Wetzel sued St. Andrew, alleging that it failed to provide her with non‐discriminatory housing and that it retaliated against her because of her complaints, each in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619. St. Andrew insists that the Act affords Wetzel no recourse, because it imposes liability only on those who act with discriminatory animus, an allegation Wetzel had not expressly made of any defendant. The district court agreed and dismissed Wetzel’s suit. We read the FHA more broadly. Not only does it create liability when a landlord intentionally discriminates against a tenant based on a protected characteristic; it also creates liability against a landlord that has actual notice of tenant‐on‐tenant harassment based on a protected status, yet chooses not to take any reasonable steps within its control to stop that harassment. We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of St. Andrew’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.”

This case in the 7th Circuit is one to watch as it heads back to the District Court to build a record.  The actions of the landlord, which operates a facility that appears to be a personal care residence, are not depicted as neutral in the case summary, based upon the complaint.  The court recognized that the facts that emerge at trial may be different.  The question whether the landlord can ignore complaints of discriminatory conduct by other tenants is not answered because the landlord is portrayed as complicit in the violations.

CLT