Federal authorities have charged the owner of an RV park in central Florida with discrimination against a transgender woman after he sent her a note telling her to “act,” “talk” and “dress like a man” to avoid trouble.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced Tuesday that it was charging 21 Palms RV Resort and its owner and administrator, Nathan Dykgraaf, for an alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act.
“The conduct alleged here provides a clear example of unlawful discrimination,” Damon Smith, HUD’s general counsel, said in a statement. “This Charge makes clear that the Department will take action to stop housing providers from subjecting transgender tenants to such unlawful conduct.”
According to the complaint, the incident took place in early January 2021, when the woman, a now-former tenant, came out as trans and “began widely wearing feminine-presenting clothing in public.”
On Jan. 13, Dykgraaf handed her a handwritten note saying that he was aware of her transition but asked her to present herself as a male, to avoid any trouble.
“I have been informed of your actions to have your sex changed to a female, I am told you have started taking the necessary medication and that after a period of time your change will be completed,” Dykgraaf wrote, according to HUD. “To avoid problems you must: 1. Act as a man 2. Talk as a man 3. Dress as a man 4. Avoid tight clothing that is revealing sexual organs. If you follow the above steps trouble will be avoided. Sincerely, Nathan D.”
After receiving the note, the woman, whose name wasn’t made public, “stopped fully expressing her gender identity, no longer publicly dressed as a woman at the [RV park] and avoided [Dykgraaf] out of fear of eviction or other trouble.”
She also avoided interacting with her neighbors and staff and limited her use of the amenities.
The woman, who had moved into the property in June 2018, filed the complaint with HUD in February 2021. On March 24, Dykgraaf wrote to HUD, stating that the woman was “not free to engage with other tenants about her clothing and transition that makes them uncomfortable. It is considered disruptive to the community ”
She moved out of the park six months later.
“No one should have to change how they express their gender identity to maintain their housing,” said Demetria L. McCain, HUD’s principal deputy assistant secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Setting restrictions like these is not only unacceptable, it is illegal,” she added.
According to the department, the charge will now be heard by a U.S. administrative law judge (ALJ) unless either party prefers to have the case heard in a federal district court.
If an ALJ finds that discrimination has occurred, the ALJ could; award damages to the woman for harm caused by the discrimination; order Dykgraaf to pay for any legal fees; and also “impose fines to vindicate the public interest.” If the matter is decided in federal court, the federal district court judge could also award punitive damages.
©2022 New York Daily News. Visit nydailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
What a screwed-up world we live in any more.
The well intended fair housing act has been morphed into the Fairy housing act, where people whose Tinkerbell sized brains are so warped they cannot tell what sex they are, and if anyone steps in to take out the trailer trash, there stands the woke government to allow the trash to pile up and ripen beyond what normal human beings can stand. This is America, and you do have a right to advise people how to behave to avoid trouble in their own neighborhoods, which when you think about it is an act of caring and protection of people unable to think straight and take care of themselves, let alone their surgically snipped off wankers, some which have been documented landing attached to balloons in your friendly neighborhood back yards In a Freudian “Fee Willie” moment. Try explaining that one to the kids. Calling someone something they are just adds to the social collective insanity which the perpetrators have a right to inflict upon themselves but no right to force others to participate, accept as normal and least of all approve. Few ever complete the transaction and just end up mentally lost somewhere in between the Devil and the deep Blue States.
YET More proof, EVERY DAMNABLE aspect of the fed govt, is being weaponized against WE the people..
It’s a private establishment. The owner should be able to put out whatever regulations he wants on his tenants. If they don’t like those regulations then they’re free to move. Seems simple enough to me but when you involve the federal government in anything it gets complicated in a hurry.
To fully advance the Lying, Treasonous, Immoral, Demonic, Socialist Democrat Party’s destructive beliefs and agendas is to divide our citizens with hate and promote – racism, open borders, radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, the LGBTQ lifestyle, unfettered sexual identity, transgender, same sex marriage, child indoctrination into sexual confusion and perversions, the pagan Liberal left Democrats must do away with GOD, our Constitution, common sense, morality, Christian values and free religious exercise altogether.
Under the Disguise of “anti-discrimination.”
If one likes or believes in doing something perverted, sinful, immoral or unnatural and others do not accept their behavior or refuse to associate with it. How are others denying their freedom? You are free to be a degenerate sexual pervert if you want, but do not expect others to accept you as anything but a degenerate sexual pervert.
Bigotry is not necessarily always a bad thing. One need not tolerate or accept every belief or action of another.
It’s unclear (from the story as written) whether the owner intended this note to be a helpful warning that others in the park are intolerant, or whether it was a thinly-veiled threat coming from himself. Naturally, the tenant has to presume the latter, in order to sue the known party for something he actually did, rather than unknown parties for something they haven’t done, and might never do.
My inclination is to believe that the owner is sympathetic but perhaps (over)heard other tenants talking, and since nobody has actually done anything yet, all he can do is warn of the danger and suggest how he might avoid trouble. Like warning a woman not to walk alone in Islamabad.