Discrimination Complaint

admin
Samples legal papers
December 22, 2021

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

 

MONTI KNAZZE,     § Case No.

Plaintiff,     §

  1.     § COMPLAINT

CITY OF COLOMBUS, MINNESOTA;     §

BEN GUTKNECHTCHT, in his individual     §

and official capacity as CITY PLANNING     § DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

TECHNICIAN OF THE CITY OF     §

COLOMBUS; ELIZABETH MURSKO, in     §

her individual and official capacity as CITY     §

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF     §

COLOMBUS; and BECKY WOZNEY, in     §

her individual and official capacity as     §

WETLAND SPECIALIST OF THE ANOKA    §

CONSERVATION DISTRICT and/or     §

SUNRISE RIVER WATER     §

MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION,     §

Defendants,     §

 

NOW COMES Monti Knazze, Plaintiff, complaining of Defendants, City of Colombus, Minnesota, and Ms. Becky Wozney, in her individual and official capacity as Wetland Specialist of the Anoka Conservation District and/or Sunrise River Water Management Organization, and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows:

  • NATURE OF THE ACTION
  1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff against Defendants, for discriminating against Plaintiff in the issuance of permit to park a trailer on his land. This was in violation of Sec. 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. 
  2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied him a permit to park a trailer on his land so that he could build a home, despite some of Plaintiff’s neighbors being allowed to do so without permits. For this cause of action and others discussed herein, Plaintiff seeks compensation.

  • PARTIES
  1. Plaintiff Monti Knazze is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of Insert Plaintiff’s Address.
  2. Defendant Ben Gutknechtcht is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of Insert Ben’s Address. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity as City Planning Technician of the City of Columbus.
  3. Defendant Elizabeth Mursko is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of Insert Elizabeth’s Address. She is being sued in her individual and official capacity as City Administrator of the City of Columbus.
  4. Defendant Becky Wozney is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of Insert Becky’s Address. She is being sued in her individual and official capacity as Wetland Specialist of the Anoka Conservation District and/or Sunrise River Water Management Organization.
  5. Defendant City of Columbus is a city incorporated in the State of Minnesota. It is mandated to issue licenses and permits in the city.

  • JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court Pursuant to Article VI, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution.
  2. Venue is proper in this court because the causes of action occurred within this Court’s jurisdiction.

  • STATEMENT OF FACTS
  1. Plaintiff contacted City of Columbus in January of 2020 and spoke with Ben Gutknechtcht, City Planning Technician of the City of Columbus, before he purchased the property to find out what the City’s building requirements were at his location.
  2. Mr. Gutknechtcht provided Plaintiff with the same, explaining that the zoning was Rural Residential, and the minimum home size. Exhibit 1.
  3. Plaintiff also sent ideas of the type of home he intended to build, and realizing that there were wetlands on the property, he asked Mr. Gutknechtcht whether there were any special considerations for permitting.  He told Plaintiff that whatever Becky Wozney, Wetland Specialist of the Anoka Conservation District and/or Sunrise River Water Management Organization, said about the buildable area would govern. Exhibit 2.
  4. Plaintiff confirmed with Mr. Gutknechtcht that he’d follow up with Becky and employ her services to get it pinned down.
  5. In discussing some of the details of his home build, Plaintiff also explained that he had many of the materials and equipment that he would use in building his home onboard his fifty-three-foot trailer, which he expected to use on the site during construction. All of his finishing materials, tools and equipment would be accessed from that trailer.
  6. Mr. Gutknechtcht asked Plaintiff what he would do with the trailer afterwards, and Plaintiff told him that he’d probably sell it, but that he may turn it into a recreational vehicle, but he wasn’t sure, yet.
  7. Mr. Gutknechtcht sent Plaintiff the City’s code concerning the trailer, explaining that it was definitely permitted to be on the site since A.) it would be used for construction and B.) Up to 2 unlicensed trailers are allowed on Plaintiff’s property, and in fact, Plaintiff’s trailer is licensed.
  8. Later Mr. Gutknechtcht contacted Plaintiff with a question from Elizabeth Mursko, City Administrator of the City of Columbus, the about the way his trailer was licensed, and he explained that it has a permanent license, whereas it’s not in use for commercial purposes, it’s strictly for personal use and isn’t used for commercial purposes, and licensed as a recreational trailer.
  9. As per Plaintiff’s attached emails, you’ll note that Mr. Gutknechtcht told him that the trailer was fine, then later indicated that it was not, despite the fact that the City Ordinance specifically states it’s permissible.
  10. Plaintiff arranged for Ms. Wozney to visit the property, after having illustrated and explained the type of home he wished to build. Ms. Wozney invoiced Plaintiff $75.00 for the initial site visit, which Plaintiff paid. Exhibit 3.
  11. Plaintiff contacted Mr. Gutknechtcht from his office email account, which contains a caricature of his likeness, where it became clear that Plaintiff is a protected class individual. Suddenly, his trailer was stated to be “commercial”, and the question as to whether he would be permitted to park it on his nearly five acre property was raised by Ms. Mursko, who scheduled a City Council hearing to discuss it, even though, Plaintiff had never requested it.
  12. Plaintiff requested a meeting with Ms. Mursko, and attended the same. Mr. Gutknechtcht as well as Mayor Preiner were also at the meeting.
  13. Ms. Mursko made it clear that she would prefer that Plaintiff does not build a home on the site, stating that the DNR or Ms. Winey or some authority would find that the wetlands or some other factor would prohibit it in some way. Ms. Mursko said that she’s highly influential with the City Council and that whatever decisions they make, they would see things her way, regarding my development of the property or keeping my trailer on the property for construction or other purposes.
  14. Ms. Mursko finally relinquished, stating “okay, you can put your trailer on the property.” However, she questioned Plaintiff: “are two years long enough for you to get your building done and to get your trailer off of the property or do something else with it.” Plaintiff responded that the City ordinance allows him to keep it there indefinitely, but within reason, his project would be done in two years, so he could remove the trailer, by selling it or converting it into a RV, as he had been considering.
  15. Mayor Preiner asked Plaintiff to email them a plan of how he would expect the conversion of the trailer to look, so he later followed up accordingly.
  16. Weeks later, Plaintiff was contacted by Mr. William C. Griffith via email who said his trailer was considered to be commercial, and therefore could not be parked on the property according to their revised code interpretation. Exhibit 6. Plaintiff complained to Mr. Gutknechtcht and Ms. Mursko that they had gotten all of that cleared up in their previous meeting weeks earlier, and he was satisfied that, as earlier agreed, he’d remain in compliance with the City’s code, upon moving his trailer to his property. Ms. Mursko and Mr. Gutknechtcht had also brought it to Plaintiff’s attention, by showing him aerial depictions of the properties in the area on a projection screen, that his eastern neighbor was currently encroaching on his property and that, at least one of their buildings do not meet setback requirements from the lot line that they share with Plaintiff’s property, yet they were giddy about the fact that they had no intention to enforce it. Also, Plaintiff’s western neighbors have what Mr. Gutknechtcht described as “lean to” built in the wetlands area, without securing a permit of any kind, and they have no intentions of enforcing either a permit or removal of the structure from the wetlands, whilst being quite adamant that Plaintiff mustn’t install any sort of decking in the wetlands, albeit permissible by law, and that Plaintiff must not park his trailer on his site, even for the purpose of building his family’s home.
  17. Mr. Gutknechtcht and Ms. Mursko, told Plaintiff to take the matter up with their City Council, just as Ms. Mursko had directed him to do before their meeting, because she was again switching her opinion on the matter. The City of Columbus contacted their contracted City Attorney, who in turn contacted Plaintiff directing him to do the same and stating that any future communications that Plaintiff has with the City will be through him, since, according to him, Plaintiff had threatened them with a federal complaint.
  18. Plaintiff and his neighbors have properties that are zoned: “Rural-Residential”. Plaintiff also provided an aerial photo of his neighbor, Mr. Polvony’s property, to the south, noting, that he has multiple fifty-three-foot commercial trailers on his property, perhaps a dozen or more, and that the only difference between him and Plaintiff is that Plaintiff is a protected class individual, a black person. Exhibit 5. They both have the same zoning, although Mr. Gutknechtcht was quick to point out that Plaintiff’s neighbor has a acquired a special permit, the permit he possesses was intended to be temporary, and Mr. Polvony has operated a fully-scaled commercial business, utilizing massive commercial vehicles for many years. Plaintiff only wanted to park his trailer on site during construction, and then  sell it or convert it to a camping vehicle.  Ms. Mursko had also admitted that the City’s Attorney had cautioned her before our meeting that she was not permitted to give Plaintiff disparate treatment, however, that was the very thing that she was doing.
  19. Mr. Gutknechtcht and Ms. Mursko’s response was that they can’t police everybody in the neighborhood.  Plaintiff also asked them whether it is permissible for a Commercial Truck Driver to park their rig on their property, but they provided no response.
  20. Ms. Wozney was supposed to perform the service of wetlands delineation for Plaintiff, as she had been hired to complete, but in the spring of 2020, when it was time for Plaintiff to have the project completed, she simply refused. He asked her whether her schedule permitted her to complete it as anticipated, she said no, but rather “I’m just not going to do it.” She then made up an excuse about Plaintiff not having all of the setbacks on the property cleared, pursuant with her conversations with Ms. Mursko and Mr. Gutknechtcht. This refusal of service was discriminatory, Ms.  Wozney, instead directed Plaintiff to find someone else, but not to hire them, because she didn’t expect the City of Columbus to approve any permits for him. Exhibit 4.
  21. Plaintiff countered that he had already completed the septic site design, and in fact, provided her and the City with a copy, and that it was clear that he would meet all of the necessary setback and site development requirements for a small home, just as he had first anticipated. Ms. Wozney is aware that Plaintiff is currently a Real Estate Investigator, and has represented MNDOT, the MNDNR and many other organizations, and had completed my investigation of the property that he owns with the City of Columbus, the Septic Design Engineer, and all that was left to establish the buildable area was her wetlands flagging and Plaintiff’s site survey. Exhibit 7.
  22. Ms. Wozney refused, and even when Plaintiff hired an Engineer to complete the task in her stead, Ms. Winey attended a site visit on behalf of the City, and changed the lines so that Plaintiff had a little less buildable land.  
  23. Notwithstanding, The City of Columbus agreed that Plaintiff has land sufficient to build a home, in the end, but still refused to allow me to park his trailer on his property.  
  24. In the interim, Plaintiff’s trailer has been burglarized, at its secured storage location and he had been sufficiently damaged, because he no longer has the materials available that he intended to use in his home’s construction, and fear that the City of Columbus will continue to manifest extreme prejudice against him, as he applies for building permits and enter the home construction stage on a future occasion.  

  • DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO Sec. 804(b) OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
  1. Sec. 804 of the Fair Housing Act states as follows:

“As made applicable by section 83 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful –

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”

  1. Section 5G of the Columbus City Code states as follows: “No more than two (2) vehicles or trailers of any kind or type without required license plates shall be parked or stored on any residentially-zoned property, other than in completely enclosed Buildings, with the exception of antique vehicles.” Plaintiff is allowed by law to park no more than two trailers on his residentially-zoned property. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him a permit to park a trailer in his property. Plaintiff had already demonstrated that the trailer was not for any commercial use. He had also informed the City that he only intended to use the trailer to store equipment and materials for constructing his home. He informed them that he would remove it after building his home.
  2. Plaintiff was allowed to park his trailer on his property.
  3. Plaintiff was later informed by Mr. Gutknechtcht that after a revised interpretation of the City’s codes, his trailer was deemed for commercial use, therefore he could not park it on his property.
  4. The City discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him a permit to park his trailer on his property.
  5. Defendant Wozney failed to conduct wetlands delineation so that Plaintiff could fulfil obligations required to obtain a permit for building his home.
  6. The Defendants’ actions amount to discrimination contrary to Sec. 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act.

  • VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
  1. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution states as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  1. Plaintiff was denied a permit to park his trailer on his property while his neighbor, Mr. Polvony, was allowed to have multiple fifty-three-foot commercial trailers on his property. Both properties are in a zone marked as “Rural-Residential”. The only difference between Plaintiff and his neighbor, Mr. Polvony, is that Plaintiff is a protected class individual, a black person.
  2. Mr. Gutknechtcht confirmed that Mr. Polvony had acquired a special permit which was temporary in nature. Mr. Polvony operated a fully-scaled commercial business in a rural-residential zone and Mr. Gutknechtch was fully aware but did nothing about it. He went on to inform Plaintiff that after further interpretation of City codes, Plaintiff could not be granted a permit to park his trailer on his land so that he could access building materials and equipment for his home.
  3. This amounts to violation of Plaintiff’s right to equal protection enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.
  4. In Strauder v West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, the United States Supreme Court held that:

“It [the Fourteenth Amendment] was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the states. It not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any state the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and authorized Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. … It ordains that no state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. … It ordains that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  • DISPARATE-IMPACT LIABILITY
  1. Through their actions, all Defendants are liable under disparate-impact liability. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, the United States Supreme Court held that legal objections of plaintiffs filing under the Fair Housing Act, to zoning and lending practices only need to demonstrate a disparate impact on minorities, typically presented as data and not as an individual’s grievance, and not a deliberate intent to discriminate. The Supreme Court stated as follows:

“Suits targeting unlawful zoning laws and other housing restrictions that unfairly exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without sufficient justification are at the heartland of disparate-impact liability.”

  1. Defendants did not have justification for denying Plaintiff a permit to park a trailer on his property so that he could access materials and equipment to build his home. On the contrary, Plaintiff’s neighbor, Mr. Polvony, had a special permit to park multiple trailers on his property. The only difference between Plaintiff and Mr. Polvony is that Plaintiff is a protected class individual, an African American. 
  2. Defendants’ actions, including Ms. Wozney’s refusal to perform the service of wetlands delineation for Plaintiff as she had been hired to complete, hampered Plaintiff’s efforts of building a home for his family, on his property. Ms. Wozney’s refusal was discriminatory against Plaintiff.

  • PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following reliefs:

  1. A declaration that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under Section 804(b) of the Fair Housing Act and Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution;
  2. Compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of property.
  3. An order of specific performance compelling Defendants to issue the required permits to Plaintiff.
  4. An order barring Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiff in future through denial of permits and licenses and retaliation of any kind;
  5. Punitive damages;
  6. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred with this suit;
  7. Interest on (f) above;
  8. Such equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances; and
  9. Award such further relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper.

  • JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff requests trial by jury.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________

Monti Knazze

Insert Plaintiff’s Address

Insert Plaintiff’s State & Zipcode

Insert Phone Number

Insert Email

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.