Father Sues Ronald McDonald House Alleging Housing Policy Disproportionately Harms People of Color
The lawsuit argues that Ronald McDonald House’s criminal conviction ban violates state and federal anti-discrimination law; Plaintiff Juan Mieles was denied housing near the hospital where his son was being treated for cancer.
White Plains, NY – Today, the Legal Action Center (LAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) jointly filed a complaint against Ronald McDonald House of the Greater Hudson Valley (RMH) and Ronald McDonald House Charities, Inc. (RMHC) for discriminating against Plaintiff Juan Mieles by denying housing to him and his family, based solely on his past conviction, during his son’s hospitalization for intensive cancer treatment. The organizations’ blanket criminal conviction policy banning all individuals with a broad range of convictions, without consideration of individual circumstances, has an unjustified, discriminatory effect on Black and Latine individuals and families, like Mr. Mieles’s, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and New York State law.
Across the country, Ronald McDonald House provides housing for families close to the hospitals where their children are receiving care for life-threatening conditions, but when Mr. Mieles and his family needed this housing, RMH turned them away. RMH and RMHC’s housing policy made an already devastating situation even more challenging, adding to the entire family’s emotional distress and costing them precious time together during this incredibly difficult time.
“Getting our son’s diagnosis and learning his cancer was already advanced was obviously very scary. When he needed a stem cell transplant that could mean months in the hospital, we thought the Ronald McDonald House would help our family get through it. I was shocked when they told us we had to leave because of my conviction. I felt like the time I served and all the work I’d done over these years to put my life on the right track will never matter—once you have a record, you’re done, it will always follow you,” said Mr. Mieles. “Our son is still just a kid, and he was scared. It was heartbreaking to see him suffering and not be able to be with him all the time. Driving hours back and forth every day for weeks was a nightmare for my whole family, but we had no choice. My partner was pregnant, our baby was only eight months old, and our teenaged daughter was trying to keep up with school on top of everything. Being rejected by Ronald McDonald House took a very heavy toll on all of us. Now our son’s cancer is back, and he will need another difficult procedure with another long hospital stay. I can’t even think about how my family will get through this all over again.”
Due to systemic racism in the criminal legal system, Black and Latine people in the United States are over-policed, over-charged, over-prosecuted, over-incarcerated, and over-sentenced, leading to their overrepresentation throughout the system. In New York State, of the formerly incarcerated population is Black or Latine. As a result, policies like those implemented by RMH have an outsized harm on communities of color. Under the Fair Housing Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, policies that have an unjustified and unnecessary discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin are unlawful.
“Ronald McDonald House’s policy is just one example of the many ways that the criminal legal system perpetually harms individuals and families. Housing providers, employers, and other decision-makers routinely reject people with conviction records for years and even decades after an offense, without considering what the person has done with their life since. Not only are these practices unjust, significant to this case, research shows that a past criminal conviction is not a good determinant of a person’s qualities as a neighbor or tenant,” explained Diane Johnston, senior staff attorney at LAC. “Since returning home, Mr. Mieles has worked hard to put his past behind him, providing for and supporting his family, and serving as an essential caregiver to his son. Even in the context of trying to keep his family together and care for his ill child, Mr. Mieles and his entire family were penalized.”
“Federal and New York State government agencies have long warned housing providers that unjustified and unnecessary blanket bans from housing based on criminal history disproportionately harm Black and Latine people and are unlawful,” said Amanda Meyer, senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program. “Ronald McDonald House’s policy does not allow for an individualized assessment of a person’s circumstances, including their conduct since the offense or the needs of their family for housing. Their denial has deprived Mr. Mieles and his family of precious time together during one of the worst time periods of their lives—while their son battled cancer.”
“Too often, formerly incarcerated Black and Brown people are locked out of housing opportunities, making it harder to access vital resources like Ronald McDonald House,” said Rubin Danberg Biggs, Skadden fellow at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Discriminatory housing policies such as Ronald McDonald House’s blanket ban only serve to extend punishment beyond a court sentence. People like Mr. Mieles are our family, friends, and community members, and their past should not determine whether they can live in dignified and affordable housing.”
This litigation is being led by Diane Johnston, Courtnie Drigo, and Jennifer Sinton for LAC; Amanda Meyer, Alejandro Ortiz, and Alexis Alvarez for the ACLU; and Rubin Danberg Biggs and Molly Biklen for NYCLU.
A copy of the complaint can be found here: /documents/mieles-v-rmh-rmhc-complaint
Racial Justice
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Racial Justice
Mieles v. Ronald McDonald House
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.