint.
Two months later, on May 24, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by various parties against the architectural firm’s crossclaims and third-party complaint. The court held that including the numerous crossclaims and third-party claims would cause them to predominate over the original case, and that those claims involved many issues not relevant to the lawsuit. Therefore, the court declined to hear the architectural firm’s state law claims.
On April 29, 2022, J. Randolph Parry Architects moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the DOJ’s lawsuit was barred by the federal statute of limitations and state statutes of repose because the alleged violations had occurred too many years ago.
Two months later, on June 22, the court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings from the architectural firm. The firm had alleged that a five-year federal statute of limitations and ten- and twelve-year statutes of repose in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively, prevented the DOJ from suing over properties that had been designed and built more than five, ten, or twelve years ago, which included several of the buildings in the lawsuit. However, the court held that since at least one of the buildings had been constructed within the statutes of limitations and repose, the laws did not prevent the DOJ from alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination that included all of the buildings that were part of that pattern or practice, even if some of them were constructed outside the statutes of limitations and repose.
On September 28, 2022, DOJ and J. Randolph Parry Architects agreed to a consent decree. The architectural firm paid $350,000 towards retrofits on the buildings, $75,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against, and $25,000 as a civil penalty. It also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA, and to a program for educating its employees about these laws. The firm was also required to inform the DOJ about the compliance of future projects, and to file yearly reports. The decree is slated to last forty-two months, until March 2026. The Court retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.
On September 27, 2024, AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, LP was voluntarily dismissed.
On March 19, 2024, the case was marked closed for administrative purposes
November 21, 2021– Consent Decree between DOJ and Rule 19 defendant 1180 Ben Franklin Way. Ben Franklin Way agreed to let the DOJ access the building they owned and to let retrofits take place in their building if another defendant agreed to or was ordered to make retrofits. The decree would end either if either six months passed after the retrofits were done or if the case against Ben Franklin Way was dismissed.
April 13, 2022: Consent Decree between DOJ and LifeQuest Nursing Center. LifeQuest agreed to retrofit its properties to make them accessible in compliance with the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, and agreed to a general injunction forcing the company to comply with these laws in any future projects. It also paid $24,000 in damages to those discriminated against, and $14,000 as a civil penalty. The decree included a requirement that LifeQuest give quarterly reports, as well as reports on the compliance of any future building projects. The agreement contained other requirements, including that LifeQuest would educate its employees about Fair Housing Act and ADA compliance, inform past and present residents of the settlement, post signs about its non-discrimination policy in rental offices, and include a statement about accessibility on any advertising. The order would last until six months after the retrofits were done, or until the litigation ended, whichever came last.
September 28, 2022: Consent Decree between DOJ and J. Randolph Parry Architects. J. Randolph Parry Architects paid $350,000 towards retrofits on the buildings, $75,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against, and $25,000 as a civil penalty. It also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA, and to a program for educating its employees about these laws. The firm was also required to inform the DOJ about the compliance of future projects, and to file yearly reports. The decree is slated to last forty-two months, until March 2026. The Court retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.
On November 2, 2023, J, Randolph Parry Architects was named as a party in the consent decree between the DOJ and defendant One Boyertown Properties. J. Randolph Parry Architects was only a party to the Order for administrative purposes, specifically to memorialize the receipt of funds from One Boyertown and the administration of funds. The September 2022 Order remained in effect and controlling.
November 28, 2022: Consent Decree between DOJ and Care HSL Newtown Propco. Care HSL Newtown Propco agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to let the DOJ access the buildings they owned and to let retrofits take place in their building. The decree would end either if either six months passed after the retrofits were done or if the case against Care HSL Newtown Propco was dismissed.
November 28, 2022: Consent Decree between DOJ and Care HSL Harleysville Propco. Care HSL Harleysville Propco agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to let the DOJ access the buildings they owned and to let retrofits take place in their building. The decree would end if either six months passed after the retrofits were done or if the case against Care HSL Harleysville Propco was dismissed.
January 10, 2023: Consent Decree between DOJ and GAHC3 Bethlehem PA, GAHC3 Palmyra PA and GAHC3 Boyertown PA. All three GAHC3 entities agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to let the DOJ access the buildings they owned and to let retrofits take place in their building. The decree would remain in effect until the end date of a subsequent consent order(s) or other order(s) by the Court that relate, in whole or in part, to the Rule 19 Subject Properties.
May 10, 2023: Consent Decree between DOJ and The Views at Pine Valley. The Views at Pine Valley agreed to pay $40,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against. They also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to undertake retrofits for their buildings at Cedar Views no later than twenty-four months after the date of entry of the Order. All plans for the retrofit were to be provided to the DOJ for comment and approval. The decree would end either after three years or six months passed after the retrofits were done. Reporting obligations would end twelve months after the retrofits were done.
