Clover - Initial Complaint As Filed by CNY Fair Housing On March 30. 2021

Case 5:00-at-99999 Document 131 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SYRACUSE DIVISION
CNY FAIR HOUSING, INC.; THE FAIR HOUSING

PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER PITTSBURGH, INC.;
HOUSING RESEARCH & ADVOCACY CENTER,
INC., d/b/a FAIR HOUSING CENTER FOR RIGHTS &
RESEARCH, INC.; HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
MADE EQUAL OF BUFFALO, INC.; HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES MADE EQUAL OF GREATER
CINCINNATI, INC.; PHYLLIS BARTOSZEWSKI;
LOIS HARTER; and DEANNA TOWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civ. Case No.________________
CLOVER GROUP INC.; CLOVER GROUP NEW
YORK LLC; WELLTOWER INC.; WELLCLOVER COMPLAINT
HOLDINGS LLC; CLOVER MANAGEMENT, INC.;
CLOVER COMMUNITIES LORAIN LLC; CLOVER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMMUNITIES OLMSTEAD FALLS LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES HAMILTON LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES BETHEL PARK LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES NORTH FAYETTE LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES SCRANTON, LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES HARBORCREEK, L.P.; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES TAYLOR LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES CAMILLUS LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES SALINA LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES NEW HARTFORD, LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES CLAY LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES JOHNSON CITY, LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES SOUTHWESTERN LLC; CLOVER
COMMUNITIES SWEETHOME, LLC;
LACKAWANNA SENIOR HOUSING LP,
Defendants.
1
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs CNY Fair Housing, Inc.; The Fair Housing Partnership of Greater
Pittsburgh, Inc.; Housing Research & Advocacy Center, Inc., d/b/a Fair Housing Center for
Rights & Research, Inc.; Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Buffalo, Inc.; Housing
Opportunities Made Equal of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. (collectively “Organizational Plaintiffs”);
and Phyllis Bartoszewski; Lois Harter; and Deanna Towne, (collectively “Individual Plaintiffs”)
bring this action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against Clover Group Inc. and
Clover Group New York LLC, and their successor owners Welltower Inc. and WellClover
Holdings LLC, and their management and construction entities, Clover Management, Inc., and
other related entities (collectively, “Defendants” or “Clover Group”) that own and operate multi-
family rental housing complexes in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for discrimination on the
basis of disability in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C.§ 3601, et seq.,
and the fair housing laws of the states of New York and Ohio.
2. Defendants have denied Individual Plaintiffs and other people with disabilities
reserved or designated parking spaces near the rental units owned and operated by Clover entities
(“Clover properties” or “Clover senior properties”). Defendants’ representatives routinely tell
residents and applicants that the company does not provide designated parking spots at their
multi-family, senior living complexes for anyone, including people with disabilities.
Alternatively, and contemporaneously, Defendants have told residents who have requested a
designated parking space as a reasonable accommodation because of their disabilities that they
must pay a fee up to $350.00 for a designated space.
2
3. Defendants’ policies of refusing disability-related requests for designated parking
spaces – either regular parking spaces or accessible parking spaces 1 – or conditioning approval of
such requests on the payment of a significant fee are applied at all Clover senior properties.
4. The designated parking policies have an outsized effect at Defendants’ senior
living properties where many residents have mobility disabilities that significantly affect their
ability to walk from their cars to their units or require the use of mobility assistance devices such
as walkers, canes, and wheelchairs that can only be effectively used in the limited number of
accessible spaces at the complexes. Many of the individuals living at or applying to live at
Defendants’ senior properties have limited, fixed incomes and cannot afford the fees charged by
Defendants for the designated spaces they desperately need.
5. Defendants also discriminate against people with disabilities by adding a $15.00-
$25.00 monthly surcharge for units required by many residents with disabilities: units with
accessible features such as grab bars, units on the ground floor, and units near elevators.
Residents of Defendants’ properties often cannot afford the higher price of the unit they need to
accommodate their disabilities and are forced to live in a unit that does not meet their needs.
Defendants refuse to make any exceptions to the higher rental charge as a reasonable
accommodation for people with disabilities, stating that the amenity pricing fees cannot be
waived. Waiving the monthly rental surcharge for the units would not cause a financial or
administrative hardship for Defendants.
1
An accessible parking space is at least 96 inches feet wide, has a striped access aisle that is at
least 60 inches feet wide and a curb ramp at the access aisle and is particularly needed by persons
who use walkers, canes or wheelchairs. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Fair Housing Act Design Manual (last revised April 1998), 2.20-2.22.
3
6. Defendants’ policies contravene fair housing laws and are directly contrary to
Defendants’ marketing statement that it seeks to ensure that seniors “have affordable living
options that provide unmatched safety and opportunities for fulfillment.” Clover Group Inc.,
About, accessed Mar. 25, 2021, https://clovergroupinc.com/about-clover-group-55-apartments-
active-living-senior-apartments-more/. Instead, Defendants’ practices have harsh consequences
for seniors who have routinely been denied the full use and enjoyment of their homes and have
created less accessible housing conditions that undermine their independence and wellbeing.
7. Residents of one of Defendants’ properties complained to Plaintiff CNY Fair
Housing about Defendants’ designated parking and rental surcharge policies. In response, CNY
Fair Housing and the other Organizational Plaintiffs investigated Defendants’ policies and
practices through testing at various Defendant-owned properties in three different states. The
investigations confirmed the company-wide policies and practices which have both the purpose
and effect of discriminating against people with disabilities.
8. Defendants’ long-standing and continuing practices and policies as described
herein discriminate against people with disabilities in violation of the relevant federal and state
fair housing laws: the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.; N.Y. Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law
§ 290, et seq.; the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H), et seq.; and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 42 P.S. §§ 951, et seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,
1367, and 2201; and 42 U.S.C. § 3613. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4
10. Venue is proper in this District and Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this
District and Division.
PARTIES AND PROPERTIES
11. Plaintiff CNY Fair Housing (“CNY Fair Housing”) is a private, non-profit
corporation organized under the laws of New York and registered to do business in New York.
Its principal place of business is Syracuse, New York. CNY Fair Housing’s mission is to ensure
fair housing opportunity for all people in Central and Northern New York. Through education,
research, advocacy, and enforcement, CNY Fair Housing works to eliminate housing
discrimination and promote open communities. One of CNY Fair Housing’s goals is to combat
discrimination based on disability and to enable individuals to select and live successfully in
their housing of choice without fear of discrimination because of their disabilities.
12. Plaintiff The Fair Housing Partnership of Greater Pittsburgh, Inc. (“Fair Housing
Partnership”), founded in 1984, is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of
Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Fair Housing
Partnership is dedicated to creating and preserving equal housing choice in southwestern
Pennsylvania through education and advocacy, fair housing analysis, enforcement actions,
outreach, training, and community organizing.
13. Plaintiff Housing Research & Advocacy Center, Inc., d/b/a the Fair Housing
Center for Rights & Research, Inc., (“Fair Housing Center”), founded in 1983, is a nonprofit fair
housing and civil rights organization with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. Fair
Housing Center’s mission is to protect and expand fair housing rights, eliminate housing
discrimination, and promote integrated communities. Through research, educational programs,
5
