Condo Accused of Religious Ban Offers Revised Policy
The Port Charlotte condominium wants to change the wording of a policy that previously banned prayer and religious meetings.
April 05, 2018 at 03:53 PM
4 minute read
A condominium association accused of Fair Housing Act violations after prohibiting prayer and religious meetings in common areas wants to change course.
Cambridge House instead wants to prohibit daily, weekly and monthly gatherings for support and special interest groups, clubs, therapy sessions and seminars if the meetings include outsiders and don't have a written condo board approval, according to a proposed resolution.
The issue at the Port Charlotte community was sparked by a conflict between a pair of unit owners and other residents.
Donna Dunbar is a lay minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who led two-hour women's Bible study groups on Monday mornings in the condo's social room with about 10 women, including nonresidents, according to a discrimination complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
A HUD investigator assigned to the complaint emailed Dunbar's legal team April 4.
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Adam Foslid in Miami and First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based legal organization that works on religious freedom cases, filed the complaint March 6 and amended it March 28 to address the proposed condo resolution. A vote is tentatively set for Monday.
The change would delete all explicit references to religion and prayer. But Foslid said the revised policy is just a less direct method of discriminating against Dunbar and her Bible study group and still violates the Fair Housing Act.
“It's very clear what's going on here,” he said. “The events leading up to this proposed resolution are obviously instructive as to the motivation underlying the amended resolution.”
The complaint is against the Cambridge House of Port Charlotte — a Condominium Inc. and its management company, The Gateway Group Inc.
The initial resolution passed Feb. 6, and Gateway voided it March 13, according to First Liberty fellow Lea Patterson. But she said no written notice of a retraction was issued.
The resolution violated state law because the meeting on adoption wasn't properly noticed, the complaint said. The issue wasn't on the meeting agenda, and residents weren't notified it would come up for a vote, according to the complaint.
The Cambridge House and Gateway didn't return requests for comment by deadline.
The conflict with Dunbar and her husband, Clarence Dunbar, started last year.
The association's insurance agent said at a January 2017 board meeting that common rooms can't be used by nonresidents without proof of insurance from the meeting sponsor, according to a letter from the condo board to the Dunbars.
The June 1, 2017, letter from condo board president Joe Pruitt laid out some of the background on the policy. It stated a notice was posted to say the Bible study meeting wasn't approved and the notice disappeared.
“We also pointed out that the rooms' purpose was for residents' use and not that of other organizations. The notice that the activity was not approved was removed without authority,” Pruitt wrote. “We do not appreciate this type of action.”
Others who use the social room have nonresidents present but weren't required to obtain insurance for their meetings, according to the HUD complaint.
The Dunbars responded with a June 7, 2017, letter saying they purchased insurance for the meetings, but the Bible study group isn't an organization, and they only saw the posted notice after it was taken down.
“We are no different than the other groups that meet here,” the Dunbars wrote. “There is also card night that meets three times a week with friends from the house and outside. The whole square is set up this way, the tennis courts has two people from our condo and six people from outside of our complex that play there.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250