Anti-Discrimination Center

ADC's first analysis of Westchester's submission to the Monitor, subtitled "A Preliminary Report on Westchester's Attempt to Ignore and Evade the Requirements of the Historic Desegregation Order Entered in U.S. ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Center v. Westchester County, a/k/a Westchester's 'Implementation Plan'"

Hard on the heels of ADC's Prescription for Failure report, the federal Monitor appointed to oversee compliance with the Settlement Order has rejected what Westchester had described as an "implementation plan."  The Monitor found a "lack of specificity with respect to accountability, timeframes and processes," and further found that the County's submission lacked "any concrete short- medium- or long-term strategies" for how the County plans to develop the affordable housing required by the Settlement Order to foster desegregation in Westchester.  Noting the Settlement Order's requirement that the County use all means, including legal action, to overcome municipal resistance to the goals of the Settlement Order, the Monitor specified that a revised plan "should include a clear strategy for how the County will employ carrots and sticks to encourage compliance by municipal governments" (emphasis added).

A letter summarizing the Monitor's initial findings regarding the deficiencies of Westchester's submission.  The letter directs Westchester to review ADC's report, putting the County on notice that the Monitor was likely to request the County's response to at least some of the issues raised by "Prescription for Failure."

The full text of the February 24, 2009 decision.

Westchester tried to argue that the federal government was not hurt by the County's fraud because the government got the "benefit" of the County performing the non-AFFH requirements of its grants.  The Court, in a decision dated April 24, 2009 (2009 WL 1108517) firmly rejected this argument:  "Accepting Westchester's proffered argument that because the grants may have been administered in accordance with other program requirements, the damages to the government are mitigated, would essentially write the requirement to AFFH out of the statutes and regulations. Thus, in the circumstances of this case, Westchester's damages cannot be reduced by reference to the alleged 'benefit' it provided to HUD by administering the grant funds at issue."

The Court's April 22nd decision granting the Center's motion to find that Westchester's certifications (already found to be false) were "material" as a matter of law to its receipt of the funding at issue.  The citation is 2009 WL1110572.

April 9, 2009 decision denying the County's attempt to appeal the decision immediately and get the trial delayed.  Among other things, the decision stated that "the defendant has also repeatedly mischaracterized the [opinion granting partial judgment against the County.]"  [page 7, fn. 3]  The County's prediction of a "stream of follow-on lawsuits," the Court also wrote, depends at least on several things occurring, including "the defendant and other jurisdictions not taking their requirements to affirmatively further fair housing seriously and being unwilling to reform their practices..."  [page 8]

The August 2007 federal court decision denying Westchester's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the denial of its motion to dismiss.  The citation is 2007 WL 2402997 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2007).