FOLLOW US

🚨 What You Need to Know

🔗 💰 HUD Dollars Still Flow to Abusive Landlords
Landlords charged with crimes and accused of civil rights violations against their tenants remain active participants in Section 8 housing programs with little to no federal oversight.

🔗 ⚖️ New California Case Reveals ‘Constructive Eviction’ Scheme
California Civil Rights Department (CRD) alleges a San Bernardino landlord rejected a lawful housing voucher, demanded $500 more in rent, and forced a tenant to move—an alleged violation of multiple civil rights statutes.

🔗 🛡 Calls for DOJ’s ‘Project Safe Neighborhoods’ to Target Violent Landlords
While pitched as a tool to combat community violence, the DOJ’s initiative must focus on protecting tenants from violent or criminal landlords who also receive federal housing subsidies from HUD.

By Samuel A. Lopez – USA Herald

SAN BERNADINO, CA - A recently filed lawsuit by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) targets a property management group in Upland, California, for allegedly engaging in blatant source-of-income discrimination and orchestrating a constructive eviction scheme designed to force out a tenant who lawfully qualified for Section 8 benefits.

Filed under Case No. CIVRS2400908 in San Bernardino County Superior Court, the suit pits the state against Pierce Projects Inc., its president Betty Jo Garrison, and two housing trusts: the Garrison Family Trust and the Theresa Aileen Cortez Living Trust, all of whom are accused of discrimination and civil rights violations under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint:

“Defendants’ refusal to accept Ms. Jefferson’s Section 8 Voucher caused her to move out of the Subject Property in order to keep her voucher... She currently pays about $500 more in rent than she would have had Defendants accepted her Section 8 Voucher...” (Complaint ¶ 25)

A closer look reveals that this is more than a housing dispute—it's a test case for how California enforces civil rights in subsidized housing.

The most critical aspect of this case is the constructive eviction strategy deployed by the defendants. CRD alleges that by refusing the voucher and simultaneously raising the rent from $1,400 to $2,000, the landlord created economic conditions that forced Jefferson out.

This aligns with legal precedent holding that constructive eviction occurs when a landlord's actions make the premises uninhabitable or unaffordable, forcing the tenant to vacate. See Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc. (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 611, 614–15.

The CRD argues that:

“Ms. Jefferson would be responsible for the full rent moving forward… On September 15, 2022, Defendant Garrison sent an email to Ms. Jefferson stating, ‘No need to send any more paperwork on this since we have decided NOT to accept the Housing Authority’s offer.’” (Complaint ¶¶ 20–21)

This refusal, despite clear legal obligations, is at the heart of the state’s case.

The CRD brings five causes of action, including:

• Gov. Code § 12955(a) – Discrimination based on source of income
• Gov. Code § 12955(c) – Discriminatory statements regarding source of income
• Gov. Code § 12955(k) – Denial or unavailability of housing based on income
• Civ. Code § 51 (Unruh Act) – Denial of full and equal accommodations in a business establishment

The lawsuit asserts that rejecting Jefferson’s voucher after she separated from her husband—and after she provided notice of her rights—constitutes a direct violation of California law amended under SB 329:

“[S]ource of income” includes “federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.” (Gov. Code § 12955(p))

Quotes that Expose Intent

• “We have decided NOT to participate in this program.” – Defendant Garrison’s handwritten note on Jefferson’s door (Complaint ¶ 24)
• “No need to send any more paperwork…” – Email rejecting voucher use (Complaint ¶ 21)

These communications go beyond policy—they could be viewed as evidence of intent to discriminate, forming the factual basis for punitive damages under both FEHA and the Unruh Act.

Why DOJ’s ‘Project Safe Neighborhoods’ Should Be Involved In Protecting Tenants From Abusive Landlords

The Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative was redesigned in 2021 to reduce violent crime through community engagement and focused enforcement. According to the DOJ:

“PSN focuses on strategic priorities that prevent violence from occurring in the first place.”

And yet, violent landlords committing felony-level assaults, harassment, and theft remain active in HUD housing programs across the country.

These are not just civil matters. In many cases, including ones I have personally investigated, landlords have been arrested and charged with violent felonies committed against their tenants, yet continue to receive federally subsidized housing payments, even while incarcerated or awaiting trial.

There is no national system of enforcement, no blacklist, no real-time consequence for those who exploit HUD-funded housing programs.

A Nationwide Epidemic of Landlord Abuse

The Jefferson lawsuit echoes themes I’ve documented in prior investigative reports:

• 🧱 Landlord Violence Epidemic Surges Nationwide
• 💼 CA Landlord Charged With Harassment and Fraud
• 🔍 Sacramento Slumlord Case Highlights Systemic Gaps
• 🩸 The Lethal Landlord on Netflix by Jackie Allen

Each of these stories reveals a glaring truth: Landlord abuse and violence is not isolated—it’s systemic.

In the case of Civil Rights Dept. v. Pierce Projects Inc., et al., a jury trial has been demanded, and the case awaits assignment of a judge or judicial officer to preside over the matter. But more than money, this case could finally serve as a catalyst for real federal enforcement mechanisms targeting HUD landlords who harm the very people they are paid to house.

📚 Sources and Legal Citations

• Civil Rights Dept. v. Pierce Projects Inc., Case No. CIVRS2400908 (San Bernardino Sup. Ct., filed Sept. 13, 2024)
• SB 329, California Legislature, enacted Oct. 8, 2019

• Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc.(1963) 221 Cal.App.2d
• Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald