The District settled a civil rights investigation against a window replacement company that allegedly denied service to customers east of the Anacostia River based on crime statistics, Attorney General Karl Racine announced on Wednesday.

Renewal by Andersen, a subsidiary of the Andersen Corporation, one of the largest window-replacement companies in the country, refused to replace windows in nine District zip codes, including all of neighborhoods east of the river, according to Racine’s office. It’s illegal under D.C. law to discriminate against people based on where they live.

“It’s particularly disturbing when we have a company that excludes zip codes that are east of the river because we know that those are communities that are historically and currently underserved,” Vikram Swaruup, assistant attorney general in the office’s civil rights division, tells DCist. The settlement with Andersen Corporation is the first ever reached under the “place of residence” provision of the District’s Human Rights Act, according to Swaruup.

While the Andersen Corporation did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement, the company will have to pay a $50,000 fine, train employees on complying with civil rights laws, and immediately stop excluding parts of D.C. from its service area. The company will also have to create new internal policies that address discrimination.

A spokesperson for the Andersen Corporation tells DCist over email that the company considers building restrictions, historic preservation limitations, violent crime rates, and other factors to determine its service area. “While we do not agree with [the city’s] allegations, we fully cooperated with their investigation and are happy to have reached a mutually acceptable resolution,” Adam May, communications manager for Renewal by Andersen, told DCist in a written statement.

The attorney general’s office started looking into Renewal by Andersen after receiving a complaint from Barbara Morgan, a Ward 7 resident who says the company refused to give her service because of her zip code area. A retired school teacher, Morgan says she first realized that the Andersen Corporation wasn’t servicing her neighborhood after calling for an estimate. “It irritated the hell out of me,” she tells DCist.

She asked a friend to call the company back with a Capitol Hill zip code instead. When the customer service representative approved the request for service, Morgan decided to alert the attorney general’s office. “That didn’t sit well with me,” Morgan says. “This is what was happening in this city years ago. The thing that gets me is that this is a business, and perhaps there are other businesses out here that are doing the same thing.”

Morgan said that the incident reminded her of racist housing policies like redlining, a common practice in D.C. throughout the 20th century to keep neighborhoods segregated.

According to settlement documents, the company used statistics on violent crime as one of the main factors to determine which zip codes would be excluded from its service area. But D.C.’s Human Rights Act specifies that it is illegal for businesses to deny “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations” based on someone’s place of residence.

With funding from the D.C. Council, the civil rights division of the attorney general’s office launched in June with a lawsuit against a local real estate company for discriminating against renters with housing vouchers. In July, a court ordered the landlord to remove the discriminatory language from its advertisements, though the case is moving forward.

“One of the things that we’re trying to do through lawsuits like this is make sure that the public understands their rights, and that they know that they have a place to call when they feel their rights have been infringed,” Swaruup says. He added that he hopes that the settlement will increase compliance with the District’s anti-discrimination laws.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Renewal by Andersen’s website appeared to still be refusing service to customers in certain District zip codes. “Sorry to miss you!” said a message on the site. “We don’t have a Renewal by Andersen location in your area yet, but hope to have one soon.”

This story has been updated to reflect that the D.C. attorney general settled with Renewal by Andersen without filing a lawsuit.