Russian Immigrants Awarded $85,000

Federal Court Jury Rules Immigrants Rights Were Violated

On Friday, March 24, 2007, a federal court jury found that Bowen Property Management (of Portland, Oregon) and two of its employees violated the civil rights of four Russian immigrants in 2000. This complicated case involved charges of bribery, extortion, and the misuse of government subsidized housing, and was decided in US District Court in Spokane, in favor of the Russian plaintiffs, to the tune of $85,000.

Two of the plaintiffs were represented by local attorneys Leigh Tully and Jeffery Finer, who is also an Adjunct Professor at GU Law. GU School of Law’s University Legal Assistance (commonly known as the Clinic) represented the other two plaintiffs. The 3L student lawyer team of Christopher Berhow and Jennifer Hendrickson, aided by 2L Daelyn Julius, managed the Clinic’s portion of the case under the supervision of faculty attorneys Al McNeil and Mark Wilson.

A quick summary of the case …

The plaintiffs, four Russian immigrants, filed suit in 2003, against Bowen Property Management. The charge was extortion, fair access to federally funded subsidized housing, and discrimination because of national origin.

The defendants, Bowen Property Management, and two of its employees, were accused of extorting bribes from renters applying for federally funded subsidized housing. The legal question developed over the issue of over-subscribed subsidized housing in Spokane County, and the process of waiting for available housing. The property management company charged with overseeing the process of granting subsidized apartments to qualifying tenants needed a waiting procedure, but none was in place. They instead left the process of accepting tenants to the manger on-site. In the absence of a transparent waiting process, this manager offered potential renters (but only those of Russian origin) the option of paying a fee to move to the front of the waiting line, promising a shorter term to get into the housing complex. This fee constituted a bribe.

To complicate matters, when housing was not made available, the Russian immigrants, one of which served as an interpreter, took their grievance directly to the building manager to request that the fees be returned. The manager instead called in the police, who showed up with an immigration officer in tow. Knowing that paying a bribe, as well as accepting a bribe, is a criminal offence, when questioned by the police and immigration agent, the Russian immigrants denied paying fees to the manager (fearing compromise of their immigration status). The manager then had the immigrants (including the interpreter) arrested on charges of attempted extortion. When questioned by authorities about the issue of charging fees, the manager and management company denied that fees were charged or accepted.

The law provides protection against discrimination of people applying for subsidized public housing. Retaliation against someone who is assisting another in their rights under the law is in itself a violation of the law. But it is the responsibility of legal counsel to prove that wrongs where committed. That’s where mountains of paperwork came in; from subpoenas, to witness and exhibit preparation, pre-trial and opening argument preparations, the legal teams put in hundreds of hours documenting and building their case. As Christopher Barrow put it, “there is no such thing as over preparing.”

With the help of attorneys Jeffery Finer and Leigh Talley, who did the primary planning and organization of the case, the ULA student lawyers built their case and substantiating evidence. “We started from meeting the clients and went through the pre-trial process. The defendant brought a summery judgment against us and we won. The summary judgment motion enabled us to keep our clients in the case,” said Jennifer Hendrickson about the pre-trial process. “It was the best class I took in law school. In the clinic they give a lot of responsibility to the students.”

Asked why they felt the judgment was made in favor of the plaintiffs, Berhow replied, “The trial is all in the preparation. If you spend the months, probably hundreds of hours, it all comes together at trial. Prep helps you think on your feet, so you know what the response will be.” Hendrickson added, “At first I was terrified to go into Federal Court, but I felt I was very prepared, and well coached by Al McNeil to get ready for it. We were able to watch Jeff Finer lead and we would follow up. He was an amazing mentor.” The group agreed that the tenacity of the plaintiffs was a factor in winning the case. They wanted the wrongs against them corrected, and were willing to see the process through.

“The students did the bulk of this work. But this is why we do what we do,” said Al McNeal after learning of the verdict. “We are a litigation clinic, but it is hard to get to trial (most cases settle). Going to trial is a culmination - only attorneys can represent someone in trial - it is a culmination of our profession.”

Top of Page