🚨 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:
