Homeless Shelter Sued for Enforcing Strict Conduct Policy
In 1995, legal services lawyers ruined a Spokane homeless shelter after
they won a lawsuit charging that the shelter's “tough love” policy violated
tenants’ civil rights. The shelter, developed by a joint public-private
partnership, offered tenants clean, renovated day rooms, kitchens, cable
TVs and free bedding in exchange for which tenants agreed to not use drugs
or alcohol, carry firearms or bring in prostitutes. In addition, they had
to submit to mandatory urinalysis, room inspections and attend substance
abuse counseling. Any tenant who violated the rules was immediately evicted.
However, Spokane Legal Services immediately sued the quick eviction policy.
They charged that the shelter had to conform to federal due process guarantees
and state landlord-tenant laws in evicting tenants. This requires a cumbersome
process of hearings and notices whose practical effect is to draw out evictions
indefinitely, making it impossible for the shelter to punish troublemakers.
The shelter’s management argued that the tenants need tough rules to get
their lives back together because the large majority are alcoholics or
drug addicts. Nevertheless, legal services succeeded in stopping HUD from
subsidizing the tenants’ rent, forcing the shelter to abandon the rules.
As a result, the shelter is now dilapidated and most of the tenants who
had moved there to turn their lives around have left.
See “Tough Love vs. Civil Rights,” Los Angeles Times, July 3
1995, pg. A1
Legal Services Sues Salvation Army
In 1992, MFY Legal Services sued the Salvation Army for trying to evict
individuals from one of its charitable facilities. The Salvation Army’s
“Ten Eyck-Troughton Memorial Residence” in Manhattan, provided women of
low to moderate income lodging, meals and other services for modest rents.
When the charity moved to evict some residents for not paying rent, MFY
Legal Services sought to stop the action by challenging its legal status
as a charity. In New York City, charities are not required to go through
the onerous eviction procedures that private landlords must follow. The
Salvation Army’s Eyck-Troughton residence was exempted from these rent
laws because it was operated “exclusively for charitable purposes on a
non-profit basis.” However, in its suit legal services argued that the
religious mission of the Salvation Army disqualified the residence from
being defined as a charity. According to legal services, because religious
activities took place on its premises, then the residence could not be
classified as a facility “exclusively” devoted to charity. A state appeals
court rejected the argument observing that the religious activities in
question were strictly voluntary and that the residence was open to all
women on a nonsectarian basis.
See Salvation Army v. Cruz, 615 N.Y.S. 2d 805, 1994
Long Island Charity Sued for Expelling Disruptive Resident
In 1992, Nassau-Suffolk Law Services Committee sued a private charity
for expelling a disruptive tenant. In January 1992, Barbara Torres and
her two children were admitted into the Haven House Shelter, an emergency
facility operated by the Huntington Coalition for the Homeless. As a condition
for staying in Haven House, Torres had to abide by the shelter’s rules
and attend rehabilitation programs. However, she refused to attend rehabilation.
In addition to breaking many rules, including allowing her boyfriend to
visit at all hours of the night, she failed to take proper care of her
children. She even refused to treat them for head lice. Nassau-Suffolk
lawyers argued that Haven House could not evict her without going through
lengthy eviction proceedings. A state judge rejected the argument ruling
that to require charities to go to court each time they want to evict somebody
“would clog their operation...and greatly disserve the other residents
who are trying to turn their lives around.”
See Edward Adams, “Judge Supports Shelter’s Removal,” New York
Law Journal, August 26, 1992, pg. 1
Federal Judge Sanctions Legal Services Lawyer for Unethical Tactics
In 1992, a federal judge formally sanctioned a lawyer with Delaware
County Legal Assistance (DCLA) for using unethical legal tactics in delaying
the eviction of problem tenants from non-profit housing. For more than
two years, DCLA repeatedly prevented Flower Manor, a private non-profit
group dedicated to providing low-income housing, from evicting tenants
who refused to pay rent. Flower Manor complained that “it is unfair for
an attorney who is paid with federal funds to intentionally delay and manipulate
in order to force” them to cave in to his unreasonable demands. Federal
Judge Ronald Buckwalter agreed and sanctioned DCLA for needlessly increasing
the cost of litigation.
See Cottman v. Flower Manor, Civil Action No. 91-4890 (US Dist.
Ct.) 1992
Legal Services Sues Private Charity for Homeless
In 1992, Westchester Legal Services (WLS) of New York sued a private
charity for expelling a man who refused to follow the charity’s rules.
Helping Out People Everywhere (HOPE) is a non-profit agency that provides
for people with special needs. In 1991, HOPE admitted David Deich, an HIV-positive
homeless man, into its program. He was provided a bedroom and required
to follow the rules of the counseling program. However,
Deich refused to abide by the “no overnight visitor” policy. HOPE then
moved to expel him at which point WLS filed suit claiming he had a constitutional
right to stay in the shelter. A state court rejected legal services’
argument.
See Helping Out People Everywhere v. Deich, 155 2d 707 (NY City
Ct.) 1992