Settlement of an Egregious Race Discrimination Complaint

Steve Tomkowiak • July 25, 2023

Ray and Autumn Harris Successfully Represented by Nina Gerdes and Will Ellis, student attorneys, and Professor Michael J. Steinberg, from the University of Michigan's Civil Rights Litigation Initiative

The Center is pleased to report the settlement of a race discrimination case. The case is a troubling instance of racial discrimination--the type of case that we all would have hoped would not occur today. 


The facts are egregious. To summarize, the sellers, a married couple, owned two homes in a predominantly white community (over 75% White). The homes were next door to each other. To aid in the sale of their home, the sellers retained the services of a real estate agent. The husband (hereinafter “the seller”) was principally involved in meetings with prospective purchasers.

Ray and Autumn Harris, with their two children, sought to purchase the home. They lived in a cooperative unit, which they planned to sell and to move into a new home. They were prequalified for a loan, with conventional financing. To aid in their home search, the Harrises retained the services of a real estate agent.


In late January 2021, the Harrises, with their children, went to view the home. The Harrises’ realtor arrived at the house early and spoke with the seller before the Harrises arrived. He made derogatory comments to the Harrises’ agent about a Black prospective buyer who recently came to look at the house. He claimed that the prospective Black buyer’s car looked like it was from “the hood” and that he was surprised that it did not have bullet holes in it. He said that he would not sell the home to such a person. The Harrises’ agent warned the seller that he was crossing a line with his comments. In response, he confessed to the Harrises’ agent that his own agent, who was not present, had warned him to be careful making statements like that to prospective buyers.


When the Harrises arrived with their children, the Harrises’ agent prompted Ray Harris to discuss his employment and education with the seller because, given his previous racially charged comments, she was afraid that he would deny them a house based on stereotypes about Black people. Autumn Harris told the seller that she has a master’s degree in social work and that she enjoys maintaining the exterior of their residence by taking care of the lawn and planting flowers.


As the Harrises toured the house, the seller followed them from room to room. He then followed Ray Harris out the back door of the home when he went to look at the yard. The seller then told Ray and Autumn Harris, in front of their children, that the home had been in his family for a long time, that he lived next door, and that he wanted to choose his neighbors. He asked Autumn Harris to pull down her mask, which she wore to protect herself and others from contracting COVID-19. The seller then wrote down a physical description of the Harrises. The seller told the Harrises’ agent that he routinely writes down descriptions of potential buyers to know who is making an offer and puts a star down next to the names of the buyers he likes.


Despite the racial hostility they experienced during the viewing, the Harrises wanted to purchase the home because it was perfect for them in every way: it was a 10-15 minute drive from their daughters’ school; it was ready for them to move into right away; it would not require any additional repairs or renovations; it had a large yard for their children to play; it had a second floor and two bedrooms upstairs for their daughters, which was important; and the house was located in a safe and well-kept neighborhood. Ray Harris made a full price offer with $2,000 in concessions on the home.


The seller denied the Harrises’ offer soon after in an email to the Harrises’ agent. The seller gave no reason for the denial. Nor did the seller make a counteroffer or provide the Harrises with the opportunity to negotiate. Ray Harris’ mortgage preapproval, financing options, and assets positioned him to negotiate above the asking price and/or to make an offer without concessions and he would have done so if the seller had asked him to do so.


After Ray Harris placed an offer on the home, the sellers modified the listing and indicated that he would not accept concessions. These modifications were not communicated to the Harrises.


Disturbed and upset by the sellers’ behavior and actions, the Harrises’ agent filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit to report the incident. This complaint was the only fair housing complaint the Harrises’ agent had ever filed, and she has not filed any others since. The sellers ultimately sold the home to a White woman.


The Harrises and their family were injured because of these incidents. The Harrises felt judged because of their race, which has led to feelings of insecurity. After the incidents, the Harrises’ ten-year-old daughter repeatedly asked if the seller liked them, sensing something was amiss about what he was telling her parents. Autumn Harris has since struggled to think about how to speak with her daughters about racism and the fact that they may not have equal opportunities in life due to their race.


Added to this, the housing cooperative had already sold the unit the Harrises were living in, giving them little time to find a new home. The Harrises wanted to live in the community where the home was located, but after their experience with the sellers, they felt that purchasing a home in that community was an unattainable dream. They ended up purchasing a smaller home that needed repairs. The home they purchased is located 30 minutes from their daughters’ school, doubling their communing time. The home is located in a predominantly minority community (over 70% Black), contributing to our region's segregated housing.


The case was filed in federal court. The Harrises were represented by Nina Gerdes and Will Ellis, outstanding student attorneys for the for the Civil Rights Litigation Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School, under the direction and leadership of Professor Michael J. Steinberg. After three settlement conferences, the case was settled for a non-disclosed amount. 


The Center has been existence since 1977, over 45 years. These kinds of cases used to be commonplace. They should not be occurring today. No one today, or at any time, should have to endure what the Harrises and their family endured. The Center appreciates the decision of the Harrises’ agent to report this incident and aid the Harrises in seeking the justice they deserved.

By FHCMD Staff July 28, 2026
Many of us will experience physical changes or cognitive decline as we age. Whether seeking new housing or living in a condo, apartment, rental housing, or even an assisted living facility or nursing home, seniors with disabilities are entitled to fair housing protections. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , approximately 2 in 5 adults aged 65 and older experience disabilities that affect daily life. Vision or hearing loss, mobility impairment, chronic health conditions, and cognitive decline are more likely to occur or become more significant as people age. Ultimately, disabilities do not have to restrict a person's housing options. Understanding Accommodations and Modifications Disabled individuals, as well as family members and caregivers assisting them, can make requests for accommodations and physical modifications. Common examples include: Physical Modifications: Installing grab bars, raising toilet seat heights, or adding visual safety features like flashing lights connected to fire alarms for individuals with hearing impairments. Rule and Policy Adjustments: Reserved parking space, granting a move to a lower floor, or permitting a live-in caregiver. Communication Support: Sign language interpretation or auxiliary aids. When a resident makes a request, a housing provider may ask for documentation from a healthcare provider linking the disability to the requested accommodation or modification. Housing providers must generally grant these requests as long as they do not impose an excessive cost or unreasonable burden. Housing providers should be mindful of ways that make the accommodation process as accessible as possible. Tenants who are not tech-savvy or who may be experiencing cognitive decline may have challenges completing an online form or using an app. Remaining proactive and offering alternative methods if a resident appears to be struggling with an accommodation process will help ensure that your accommodation and modification request process is accessible. Who Pays for Modifications? Responsibility for modification costs depends on the type of housing. While residents in market-rate housing are generally responsible for funding physical modifications, those living in subsidized or low-income senior communities may not have to pay. Landlords who receive federal financial assistance are required to fund approved reasonable modifications for residents with disabilities. (For a deeper dive into making requests, read our article: Fair Housing Rights: Knowing Your Options for Disability Accommodations and Modifications ) We Are Here to Help You don't have to navigate housing accommodation and modification requests alone—we're here to help. Contact us through our website or give us a call at 313-579-FAIR (3247) to discuss fair housing rights and questions, receive support with addressing possible fair housing law violations, or to receive help in requesting disability accommodations and modifications.
July 21, 2026
Identifying Sexual Harassment in Housing
By FHCMD Staff July 14, 2026
What Every Tenant Should Know
By Gabby Cannon July 9, 2026
Fifth annual event rallies almost two hundred supporters for equal housing opportunity.
By Steve Tomkowiak December 2, 2025
Lisa joined the Center after nearly 30 years of experience as a wheelchair user and close to 17 years advocating for the rights of people with disabilities. In 2008, Lisa founded Warriors on Wheels of Metropolitan Detroit (“WOW”) and currently serves as its Executive Director and CEO. Through WOW, Lisa focuses on disability rights, accessibility, and community engagement. In these efforts, Lisa not only seeks to meet the critical needs for civic access and passageways, affordable housing units, and safe, reliable transportation, but strives to transform these accessibility points into cohesive design visions that impact communities for a better tomorrow. As Lisa puts it, she “makes it a priority to impact the urban communities in the cities of Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, and Dearborn on compliance with the ADA and other laws, not just technically, but addressing human spirit, morals, and values.” Lisa’s civic involvement and service are broad and varied, ranging from her service on the State of Michigan’s Barrier Free Design Board for Accessibility to her services on the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan and the City of Detroit’s Human Rights Commission. In recent years, 50-60% or more of the Center’s complaints involve claims of discrimination against persons with disabilities. The Center has assisted and initiated numerous enforcement actions involving disability discrimination. The Center’s Board and Staff welcome the valuable perspective and expertise that Lisa will bring as a new Board member.
By Steve Tomkowiak August 26, 2025
Our friends at the Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors (GPBR) have invited everyone to join them at a chili cookoff event on October 15, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., at The Rivers of Grosse Pointe, 900 Cook Rd, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 . The GPBR has asked the Center to take a few minutes to explain why fair housing remains so important today. The competition will be fierce. The chili promises to be insanely good. This should be a lot of fun. Please take a short lunch break from your busy schedule to join us.
By Steve Tomkowiak July 31, 2025
Our lack of understanding impacts our ability to address the problem of homelessness
By Steve Tomkowiak July 14, 2025
Question No. 1: As of 2021, what percent of the U.S. population are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing? 1.6% 2.6% 3.6% 4.6% 5.6% Question No. 2: How many deaf people live in the U.S. as of 2021? 3 million 5 million 7 million 9 million 11 million Question No. 3: Which of the following statements are false? A. Deaf persons do not want to speak or cannot speak. B. Every Deaf person knows ASL. C. ASL is English translated into signs. D. ASL is universal. E. ASL interpreters merely translate words. F. ASL is inferior to spoken language. G. Lip reading is a reliable or effective form of communication. H. ASL interpreters are unnecessary if a Deaf individual may write back and forth. Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services? Are you aware of the requirement of a written ASL policy and, if so, what a compliant policy looks like? If these questions are difficult, please review our PowerPoint: American Sign Language (ASL) & Fair Housing Requirements and the Sample ASL Nondiscrimination Policies (in Word format) available out our Services & Resources page. ________________________________ Answers: Question No. 1: 3.6% Question No. 2: 11 million Question No. 3: All of the statements are false. Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services? Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as the Affordable Care Act or “ACA”); Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; and many state civil rights statutes .
By Steve Tomkowiak March 25, 2025
A prior post summarized the allegations in a federal court case that was filed after numerous incidents of alleged racial harassment that drove a Black family their Grosse Point Park home. Black Woman and Her Daughter Sue Former White Neighbor for KKK Flag Display and Other Threats . On March 21, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker, after carefully reviewing the allegations in the complaint and applicable law, entered an Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Judge Parker found that the complaint sufficiently alleged racial animus in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982. The facts are deplorable, as those who read the decision will no doubt notice, and embarrassing to our community. Congratulations to the students attorneys from the U of M Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI) handling the litigation, under the fine leadership of long-time fair housing attorney and now U of M Law School Professor Mike Steinberg . Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Dinges v. Wilde, No. 23-12885 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2025)
By Steve Tomkowiak March 7, 2025
University of Michigan Law School Professor Michelle Adams ’ research interests include race discrimination, school desegregation, affirmative action, and housing law. Two of Professor Adams’ students, Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri (pictured above) from Professor Adams’ Race, Law, and History course, developed a “ Detroit School Integration Timeline ”. The timeline traces the history from Detroit’s establishment of its first “colored school”, to the Dred Scott decision, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Great Migration, racially restrictive covenants, redlining, the Birwood (Eight Mile) Wall, white flight, the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, the Milliken v. Bradley decision and efforts to desegregate Detroit schools, through the recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The timeline is informative, user-friendly and includes many helpful videos. Congratulations to Michelle and Victoria for creating this amazing resource. Detroit School Integration Timeline Legal History Project: Detroit, Michigan (Law students Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri briefly introduce themselves and thank viewers for checking out their timeline project)