Hello. I've been leaving messages here over the last year about the landlord's discrimination against my epilepsy. On May 18, 2010, I filed a claim in the Division On Civil rights in NJ.
Friday, the letter came in with the decision of "No Probable Cause" and I'm so saddened by this.
So, I have 45 days to file an appeal with the court if I disagree with the findings. Of course, I do. At the least, it should have been a finding of some probable cause: I have the letter, as does the Division, that my lease wasn't being renewed because of my seizure disorder. How can that not be discriminatory?
An attorney back then told me of how it was and how the Housing Authority was complicit and stated the laws explaining so. How is the Division able to disagree?
Not everything in their explanation is accurate. They speak of, concerning repairs, that they "were made and a successful re-inspection was conducted in April 2010". The leaks in the roof were fixed but the painting and cracks were not. A health inspector was at the place last January because the leaks were continuing. He said, while the landlord was even here, that "We're going to have the roof fixed and some painting done in here." The roof was repaired and leaks stopped in late February. No painting or fixing of the wall damage caused by the leaks was done. I contact the Board of Health again on the tenth of this month and the landlord still hasn't returned though he told me he would.
Also wrong in the Division's response "Information obtained during the investigation was shared with Complainant. Complainant was offered the opportunity to rebut this information, but did not provide any additional relevant evidence or information which refuted Respondent's postion." It says that "In a letter to the investigator, Mr. *****, the Respondent, explained many of the apartments had leaks during that time because of the heavy precipitation." I never received or knew of such a letter and it wasn't 'shared with' me.
"The evidence reviewed throughout the course of the investigation failed to demonstrate the Complainant was discriminated against because of his disability. Instead, the evidence reflected a Respondent who was not unwilling to rent to Complainant but had concerns relating to Complainant's disability and its impact on other tenants and bulding maintenance. The evidence demonstrated that Complainant suffered no harm as his lease was renewed and the repairs were made to his unit despit the concerns of the landlord."
The Respondent was unwilling to rent because of the condition and tried to remove me. I stayed because the attorney back then told me I didn't have to leave, my rights were being violated, and the reasons for not renewing the lease were unacceptable.
I was harmed because of the actions taken. There is a "reasonable suspicion the Law Against Discrimination has been violated". I don't want to just give up; this still is not right.
Why did the Division even want to include the Housing Authority in the complaint? Originally, it was just me against the management and the Housing Authority was included in December. In fact, they had offered me $150 to end this. I didn't accept it, as I was told by others that it was an insult. If I did accept it, it still wouldn't have had any effect on the terrible management practices.
I plan to continue with this fight, as it wasn't right for me and I don't want anybody else to be in the same situation. I want to hear what anybody else thinks about this. See other posts of mine for more information.
- Brian
No comments:
Post a Comment