public policy, and enforcement activities, the Fair Housing Center seeks to ensure that all
residents are guaranteed equal access to housing without discrimination, including discrimination
based on disability.
14. Plaintiff Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Buffalo, Inc. (“HOME of
Buffalo”) was founded in 1963 and is a nonprofit fair housing organization with its principal
place of business in Buffalo, New York. It provides fair housing enforcement and education as
well as housing and mobility counseling to increase access to housing opportunities in the area.
The organization’s mission is to promote the value of diversity and ensure all people have an
equal opportunity to live in the housing and communities of their choice. Through education,
advocacy, and enforcement of fair housing laws, HOME of Buffalo seeks to ensure that everyone
can have their voices heard on their housing issues; have their rights defended and safeguarded;
and have their concerns genuinely considered when decisions are being made about their lives
and housing.
15. Plaintiff Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. (“HOME
of Cincinnati”), founded in 1968 and doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a non-profit
organization that provides fair housing education and enforcement throughout the Cincinnati
region. The organization’s mission is based on the belief that housing is the hub of opportunity
and the gateway to a better life. HOME of Cincinnati’s board, staff and stakeholders promote a
commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equitable outcomes in housing through enforcement and
education.
16. Plaintiff Phyllis Bartoszewski is a resident of Camillus Pointe Senior Apartments
at 3877 Milton Avenue, Camillus, NY 13031. Ms. Bartoszewski is 77 years old and has
disabilities that limit her mobility, including rheumatoid arthritis, stenosis of the spine, and
6
pleurisy. Her disabilities affect her ability to breathe, and she can only walk a few feet without
assistance. Ms. Bartoszewski uses a cane for mobility assistance.
17. Plaintiff Lois Harter is also a resident of Camillus Pointe Senior Apartments in
Camillus, New York. She is 75 years old. Ms. Harter has had fibromyalgia and arthritis since her
late forties, as well as neuropathy in her feet. She also has had two knee replacements. As a
result of these conditions, she has disabilities that affect her mobility and balance. Ms. Harter
cannot walk without the assistance of a walker and struggles to walk long distances.
18. Plaintiff Deanna Town is another resident of Camillus Pointe Senior Apartments.
She is 74 years old. Ms. Town has disabilities that significantly limit her mobility and affect her
balance, and she uses a wheeled walker as a mobility aid everywhere she goes. Ms. Town cannot
physically get around without her mobility aid.
20. Defendant Clover Group Inc. is a for-profit corporation based in Williamsville,
New York that owns and manages at least 40 multi-family residential properties targeted at
seniors over the age of 55. Clover Group Inc. owns and operates properties in New York,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri, including the senior properties at issue in
this matter.
21. Defendant Clover Group New York LLC is incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York and its principal place of business is 654 Madison Avenue #1209, New York,
NY.
22. Defendant Welltower Inc. is a Real Estate Investment Trust that acquired Clover
Group in July 2019. It is a publicly traded entity (NYSE: WELL) based in Toledo, Ohio with
near-term liquidity of approximately $5.0 billion as of December 31, 2020. The Company invests
with leading senior housing operators, post-acute providers, and health systems to fund real
7
estate infrastructure. Welltower owns interests in properties concentrated in major, high-growth
markets in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, consisting of senior housing,
post-acute communities and outpatient medical properties. Welltower, Inc., owns and controls
entities that own the senior properties at issue in this matter.
23. Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC is incorporated under the laws of the State
of Delaware and its principal place of business is 348 Harris Hill Road, Williamsville NY.
WellClover Holdings LLC owns and operates many of the properties in this matter.
24. Defendant Clover Management, Inc. is a real estate development and management
company that manages over 6000 rental units including all of the senior properties at issue in this
matter. It is incorporated in the state of Delaware and its principal place of business is
Williamsville, New York.
25. Lorain Pointe Senior Apartments are located in Lorain, Ohio. They are owned and
operated by Defendant Clover Communities Lorain LLC, which is organized under the laws of
the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
26. Southpark Square Senior Apartments are located in Strongsville, Ohio. They are
owned and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.
27. Parma Village Senior Apartments are located in Parma, Ohio. They are owned
and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.
28. Olmsted Falls Senior Apartments are located in Olmsted Falls, Ohio. They are
owned and operated by Defendant Clover Communities Olmsted Falls LLC, which is organized
under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New
York.
8
29. Eden Park Senior Apartments are located in Hamilton, Ohio. They are owned and
operated by Defendant Clover Communities Hamilton LLC, which is incorporated in the State of
Ohio and has its principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio.
30. Fairfield Village Senior Apartments are located in Fairfield, Ohio. They are
owned and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.
31. Ivy Pointe Senior Apartments are located in Cincinnati, Ohio. They are owned
and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.
32. Bethel Square Senior Apartments are located in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. They
are owned by Defendant Clover Communities Bethel Park LLC, which is organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware.
33. Lafayette Square Senior Apartments are located in Oakdale, Pennsylvania. They
are owned by Defendant Clover Communities North Fayette LLC, which is organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
34. Green Ridge Senior Apartments are located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Scranton, LLC, which is organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
35. Harborcreek Senior Apartments are located in Erie, Pennsylvania. They are
owned and operated by Defendant Clover Communities Harborcreek, L.P., which is organized
under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania and has its principal place of business in
36. Oak Hill Senior Apartments are located in Taylor, Pennsylvania. They are owned
and operated by Defendant Clover Communities Taylor LLC, which is incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
9
37. Camillus Point Senior Apartments are located in Camillus, New York. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Camillus LLC, which is organized under the laws of
the state of New York, with its principal place of business in Erie County, New York.
38. Buckley Square Senior Apartments are located in Syracuse, New York. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Salina LLC, which is incorporated in the state of New
York with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
39. New Hartford Square Senior Apartments are located in Whitesboro, New York.
They are owned by Defendant Clover Communities New Hartford, LLC, which is organized
under the laws of the state of New York.
40. Morgan Square Senior Apartments are located in Clay, New York. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Clay LLC, which has its principal place of business in
41. Reynolds Point Senior Apartments are located in Johnson City, New York. They
are owned by Defendant Clover Communities Johnson City, LLC, which is organized under the
laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business in Erie County, New York.
42. South Pointe Senior Apartments are located in Hamburg, New York. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Southwestern LLC, which is organized under the laws
of the state of New York with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
43. Sweethome Senior Apartments are located in Amherst, New York. They are
owned by Defendant Clover Communities Sweethome, LLC, which is organized under the laws
of the state of New York with its principal place of business in Erie County, New York.
10
44. Orchard Place Senior Apartments are located in Lackawanna, New York. They
are owned by Defendant Lackawanna Senior Housing LP, which is organized under the laws of
the state of New York with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.
45. In acting or omitting to act as alleged herein, each Defendant was acting through
its employees, officers, and/or agents and is liable on the basis of the acts and omissions of its
employees, officers, and/or agents.
46. In acting or omitting to act as alleged herein, each employee, officer, or agent of
each Defendant was acting in the course and scope of his or her actual or apparent authority
pursuant to such agencies, or the alleged acts or omissions of each employee or officer as agent
were subsequently ratified and adopted by one or more Defendants as principal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Clover Group Properties
47. The Clover Group companies, including their parent companies Welltower Inc.
and WellClover Holdings LLC, (collectively “Clover Group”) have purchased or developed over
6,500 apartment units in six states and currently manage approximately 6,000 units in large
apartment complexes. Many of those complexes are specifically designated for seniors over the
age of 55.
48. Clover Group properties generally have inadequate numbers of accessible parking
spaces to serve the needs of its residents and visitors at its senior living properties. As a
consequence, residents or visitors using mobility assistance devices frequently cannot find
parking that will accommodate them.
49. Clover Group maintains a first-come, first-served parking policy at all of its
senior living properties. Based on this policy, residents and applicants are informed that they
11
cannot have reserved or designated parking. Residents and applicants, therefore, cannot count on
having access to an accessible parking space, or to a parking space near their unit or the elevator
to their unit.
50. Most Clover Group apartment complexes are garden style and three stories in
height. This design leads the complexes to be spread out and units to be dispersed over a large
area. Available parking spaces can be hundreds of meters from the entrance or elevator to a
particular unit as illustrated in this view of Green Ridge Senior Apartments digitally captured
from Google Earth and screenshot on March 23, 2021.
51. In this U-shaped apartment complex, there are parking spaces along the inner and
outer perimeters of the U and there is a small island of parking spaces inside the U; however, the
only accessible parking spaces – digitally outlined in red – are at the very center of the U, near
the main entrance. There appear to be no accessible parking spaces at any other point along the
perimeter or in the additional parking island. Further, 90 of the 103 visible parking spaces (and 7
of the 8 accessible spaces) are occupied as of the time the photograph was taken. This scenario is
12
similar and, in some instances, almost identical to Clover Group properties where there are few
accessible spaces, where all accessible spaces are clustered in one area, and where the parking lot
is at or approaching capacity. There are no designated parking spaces visible at this property and
none are discernable from a similar review of the other Clover senior properties.
52. Residents and applicants who request a designated parking space as a reasonable
accommodation – regardless of whether they have asked for an accessible space or one reserved
near their unit – are informed that Clover Group does not grant requests for parking
accommodations. The explanations given for the policy are not legitimate reasons for denying an
accommodation under fair housing laws. At different times, Clover Group representatives have
asserted that they would not grant a reasonable accommodation request for a designated parking
space because:
 The complexes have too many residents with disabilities and there are not enough
spaces to provide designated parking to all of the residents with disabilities;
 The complexes have the requisite number of accessible spaces and therefore do
not need to provide additional designated or accessible parking to residents;
 The complexes would not submit parking accommodation requests to corporate
headquarters, because the requests would be denied; and
 The complexes are independent living communities that have no obligation to
provide designated parking.
53. The refusal to permit a designated parking space as a reasonable accommodation
for a person with a mobility disability is explicitly contrary to fair housing laws and the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) interpretation of the federal
13
Fair Housing Act. 24 CFR § 100.204(b) Example 2 (describing designated parking as a required
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities).
54. Occasionally, residents or applicants are told that a reasonable accommodation for
a designated parking space could be granted, but only upon payment of a $350.00 fee and/or the
provision of excessive and inappropriate medical documentation even where the disability and
need for the accommodation are obvious. 2
55. Clover Group also has a policy of adding a $15.00-$25.00 surcharge to the
monthly rental price for units on the first floor and for units on the second or third floor that are
near an elevator. People with mobility disabilities who can only walk short distances have a
disproportionate need for such units.
56. Clover Group’s first-floor and near-elevator pricing scheme is applied at its senior
living complexes and not at Clover Group’s family housing communities. The extra rental
payment for these needed units, which is often unaffordable for residents, is disproportionately
borne by people with disabilities.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ practices and policies regarding
accessible parking, up-charging for more accessible units, refusing and/or conditioning requests
for reasonable accommodations, and requiring unnecessary documentation for reasonable
2
Joint Statement of the HUD and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations
Under the Fair Housing Act (May 17, 2004) at 12-13,
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/huddojstatement.pdf (“If a person's disability
is obvious, or otherwise known to the provider, and if the need for the requested accommodation
is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any additional information
about the requester's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation.”); Id. at 13
(“An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment… asks her housing provider to assign her a
parking space near the entrance to the building…the provider may not require the applicant to
provide any additional information about her disability….”).
14
accommodation requests have been continuously maintained and remained unchanged since at
least 2018.
Clover Group’s New York Properties
58. The Individual Plaintiffs live in Camillus Point, one of Clover Group’s New York
senior living properties, located just outside of Syracuse. The Individual Plaintiffs, who each
have mobility disabilities, have all had their requests for reasonable accommodations denied by
Clover Group representatives and as a result, have experienced great physical difficulty traveling
to and from their apartment units, suffered physical injuries from falling, cancelled plans because
of fear of losing their parking space, relied on friends and family for transportation, and felt
imprisoned in their own apartments.
59. Phyllis Bartoszewski has lived at Camillus Pointe since early 2018. Ms.
Bartoszewski has a number of disabilities that limit her mobility, including rheumatoid arthritis,
stenosis of the spine, sciatica, and pleurisy. Ms. Bartoszewski has difficulty breathing and can
only walk seven to eight feet without assistance. She uses a cane for mobility assistance when
she is in her home, and a walker when she leaves her apartment. Ms. Bartoszewski has held a
DMV-issued disability parking placard since 2017. Ms. Bartoszewski’s disabilities are obvious
and apparent, and Ms. Bartoszewski has told representatives of Camillus Pointe staff about her
disabilities.
60. To be able to access her unit without significant difficulty, Ms. Bartoszewski
needs to park close to the main entrance of the building. She is only able to park in such a spot
less than half the time. When Ms. Bartoszewski must park further from the main entrance, it
takes her at least an additional ten minutes to get from her car to the apartment.
15
61. Within a week of moving to Camillus Pointe, Ms. Bartoszewski asked Tanya
Trice, the on-site manager at the time, for an assigned disability parking space because of her
disabilities. Ms. Trice told Ms. Bartoszewski that Camillus Pointe did not provide designated
parking because there were too many residents in the building with disabilities and not enough
spaces available to accommodate them.
62. In late 2018, CNY Fair Housing submitted a request on behalf of Ms.
Bartoszewski and the other Individual Plaintiffs for an assigned parking space as a reasonable
accommodation for their disabilities. Ms. Trice told multiple residents in writing that an assigned
parking space could only be provided for a $350.00 fee. Emily Brady, then- and current- Vice
President of Operations for Clover, confirmed that a fee would be required for a designated
parking space, that the location would be selected by management, that a written request had to
be provided, and that a doctor’s statement might be required.
63. Ms. Bartoszewski could not afford the $350.00 fee for the accommodation and
has not received a designated parking space. Given the difficulty of accessing her car when she
cannot secure a preferred spot close to the entrance, she has been forced to adjust her schedule to
accommodate for the trouble she experiences every time she wants to leave her apartment. Ms.
Bartoszewski has been late for appointments, skipped grocery shopping, relied more on her
children or the bus to get around, and chosen not to leave her apartment when she otherwise
would.
64. Without a designated space, Ms. Bartoszewski has experienced physical
difficulties from being forced to walk longer distances, which causes significant pain in her
chest, akin to that of a heart attack.
16
65. Prior to moving into Camillus Pointe, Ms. Bartoszewski had been on the waiting
list for almost a year at Camillus Pointe for an apartment on the first floor that could
accommodate her disabilities. After Ms. Bartoszewski moved in, she was informed for the first
time that her rent was $15.00 higher than similar units because the accessible unit was in a prime
location on the first floor close to the elevator and to the front door.
66. In July 2019, CNY Fair Housing sent a letter to Clover Group seeking, on behalf
of Ms. Bartoszewski and another tenant, Sally Clay, requesting that the rent surcharge for a unit
on the first floor be waived because it was being imposed for features of the apartment that were
necessary to accommodate Ms. Bartoszewski and Ms. Clay’s disabilities. Clover Group did not
change its policy and Ms. Bartoszewski continues to pay the rent surcharge.
67. Plaintiff Deanna Town has lived in a first-floor unit at Camillus Pointe since late
2016. Ms. Town has degenerative back problems and neuropathy in her legs that limit her
mobility and balance. At the time she moved into Camillus Pointe, she regularly used a cane as a
mobility aid and, since back surgery in 2017, she uses a bulky wheeled walker at all times. Ms.
Town has held a DMV-issued disability parking placard since the 1990s, but rarely uses it at
Camillus Pointe because the only accessible parking spaces are far from the entrance to her
apartment at the back of the building. Ms. Town’s disabilities are obvious and known by
Camillus Pointe staff.
68. To be able to access her unit without difficulty, Ms. Town needs to park in one of
the spaces outside her unit on the easternmost side of the building. She regularly cannot obtain
one of her preferred parking spaces.
17
69. When Ms. Town moved in, she was told by former Clover Operations Manager
for Clover Management Debbie Kucia that Camillus Pointe would not provide designated
parking.
70. In 2018, Ms. Town was included in CNY Fair Housing’s letter to Clover Group
requesting a designated parking space as a reasonable accommodation for her and others. Ms.
Town also received Ms. Brady’s response rejecting the request.
71. Because Camillus Pointe has never provided Ms. Town with a designated parking
space, she has both physically suffered and had to make changes in her personal life to adjust for
the lack of available usable parking.
72. In early 2020, Ms. Town fell in the parking lot while trying to step up onto the
sidewalk on the easternmost side of the building, where there are no curb cuts. She hit and
bruised both her face and arms and had to go to urgent care to be examined. Because of her back
surgeries, she was unable to get herself up, and had to wait for somebody to come to her aid.
73. The lack of designated parking has made Ms. Town reluctant to leave her
apartment. She visits her son less frequently, has missed social events, and has increasingly
relied on her son to drive her places more often than she otherwise would.
74. When Ms. Town moved in, a Clover employee told her that rent for units on the
first floor and for units close to the elevator was $25.00 a month higher than for other units.
Since Ms. Town needed and continues to need a unit on the first floor due to her disabilities, she
has paid and continues to pay a $25.00 monthly surcharge for her apartment.
75. Plaintiff Lois Harter has lived at Camillus Pointe since late 2016. Ms. Harter
suffers from fibromyalgia and arthritis as well as neuropathy in her feet. Ms. Harter has had two
knee replacements and, in 2019, Ms. Harter fell and broke her hip. Ms. Harter has limited
18
mobility, struggles with balance, uses a walker, and has difficulty walking any distance. Ms.
Harter has held a DMV-issued disability parking placard since the 1990s. Camillus Pointe
property managers are aware of Ms. Harter’s mobility disabilities.
76. In order to access her unit without difficulty, Ms. Harter needs a designated
accessible parking space immediately adjacent to the building’s main entrance. She is unable to
park in one of the accessible spaces at the entrance at least half of the time.
77. Around the time she moved in, Ms. Harter complained to Ms. Trice about the lack
of accessible and designated parking spaces. Ms. Trice told Ms. Harter that the property had the
requisite number of accessible parking spaces and did not engage with Ms. Harter any further on
the matter. Ms. Harter knew that no one in the complex had a designated parking space and
concluded that it would be futile to make an additional request on her own for a designated
parking space as a reasonable accommodation.
78. In 2018, Ms. Harter was included in the letter CNY Fair Housing sent to Clover
Group seeking designated parking spaces as a reasonable accommodation for several residents
with disabilities and was another subject of Ms. Brady’s response rejecting the request.
79. Subsequently, Ms. Harter asked Ms. Trice about the current status of the
provision of designated parking and was told by Ms. Trice that she was not allowed to discuss
the matter. Ms. Harter has not received a designated parking space.
80. In the absence of designated space near her unit, Ms. Harter purchased a
designated spot in the parking garage, at a rate of $150.00 per month. She purchased the space to
ensure she will have a parking space whenever she returns to the property.
81. Ms. Harter leaves her apartment significantly less often than she otherwise would
because of concerns about not finding close parking upon her return. She is afraid to leave the
19
complex on her own and has postponed and forgone trips for grocery shopping and other errands.
She asks others to pick her up and drive her places because she fears that she will fall in the
parking lot if she is forced to park in the garage spot or a farther distance away from the building.
She has asked her cousins to drive her to medical appointments and has hired someone to collect
and deliver her groceries.
82. Like the Individual Plaintiffs, many other Camillus Pointe residents with
disabilities have had requests for designated parking spaces denied. Other tenants with
disabilities also have been told that they must pay a rent surcharge for apartments on the first
floor and for apartments near the elevator, even when the location is necessary for the residents
because of their disabilities.
83. After receiving complaints from residents alleging disability discrimination by
Clover Group including the unjustified denial and conditioning of requests for reasonable
accommodations, Plaintiff CNY Fair Housing opened an investigation.
84. CNY Fair Housing, like the other Organizational Plaintiffs, used testers – persons
presenting as people with disabilities or representing people with disabilities – to request
information about renting an apartment and the availability of designated and reserved parking. 3
85. A tester sent by CNY Fair Housing contacted New Hartford Square, a Clover
apartment complex located in Whitesboro, New York, in late 2018. The tester stated that she was
looking for an apartment for her sister who was disabled and was told by the property manager,
Gail Randazzo, that there was a one-time fee of $350.00 for an accessible parking spot. The
3
Use of testers to gather information about availability and terms of housing has occurred for
many years, and since the Supreme Court ruled in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S.
383 (1982), courts have recognized and relied on such evidence to show violations of the Fair
Housing Act.
20
manager also told the tester that apartments located close to the elevator were an extra $15.00 per
month.
86. A CNY Fair Housing tester who contacted Morgan Square Senior Apartments, a
Clover property located in Clay, New York, in February 2019, was told by a Clover
representative that there was no option for a reserved parking space for someone with disabilities
and that parking was “first come, first served.” The representative also stated that there was an
additional fee of $25.00 per month for apartments on the first floor and those close to the
elevator.
87. A CNY Fair Housing tester who contacted Buckley Square Apartments, a Clover
property in North Syracuse, New York, in February 2019, was told that no parking could be
reserved for someone who was disabled. The Clover Group on-site representative stated that
there was no process for applying for a reserved parking space, because everyone who lived at
the property had mobility issues. The tester was also told that the rent would be an additional
$25.00 per month for the downstairs units.
88. A CNY Fair Housing tester who contacted Reynolds Pointe Senior Apartments, a
Clover property in Johnson City, New York, was told by the on-site agent that the accessible
spots were reserved only for people who used wheelchairs and that other persons with disabilities
could only park in regular parking spaces. The agent also stated that there would be an additional
fee of $25.00 per month for a unit on the first floor.
89. HOME of Buffalo had testers visit Clover Group properties in its service area.
The organization had a tester visit Orchard Place Senior Apartments, a Clover property located
in Lackawanna, New York. The tester, posing as a person looking for an apartment for a 74-
year-old woman with mobility issues, was shown a unit by property manager Cheryl McMahon
21
who told the tester that there were no reserved parking spaces. The manager further stated that
units on the first floor or near the elevator were considered to be premium apartments and had an
additional extra $10.00 monthly unit rent.
90. HOME of Buffalo sent a tester to Sweet Home Senior Apartments, a Clover
property located in Amherst, New York. The tester asked if her mother with mobility issues
could have an assigned accessible or “handicapped” parking space. The on-site Clover
representative stated that none of the parking spaces are assigned and that all parking spaces are
first come, first served. The tester was further told that all first-floor apartments had higher rents
because of their location.
91. HOME of Buffalo sent a tester to South Pointe Senior Apartments, a Clover
property in Hamburg, New York. The on-site agent told the tester that they did not assign
parking spaces and that first-floor units were an additional $25.00 per month. When the tester
asked if the $25.00 fee could be waived because of his mother in law’s disability, the agent
stated that there was no wiggle room to waive the fee.
Clover Group’s Pennsylvania Properties
92. The Fair Housing Partnership of Greater Pittsburgh had testers contact Clover
Group senior properties in the western Pennsylvania area. The organization had a tester contact
Bethel Square Senior Apartments, a Clover property. When the tester, who stated that she was
disabled, asked about an assigned parking space, she was told by the on-site Clover
representative that there were no assigned parking spaces “because if I gave one to one, then
everyone would want one.”
93. A second tester sent to Bethel Square asked about a first-floor unit because of her
disability and was told that first-floor units were $15.00 more per month than other apartments.
22
94. The Fair Housing Partnership had a tester visit Harbor Creek Senior Apartments,
a Clover property in Erie, Pennsylvania. The tester asked if she could have an assigned parking
space because of her disability. The on-site Clover representative stated that there were no
assigned spots for residents because “with the number of medical conditions and disabilities that
allow our residents to use these spots it would be difficult to reserve a specific spot for any one
person.”
95. Another tester who contacted Harbor Creek Senior Apartments was similarly told
that there were no assigned parking spots. The tester was also told that “handicap” units (units
with special features designed for use by people with physical disabilities) rented for $25.00
more per month than other units.
96. The Fair Housing Partnership also had a tester contact Lafayette Square Senior
Apartments, a Clover Group property located in Oakdale, Pennsylvania. When the tester asked
about an assigned parking space to accommodate a disability, the on-site representative stated
that parking spaces couldn’t be assigned “because it wouldn’t be fair to the other residents.”
97. In a subsequent test at Lafayette Square, the tester was told that parking is “first
come, first served.” The representative also stated that “units above the first floor rented for
$25.00 less a month than units on the first floor.”
98. The Fair Housing Partnership also had a tester contact Green Ridge Senior
Apartments, a Clover Group property in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The tester was told by the on-
site representative that first-floor units and units close to an elevator rented for $25.00 more a
month than other units.
99. The Fair Housing Partnership also had a tester contact Oak Hill Senior
Apartments, a Clover Group property located in Taylor, Pennsylvania. The tester was told that
23
units near the elevator or on the first floor rented for an additional $25.00 to $35.00 a month. A
subsequent tester received the same information.
Clover Group’s Ohio Properties
100. The Fair Housing Center sent testers to visit Lorain Pointe Senior Apartments, a
Clover property in Lorain, Ohio. The tester asked about a reserved parking space near the
entrance for her aunt with mobility impairments and was told by the on-site representative that
she could not have a reserved parking space. The tester asked, “even if she needs it because of
her limited mobility?”, and the Clover representative still refused the request. The tester was also
told that the property charged an additional $25.00 per month for first-floor units.
101. The Fair Housing Center also sent testers to Southpark Square Senior Apartments,
another Clover property, located in Strongsville, Ohio. The tester was told that first-floor units
were $15.00 more per month.
102. The Fair Housing Center also sent a tester to Parma Village Senior Apartments, a
Clover Group property located in Parma, Ohio. The tester was told that first-floor units were
$25.00 more per month.
103. HOME of Cincinnati had a tester contact Ivy Point Senior Apartments, a Clover
Group property located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The tester asked for accessible parking for her
mother who used a wheelchair and whether she could pay for a designated spot near the door to
the property. The on-site agent said that she could not. The tester was also told that there was a
$25.00 per month fee for apartments on the first floor.
104. HOME of Cincinnati sent a tester to Eden Park Senior Apartments, a Clover
Group property located in Hamilton, Ohio. The tester, who said she was looking for a unit for a
24
parent who used a walker, was told by the on-site representative that first-floor units cost an
additional $25.00 per month.
105. HOME of Cincinnati had a tester contact Fairfield Village Senior Apartments, a
Clover property in Fairfield, Ohio about an apartment for her mother, who used a walker. The
on-site Clover Group representative stated that they did not offer assigned accessible parking
spaces. The representative stated that the property had put in the minimum number of
“handicapped” parking spaces required. The representative also told the tester that units on the
first floor cost an additional $25.00 per month in rent.
106. Defendants’ actions as described herein were, and remain, intentional, willful and
knowing, and/or have been, and are, implemented with callous and reckless disregard for
Plaintiffs’ legal rights.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS
Individual Plaintiffs
107. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions as described
herein, the Individual Plaintiffs have suffered, continue to suffer, and will in the future suffer
irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to fear, humiliation, embarrassment,
emotional distress, loss of housing opportunities, restriction of their activities, and unlawful
deprivation of their federally protected rights.
herein, the Individual Plaintiffs have also suffered and will continue to suffer economic injuries
including payment of higher rents and out of pocket costs required to pay for alternative parking
and other forms transportation.
25
Organizational Plaintiffs
herein, the Organizational Plaintiffs have suffered, continue to suffer, and will in the future
suffer substantial, particularized, and concrete injuries.
110. Defendants’ unlawful conduct, policies, and practices have frustrated and
impaired the Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions and purposes, forced them to drain their
resources, and interfered with their ability to operate. Defendants’ conduct frustrated the
Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions by interfering with their mission-related activities, impairing
their ability to achieve their goals of ensuring equal access to housing opportunities, and harming
the communities they serve.
111. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct has thus forced the Organizational Plaintiffs
to engage in numerous activities to identify and counteract the Defendants’ unlawful conduct,
policies, and practices.
112. After receiving a complaint about Clover Group’s discriminatory practices, CNY
Fair Housing conducted an extensive investigation of disability-related issues at Clover Group
properties. For a period of more than three years, CNY Fair Housing has been investigating and
counteracting Clover Group’s unlawful discrimination. The investigation has included contacts
with residents and other clients, interviews, on-site visits, physical inspection of five Clover
Group communities, testing at five Clover Group communities, education and outreach, and
research. CNY Fair Housing also engaged in extensive discussions with Clover Group in an
effort to resolve and ameliorate the discriminatory policies, practices, and other conduct.
113. CNY Fair Housing also conducted extensive education and outreach in an effort
to counteract the harm caused by Defendants’ conduct. Among such efforts, CNY Fair Housing
26
has conducted eight presentations to human service providers working with individuals with
disabilities in the region, conducted one training for seniors on elder law and fair housing, and
produced a training video on reasonable accommodations and modifications. The presentations
included education on differential treatment, such as charging higher rents due to protected status
and reasonable accommodations and modifications including specific issues such as assigned
parking; excessive delays in making reasonable accommodations; and charging fees for
reasonable accommodations. These activities have required, and will continue to require, the
expenditure of considerable financial resources and staff time.
114. CNY Fair Housing’s diversion of time and other resources to address Defendants’
discriminatory conduct has forced CNY Fair Housing to suspend other projects that would have
helped to further its mission, including multiple training sessions for approximately two hundred
housing professionals on other forms of fair housing compliance.
115. CNY Fair Housing’s investigation and counteraction of Defendants’ conduct, its
diversion of resources, and the frustration of its mission continues and will continue until
Defendants’ discriminatory conduct ceases and the harms caused by Defendants’ actions are
remedied.
116. Upon being informed of possible disability-related discrimination at Clover
Group properties in February 2019, the Fair Housing Center began an investigation of Clover
Group communities in its service area.
117. The Fair Housing Center’s investigation included reasonable accommodation and
accessibility tests at four Clover Group properties in northern Ohio, evaluating and responding to
accommodation and modification requests from prospective tenants, and research related to the
27
properties. The Fair Housing Center has diverted more than 150 hours of staff time to investigate
and respond to Defendants’ discriminatory action.
118. The Fair Housing Center’s diversion of time and other resources to address
Defendants’ discriminatory conduct has forced it to delay its work or divert resources from
projects such as filming fair housing videos; conducting an analysis of impediments to fair
housing choice for Geauga County, Ohio; filing an application to partner with the Cuyahoga
Metropolitan Housing Authority on a Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Program in Cuyahoga
County; preparing reports to its funder, HUD; and coordinating its 2019 agency fundraiser which
ultimately did not take place due to lack of staff time to plan it.
119. The Fair Housing Center has expended, continues to expend, and will expend in
the future resources to counteract the effects of Defendants’ discrimination by educating
consumers with disabilities and seniors who may become disabled about their rights under the
Fair Housing Act to be free from discrimination, to seek and receive reasonable
accommodations, and to live in and enjoy accessible housing. The Fair Housing Center has
created and distributed a fact sheet regarding reasonable accommodations for reserved and/or
accessible parking; sponsored and organized disability discrimination-related training to housing
providers; and publicized information about reasonable accommodations and accessibility. In
addition, the Fair Housing Center is developing a live virtual fair housing training for housing
consumers, including residents of Defendants’ local properties, to include a review of fair
housing laws and the right to reasonable accommodations in housing, including parking
accommodations, and other disability-related issues.
120. The Fair Housing Center’s investigation and counteraction of Defendants’
conduct, its diversion of resources, and the frustration of its mission continues and will continue
28
until Defendants’ discriminatory conduct ceases and the harms caused by Defendants’ actions
are remedied.
121. The Fair Housing Partnership began its investigation of Clover Group after being
informed of possible disability discrimination in 2018. Its investigation included conducting
testing at Clover Group properties in western and northeastern Pennsylvania and evaluating the
results. The Fair Housing Partnership expended significant resources investigating Defendants’
conduct and counteracting Defendants’ discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities.
122. The Fair Housing Partnership’s diversion of time and other resources to address
Defendants’ discriminatory conduct has forced it to divert its scarce resources from other work
such as preparing required reports for HUD (its funding agency), investigating claims of
unlawful discrimination by other victims of discrimination, and conducting fair housing
education and outreach on other types of cases.
123. The Fair Housing Partnership has expended, continues to expend, and will expend
in the future resources to counteract the effects of Defendants’ discrimination by developing a
project of outreach to seniors regarding their fair housing rights, conducting outreach to groups
and agencies that serve people with disabilities and to seniors about reasonable accommodation
requirements, conducting outreach to groups and agencies that serve people with disabilities and
to seniors about reasonable accommodation requirements, training landlords and others about
their obligations to provide reasonable accommodations, developing and distributing a fact sheet
on disability protections in housing for seniors, and a conducting a digital marketing campaign
on disability-related issues.
124. The Fair Housing Partnership’s investigation and counteraction of Defendants’
conduct, its diversion of resources, and the frustration of its mission continues and will continue
29
until Defendants’ discriminatory conduct ceases and the harms caused by Defendants’ actions
are remedied.
125. HOME of Cincinnati began its investigation of Clover Group after learning about
likely disability discrimination at Clover Group properties in 2018. HOME of Cincinnati’s
investigation included research regarding Clover Group properties, testing at Clover Group
communities in the Cincinnati area, and receiving and responding to accommodation and
modification requests from prospective tenants.
126. HOME of Cincinnati’s diversion of time and other resources to address
Defendants’ discriminatory conduct has forced it to divert its scarce resources from other work
such as investigating and providing education on other forms of discrimination such as
discrimination based on race and national origin.
127. HOME of Cincinnati has expended, continues to expend, and will expend in the
future resources to counteract the effects of Defendants’ discrimination by educating local
housing consumers and housing providers about reasonable accommodations and modifications;
expanding its fair housing training curriculum and the education portion of its website; creating a
social media and video conferencing education program; creating podcast content on reasonable
accommodation and modification issues; conducting trainings to discuss with housing providers,
residents, and homeseekers the importance of successfully implementing policies that do not
discriminate against people with disabilities and the importance of granting reasonable
accommodations in a fair and efficient manner; and preparing for an April 2021 Fair Housing
Summit that will focus on housing accessibility.
128. HOME of Cincinnati’s investigation and counteraction of Defendants’ conduct,
its diversion of resources, and the frustration of its mission continues and will continue until
30
remedied.
129. HOME of Buffalo began its investigation of Clover Group after learning about
likely disability discrimination at Clover Group properties in 2018. Its investigation included
researching Clover Group properties, testing at Clover Group properties in the northwestern New
York area, and evaluating and responding to accommodation and modification requests from
prospective tenants.
130. HOME of Buffalo’s diversion of time and other resources to address Defendants’
discriminatory conduct has forced it to divert its scarce resources from other work such as
counseling landlords and potential victims of discrimination about their rights and
responsibilities, conducting public education activities, and promoting equal access to housing in
Western New York.
131. HOME of Buffalo has expended, continues to expend, and will expend in the
future resources to counteract the effects of Defendants’ discrimination by updating its book-
length Landlord Guide to Fair Housing Issues to include sections on reasonable accommodations
related to parking and unit pricing, updating its landlord training on reasonable accommodation
and modifications issues, and developing additional trainings to address some of the disability-
related discrimination issues that surfaced during its investigation of Defendants.
132. HOME of Buffalo’s investigation and counteraction of Defendants’ conduct, its
diversion of resources, and the frustration of its mission continues and will continue until
remedied.
31
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I: Violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended

42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.
133. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the
paragraphs above.
134. Defendants’ conduct as described herein constitutes:
a. A refusal to make reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or
services when such an accommodation may be necessary to afford a person with a
disability an opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§
3604(f)(1) and (f)(3)(B);
b. Discrimination against the Plaintiffs in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale
or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection
with such dwelling, because of the disability of a person residing in or intending
to reside in a dwelling, including through the refusal to make reasonable
accommodations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B); and
c. Statements that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on
disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
135. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
damages and are aggrieved persons, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i).
Count II: Violation of New York Human Rights Law

N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq.
a. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or
services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford said person with
32
a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, in violation of N.Y.
Exec. Law § 296-18(2);
b. An unlawful refusal to rent, denial or withholding of a housing accommodation
because of disability in violation of N.Y. Exec. Law § 296-5(a)(1);
c. Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of dwellings, or
in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of
disability in violation of N.Y. Exec. Law § 296-5(a)(2); and
d. Statements with respect to the rental of dwellings that indicate a limitation,
specification, or discrimination based on sex, in violation of N.Y. Exec. Law §
296-5(a)(3) and (c)(3).
damages and are persons claiming to be aggrieved as defined in N.Y. Exec. Law § 297-9.
Count III: Violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act

Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H), et seq.
a. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or
services when necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H)(15) and
H(19);
b. An unlawful refusal to rent, denial or withholding of a housing accommodation
because of disability in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H)(4);
c. Discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of dwellings, or
in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith because of
disability in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02(H)(16); and
33
d. Statements that indicates any preference, limitation, specification, or
discrimination based on disability with respect to a housing accommodation in
violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(H)(7).
damages and are aggrieved persons, as defined in Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.051.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant judgment
in its favor, and against Defendants, as follows:
a. Declaring that Defendants’ actions violate the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42
U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02;
b. Permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the conduct described herein
and directing Defendants to take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the effects of
the conduct described herein and to prevent additional instances of such conduct or
similar conduct from occurring in the future;
c. Awarding compensatory damages to each Plaintiff in an amount to be determined
by a jury that would fully compensate each Plaintiff for the injuries caused by the
conduct of Defendants alleged herein;
d. Awarding punitive damages to each Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by a
jury that would punish Defendants for the willful, wanton, and reckless conduct alleged
herein and that would effectively deter similar conduct in the future;
e. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
f. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
34
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable as
of right.
Dated: March 30, 2021
/s/ Conor Kirchner

