Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)

Citation
Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Parent Document
Auday Maki and Salwa Atwan v. William Laakko, Beverly Laakko and Liisa Laakko, 88 F.3d 361 (1996)
Effective Date
1996-08-12

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text

887 chars
The harassment claim, while serving as a convenient explanation for the evidence that the Makis moved voluntarily, does nothing to advance their discrimination claim. The incidents that the Makis claim constituted harassment amount to no more than minimal friction between a landlord and tenants. Counsel for the Makis should have informed them that activities such as admonishments about excessive wear, use or abuse of areas they were not explicitly given the right to use by their month-to-month lease, and taking mail addressed to the “owner/resident” do not amount to harassment. The fact that counsel for the Makis chose to rely on such weak facts to support a claim for housing discrimination when the Makis appear to have vacated voluntarily is a telling indictment of just how meritless the claim is. The Makis were in no way forced from their tenancy because of harassment. Ill