A D.C. court is ordering a local real estate and property management company to take down language in its housing advertisements that says the company will not rent apartments to people who receive housing assistance.

Judge Yvonne Williams of the Superior Court of D.C. granted a preliminary injunction filed by the office of D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, which alleges that Curtis Investment Group’s advertisements are a violation of D.C.’s Human Rights Act. The District’s anti-discrimination law, among the most expansive nationwide, prohibits housing discrimination based on a person’s source of income. The lawsuit includes images of advertisements for apartments in Southeast D.C. with language like “we are not accepting any vouchers or rapid rehousing” and “**NOT ACCEPTING VOUCHERS AT THIS TIME.**”

While lawyers for Curtis Investment Group have responded to the District’s claim in a tersely-worded filing, they did not specifically oppose the preliminary injunction. Filings like Curtis’ are relatively common in these cases, but it is unusual that the company didn’t file an opposition to the injunction, which amounts to a concession.

Vikram Swaruup, assistant attorney general in the office’s civil rights section, tells DCist the court “went beyond that [concession], and found our arguments to be persuasive.”

On Tuesday, Judge Williams wrote that the lawsuit is “substantially likely to succeed” in the decision to grant the preliminary injunction, which orders Curtis Investment Group to stop refusing to rent apartments to people who receive housing assistance and posting discriminatory advertisements.

Curtis Investment Group has not responded to a request for comment. Already, the company has taken down the advertisements highlighted in the complaint.

The lawsuit will continue to move forward. The D.C. attorney general’s office is also seeking a permanent injunction, which could include stipulations that Curtis Investment Group provide additional reporting to the court or be placed under court monitoring, as well as financial penalties.

This isn’t the first lawsuit from Racine’s office targeting landlords who appear to be discriminating against potential tenants for using housing vouchers. There’s a similar lawsuit underway against Evolve and Evolve Property Management, which was filed in November and is currently in the discovery process. It’s part of a larger effort from the D.C. attorney general to target so-called slumlords for failing to maintain their properties and otherwise neglecting their tenants.

“We’re in a housing crisis,” Racine told DCist in June. “Housing is a precious commodity and it is not being distributed equally and, in many instances, it’s not being distributed lawfully.”

While it is illegal in D.C. to refuse to rent to people who are part of the rapid re-housing program or who use federal rental assistance vouchers, the issue remains widespread in the city. About 15 percent of District landlords do not accept vouchers, contra the law, according to a study from the Urban Institute, and many explicitly state this practice in their housing advertisements.

This lawsuit against Curtis also doubled as the launch of the civil rights division at the D.C. attorney general’s office, which will have a specific focus on anti-discrimination litigation. The office has also scheduled a series of listening sessions throughout the city.

Swaruup says that, at these listening sessions and elsewhere, members of the community keep telling the office to prioritize affordable housing. “The District has a number of programs to help people who are marginalized and otherwise cannot afford safe housing to be able to do so, including the voucher program we discuss in the lawsuit,” says Swaruup. “Even though we have these great programs and these great laws preventing discrimination, there’s a gap in enforcement. This is an opportunity for us to close that gap and make sure the law is being followed.”

Previously:
D.C. Attorney General Goes After Another Landlord For Discriminating Against Voucher Holders