May 18, 2023: Consent Decree between DOJ and One Newton Properties.The One Newtown Properties agreed to pay $40,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against. They also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to undertake retrofits for their buildings no later than twenty-four months after the date of entry of the Order. All plans for the retrofit were to be provided to the DOJ for comment and approval. The decree would end either after six months passed after the retrofits were done or at the conclusion of litigation by consent order or court order. Reporting obligations would end twelve months after the retrofits were done.
June 5, 2023: Consent Decree between DOJ and HCRI Pennsylvania Properties. HCRI Pennslyvania agreed to pay $40,000 in damages to those who had been discriminated against. They also agreed to a general injunction against discriminating in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ADA. They additionally agreed to undertake retrofits for their buildings no later than twenty-four months after the date of entry of the Order. All plans for the retrofit were to be provided to the DOJ for comment and approval. The decree would end either six months after the retrofits were done or at the end of litigation, whichever date was earlier. Reporting obligations would end twelve months after the retrofits were done.
November 2, 2023: Consent Decrees between DOJ and Westrum Hanover and the DOJ and One Boyertown, and J. Randolph Parry Architects. Each of the consent orders requires the defendant to pay $15,000 into a settlement fund to compensate individuals harmed by the inaccessible housing. Each of the consent orders also includes a general injunction prohibiting the defendant from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability in violation of the FHA and ADA.
As of August 30, 2024, the DOJ continued to file status reports with the court.
Summary Authors
Micah Pollens-Dempsey (10/30/2022)
Laura Greer (10/2/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18736983/parties/united-states-v-one-boyertown-properties-lp/
ALLEN, JULIE JACKSON (Pennsylvania)
ANDERSON, JUSTIN B. (Pennsylvania)
BRIGHT, JEFFREY CHARLES (Pennsylvania)
CABRERA, ORLANDO J. (Pennsylvania)
CAPASSO, ANTHONY D. (Pennsylvania)
ANDERSON, JUSTIN B. (Pennsylvania)
BRIGHT, JEFFREY CHARLES (Pennsylvania)
CABRERA, ORLANDO J. (Pennsylvania)
CAPASSO, ANTHONY D. (Pennsylvania)
DEFEO, MARISA RACHEL (Pennsylvania)
DONNELLY, FRANCIS X. (Pennsylvania)
Downs, Alexander (Pennsylvania)
Farsiou, Steven (Pennsylvania)
FORREST, R. BRANT (Pennsylvania)
FUGA, ANDREW J. (Pennsylvania)
Gallagher, Robert (Pennsylvania)
INGERSON-MAHAR, FREDERICK T. (Pennsylvania)
JR., RAYMOND R. (Pennsylvania)
JR., STEPHEN J. (Pennsylvania)
Kats, Samantha B (Pennsylvania)
KELLEHER, JOSEPH THOMAS (Pennsylvania)
KELLEY, GREGORY J. (Pennsylvania)
KIMBALL, GLEN D. (Pennsylvania)
LAMBERTON, ANDREW M. (Pennsylvania)
LANDIS, KATY S. (Pennsylvania)
MCCARTER, MICHAEL SLOAN (Pennsylvania)
MOFFITT, WILLIAM CHRISTIAN (Pennsylvania)
MORGENSTERN, JOHN PHILIP (Pennsylvania)
NORONHA, RAJESH CHARLES (Pennsylvania)
PALLADINO, JOHN F. (Pennsylvania)
Papay, Jacob A. (Pennsylvania)
PLAIA, DEBORAH A. (Pennsylvania)
POLTROCK, LEIGH ANN (Pennsylvania)
Saltsman, Sara Katherine (Pennsylvania)
Sweeney, Michael T (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18736983/united-states-v-one-boyertown-properties-lp/
Last updated May 8, 2025, 12:51 a.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Public Accommodations/Contracting
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 11, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C. (Riverton, New Jersey), Private Entity/Person
Westrum Hanover, L.P. (Blue Bell, Montgomery), Private Entity/Person
AMC Delancey Traditions of Hershey Partners, LP (Philadelphia, Philadelphia), Private Entity/Person
One Boyertown Properties LP (Doylestown, Bucks), Private Entity/Person
HCRI Pennsylvania Properties, Inc. (Harrisburg, Dauphin), Private Entity/Person
The Views at Pine Valley I, LP (Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery), Private Entity/Person
One Newtown Properties, L.P. (Blue Bell, Montgomery), Private Entity/Person
LifeQuest Nursing Center (Quakertown, Bucks), Private Entity/Person
GAHC3 Bethlehem PA ILF, LLC, Private Entity/Person
GAHC3 Boyertown PA ALF, LLC, Private Entity/Person
GAHC3 Palmyra PA ALF, LLC, Private Entity/Person
Care HSL Harleysville PropCo. LP, Private Entity/Person
HSL Newtown Propco LP, Private Entity/Person
1180 Ben Franklin Way LLC, Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Provide antidiscrimination training
Amount Defendant Pays: $623,000
Order Duration: 2021 - 2026
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis: