Virginia Fair Housing Case Demonstrates Aggressive State Fair Housing Enforcement
By A.J. Johnson
The David Merryman Fair Housing Case: A $2.25 Million Reminder That Landlord Conduct Matters
By AJ Johnson
A recent Virginia fair housing case involving Hampton Roads landlord David Merryman reminds owners, property managers, and housing professionals That Fair Housing compliance extends beyond the wording of a rental advertisement, the questions asked on an application, or how applicants are screened.
Tenant treatment throughout the tenancy matters, too.
In July 2026, the Virginia Attorney General's Office announced a $2.25 million settlement resolving its fair housing case against Merryman, a landlord who owned more than 60 rental properties in Hampton and Newport News. The settlement provides substantial financial compensation for affected tenants, requires Merryman to sell his Virginia rental properties, and permanently prohibits him from operating as a landlord in Virginia. It also addresses the consequences of eviction records generated during the tenancy.
For owners and managers, the case matters not only because of the settlement's size but also because of the range of conduct involved and how that conduct intersected with Fair Housing protections.
How the Case Began
The Virginia Attorney General's Office originally filed the civil action in 2021 under former Attorney General Mark Herring. According to the Attorney General's Office, attorneys began interviewing Merryman's tenants in 2021 after receiving information about his treatment of renters.
At the time, Merryman owned approximately 23 rental properties in Hampton and 39 in Newport News. Federal court documents later described his rental business as primarily serving low-income African American tenants who had limited housing options and were vulnerable to homelessness.
A September 2021 report by WHRO, based on allegations in the state's lawsuit, found that many of Merryman's tenants were Black women and that the properties allegedly had homes with significant maintenance and habitability problems. The lawsuit further alleged that when tenants requested repairs, Merryman sometimes responded with racial and sexist abuse rather than addressing the underlying maintenance problems.
The case therefore involved considerably more than a conventional landlord-tenant dispute over repairs.
The state's allegations combined property conditions, tenant treatment, protected-class harassment, and adverse actions against tenants who complained about those conditions.
What the State Alleged
According to the Virginia Attorney General's Office, the court found that Merryman had, over a period of years:
The Attorney General's Office also states that the settlement requires Merryman to acknowledge that he discriminated against and abused tenants.
The federal criminal case provides additional context. A 2024 federal indictment alleged that Merryman owned approximately 62 rental properties in Hampton and Newport News and had a history of renting out structurally unsound properties or those lacking functioning heat and plumbing. The indictment also alleged that many of the affected tenants were low-income African American renters with limited housing alternatives.
However, it is important to distinguish the civil Fair Housing case from the separate federal criminal prosecution. The two matters involved overlapping facts but were separate proceedings.
The Intersection of Maintenance and Fair Housing
One of the most important compliance lessons from the Merryman matter concerns the relationship between ordinary property-management decisions and Fair Housing liability.
A failure to make a repair does not automatically constitute a Fair Housing violation.
Likewise, an eviction for nonpayment of rent is not inherently discriminatory.
The Fair Housing concern changes substantially when maintenance, lease enforcement, eviction, or other housing-related actions are connected to a tenant's protected characteristic or administered differently because of that characteristic.
This distinction matters for owners and managers.
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario One: A property has a plumbing problem. The management company receives a work order, processes it according to its standard procedures, and completes the repair.
Scenario Two: A tenant from a protected class repeatedly requests repairs. The management agent responds differently because of the tenant's protected characteristic, and the tenant then faces adverse treatment for complaining.
The physical repair issue may look identical on paper. The Fair Housing analysis is not.
The Merryman case shows why property managers should not treat a maintenance complaint solely as a maintenance issue. Who made the complaint, how the complaint was handled, what was said to the tenant, and what happened afterward can all become relevant.
Retaliation Is Another Critical Issue
The case also highlights the importance of distinguishing between legitimate lease enforcement and retaliation.
A landlord generally retains the right to enforce legitimate lease requirements. A tenant's protected status does not shield them from legitimate lease enforcement.
But adverse action taken because a tenant exercised a protected right can create a very different legal issue.
The Attorney General's Office specifically identified the eviction of tenants who requested necessary repairs as part of the conduct addressed in the Merryman case.
For management companies, this creates an important operational lesson:
The timing of an adverse action can matter.
If a tenant submits a complaint, requests an accommodation, reports discrimination, participates in a Fair Housing investigation, or otherwise exercises a protected right, management should be especially careful to document the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for any subsequent adverse action.
That does not prevent management from proceeding with an otherwise appropriate eviction or lease enforcement action. It means the organization should be able to demonstrate that the action is based on legitimate facts and is consistent with its established policies and procedures.
The Eviction-Record Provision Is Particularly Significant
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the Merryman settlement is how it treats eviction records.
Under the settlement, Merryman must work with the courts to remove millions of dollars of eviction filings and judgments from former tenants' records. The Attorney General's Office specifically identified eviction records as a serious barrier to obtaining future housing.
This provision illustrates an issue that housing providers should consider carefully.
An eviction filing does not necessarily establish that a tenant was a bad tenant. An eviction case can involve disputes over rent, repairs, habitability, procedural issues, payment assistance, or other circumstances.
Nevertheless, an eviction record can become highly consequential when a prospective housing provider conducts a screening.
That makes the Merryman settlement noteworthy beyond the immediate parties. It recognizes the potential downstream housing consequences of eviction records stemming from allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory practices.
The Settlement Is Much Broader Than Monetary Damages
The financial component of the settlement is substantial: $2.25 million will compensate tenants who were victims of the discriminatory conduct.
But the nonmonetary provisions may ultimately have an even greater operational significance.
The settlement requires Merryman to:
The scope of these remedies shows that Fair Housing enforcement can affect far more than a single transaction. In an appropriate case, enforcement can reach the landlord's business operations, property portfolio, tenant records, and the landlord's ability to continue operating as a housing provider.
What Should Owners and Managers Take Away From the Case?
The Merryman matter should not be viewed as a case involving only an unusually egregious landlord. Its most useful lessons are the basic compliance principles that apply to every housing operation.
1. Train everyone who interacts with residents
Fair Housing training should not be limited to leasing personnel.
Maintenance employees, property managers, regional managers, resident-service personnel, accounting staff, and anyone else who communicates directly with residents can create Fair Housing exposure through their words or actions.
A discriminatory statement by a maintenance employee can be just as problematic as a discriminatory statement by a leasing agent.
2. Treat maintenance complaints consistently
Management should have a documented system for receiving, prioritizing, assigning, and completing maintenance requests.
Consistency is important.
If the organization handles similar problems differently for different residents, it should be able to explain why.
3. Be extremely careful when a complaint precedes an adverse action
If a resident complains about discrimination, requests a reasonable accommodation, reports a Fair Housing concern, or otherwise exercises a protected right, management should pause and carefully review the circumstances before taking adverse action.
The question should not simply be:
"Do we have grounds to evict?"
It should also be:
"Can we clearly demonstrate that the proposed action is based on legitimate, documented reasons unrelated to the resident's protected activity?"
4. Document facts—not conclusions
Good documentation is factual.
Instead of writing:
"Tenant is difficult and always complains."
A better record would state:
"Resident submitted three written maintenance requests regarding the bathroom plumbing on June 3, June 10, and June 17. Work orders 1234, 1247, and 1262 were created. Vendor inspected the unit on June 19, and repair was completed June 21."
Objective documentation is much more useful when management later has to demonstrate that residents were treated consistently.
5. Remember that resident communications are part of the Fair Housing record
Emails, text messages, work-order notes, inspection reports, eviction communications, and internal management notes can all become relevant evidence.
The Merryman case is a particularly dramatic example of why communications matter.
A housing provider should assume that anything written about a resident may eventually be read by someone outside the organization.
A Broader Compliance Lesson
The Merryman case also demonstrates why Fair Housing compliance cannot operate in a silo.
Fair Housing intersects with:
A property can have a perfectly written Fair Housing policy and still have significant exposure if employees do not follow it.
The most effective Fair Housing programs therefore combine policy, training, consistent procedures, documentation, supervision, and periodic review of actual management practices.
The Bottom Line
The $2.25 million Merryman settlement is among the more significant recent Fair Housing enforcement actions in Virginia. The case began with a state lawsuit in 2021 and ultimately led to a settlement that provides monetary compensation to affected tenants and requires the landlord to divest his Virginia rental portfolio and permanently exit the Virginia rental housing business. It also reminds us that States can pursue fair housing justice as aggressively as the federal government.
For housing professionals, however, the most important lesson is not the dollar amount.
It is the connection between how residents are treated and how housing decisions are made.
Maintenance decisions, resident communications, lease enforcement, eviction activity, and responses to complaints may seem like ordinary property-management functions. But when those actions are influenced by a protected characteristic—or are taken in retaliation for protected activity—they can become Fair Housing issues.
The Merryman case is therefore a useful reminder that Fair Housing compliance is not simply an application-stage obligation.
It applies throughout the entire resident relationship—from the first inquiry through the end of the tenancy and, in some circumstances, even to the consequences that follow an eviction.
Professional Perspective: Five Fair Housing Lessons From the Merryman Case
Five Fair Housing Lessons for Owners and Management Agents
The Merryman case provides several practical compliance lessons for multifamily housing professionals. While the allegations and circumstances were unusually serious, the underlying principles apply to everyday property management.
1. Fair Housing compliance extends beyond leasing.
Fair Housing risk does not end once a resident moves into the property. Maintenance, resident communications, lease enforcement, eviction decisions, reasonable accommodation requests, and complaint handling can all create Fair Housing exposure.
2. Resident complaints require careful handling.
Document and address a resident's complaint about maintenance, discrimination, or another housing-related issue through established procedures. Management should be particularly careful when an adverse action is contemplated after a resident has made a protected complaint or otherwise exercised a protected right.
3. Consistency is critical.
Owners and agents should periodically review whether similarly situated residents receive comparable treatment. Differences in how maintenance requests, lease violations, late payments, notices, or other issues are handled should have legitimate, documented explanations.
4. Documentation can be a critical compliance tool.
Management records should focus on objective facts rather than characterizations of residents. Work orders, inspection records, resident correspondence, notices, accommodation documentation, and other records should tell a clear story about what happened and why management acted as it did.
5. Management culture matters.
A written Fair Housing policy is important, but it cannot substitute for appropriate employee training, supervision, and accountability. Everyone who interacts with residents should understand that discriminatory comments, harassment, inconsistent treatment, and retaliation can create significant liability for both the individual and the housing provider.
The Takeaway
The most important lesson from the Merryman matter is that Fair Housing compliance is not a stand-alone function of the leasing office. It is part of everyday property management.
Owners and management agents should periodically ask a simple question:
If an outside investigator reviewed our resident interactions, maintenance records, communications, and enforcement decisions, could we demonstrate that residents were treated consistently and that our decisions were based on legitimate, documented reasons?
If so, the organization is in a much stronger position to demonstrate effective Fair Housing compliance.
Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.
We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.