Consent decree settles discrimination lawsuit against Baldwin Borough apartment complex
The owner of a Baldwin Borough apartment complex agreed to pay a $15,000 fine and keep a log of people asking about vacancies to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit, according to a consent decree that the government filed on Wednesday.
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in September sued S-2 Properties of Castle Shannon. The government claimed the manager of the company's Baldwin Commons property turned away black men, promising to put their names on a waiting list, while telling white men that apartments were available.
The company referred questions to its lawyer, John Corcoran, who could not be reached for comment.
The men were testers the government sent to investigate whether the company was discriminating against potential tenants. The government conducted three tests of the 100-unit complex between February and April last year, the lawsuit stated.
S-2 Properties denied in court documents that it discriminates against minority renters and disputed whether the government's tests revealed discriminatory practices.
S-2 Properties agreed to keep a log for three years, recording whether people were shown available units and if not, why. The company agreed to post signs notifying the public that it rents apartment on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- Reflecting frustration, Webb eyes presidency
- 5 arrested on firearm, drug charges in Spring Hill
- Allegheny County adoption event joins 40 children with families
- Mears savors success, credits legendary Lange for guidance, inspiration
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Derry water outage may be resolved by 5 p.m. Sunday, authority says
- Shooting victims live with bullets to survive, thrive
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Boy with fake gun dies after being shot by Cleveland cop