Conor Kirchner (Bar Roll #518898) Reed N. Colfax*
Casey Weissman-Vermeulen (Bar Roll #702110) Sara K. Pratt*
CNY Fair Housing, Inc. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC
731 James Street 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
Syracuse, NY 13203 Washington, D.C. 20036
(315) 471-0420 (202) 728-1888
[email protected] (202) 728-0848 (facsimile)
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
* Pro Hac Vice Application to be

Submitted
35

Clover - Initial Complaint As Filed by CNY Fair Housing On March 30. 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clover - Initial Complaint As Filed by CNY Fair Housing On March 30. 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clover - Initial Complaint As Filed by CNY Fair Housing On March 30. 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:00-at-99999 Document 131 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CNY FAIR HOUSING, INC.; THE FAIR HOUSING

Opportunities Made Equal of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. (collectively “Organizational Plaintiffs”);

(“Clover properties” or “Clover senior properties”). Defendants’ representatives routinely tell

must pay a fee up to $350.00 for a designated space.

3. Defendants’ policies of refusing disability-related requests for designated parking

4. The designated parking policies have an outsized effect at Defendants’ senior

Defendants for the designated spaces they desperately need.

5. Defendants also discriminate against people with disabilities by adding a $15.00-

administrative hardship for Defendants.

About, accessed Mar. 25, 2021, https://clovergroupinc.com/about-clover-group-55-apartments-

active-living-senior-apartments-more/. Instead, Defendants’ practices have harsh consequences

7. Residents of one of Defendants’ properties complained to Plaintiff CNY Fair

and effect of discriminating against people with disabilities.

8. Defendants’ long-standing and continuing practices and policies as described

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 42 P.S. §§ 951, et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

District and Division.

PARTIES AND PROPERTIES

their housing of choice without fear of discrimination because of their disabilities.

Partnership”), founded in 1984, is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of

Partnership is dedicated to creating and preserving equal housing choice in southwestern

outreach, training, and community organizing.

discrimination, and promote integrated communities. Through research, educational programs,

14. Plaintiff Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Buffalo, Inc. (“HOME of

of Cincinnati”), founded in 1968 and doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a non-profit

16. Plaintiff Phyllis Bartoszewski is a resident of Camillus Pointe Senior Apartments

assistance. Ms. Bartoszewski uses a cane for mobility assistance.

physically get around without her mobility aid.

20. Defendant Clover Group Inc. is a for-profit corporation based in Williamsville,

estate infrastructure. Welltower owns interests in properties concentrated in major, high-growth

entities that own the senior properties at issue in this matter.

Williamsville, New York.

owned and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.

and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.

Ohio and has its principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio.

owned and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.

and operated by Defendant WellClover Holdings LLC.

laws of the state of Delaware.

Williamsville, New York.

York with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York.

under the laws of the state of New York.

Williamsville, New York.

employees, officers, and/or agents.

were subsequently ratified and adopted by one or more Defendants as principal.

Clover Group Properties

parking that will accommodate them.

from Google Earth and screenshot on March 23, 2021.

spaces to provide designated parking to all of the residents with disabilities;

not need to provide additional designated or accessible parking to residents;

 The complexes would not submit parking accommodation requests to corporate

headquarters, because the requests would be denied; and

 The complexes are independent living communities that have no obligation to

provide designated parking.

53. The refusal to permit a designated parking space as a reasonable accommodation

reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities).

need for the accommodation are obvious. 2