PROVIDENCE -- The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights has settled a discrimination case it brought against Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services for steering away expectant mothers and families from rental properties.

The settlement requires Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services -- a nonprofit agency that works to provide affordable housing -- pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Fund for Community Progress in Providence, and to allow on-site training for all its members "on the subject matter of state and federal Fair Housing Laws."

The Greater Elmwood agency must also acknowledge it has been advised that another violation of the state Fair Housing Practices Act within three years will constitute a second violation, thereby exposing it to a possible civil penalty of up to $25,000.

Executive director Michael D. Evora of the state Human Rights Commission, said, "We want specifically to have it noted that they are admitting to a violation, and that they could be subject to a civil penalty in the future" if the agency violates the Fair Housing Practices Act again. "We wanted them to acknowledge that."

Cynthia Langlykke, executive director of Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services, yesterday said that the agency is "looking forward to the fair housing training opportunities that will be provided by the commission," and to improving its rental-management procedures.

Langlykke said that "no one was fired, but there has been a staff change related to our property management" since the commission's findings against the agency.

She added, "We certainly don't intentionally discriminate, and we're very much in favor of fair housing."

The commission took a little-used route in initiating its own proceedings against the Greater Elmwood agency; the last commission-initiated proceeding was filed more than 10 years ago. Evora said he expects that procedure will be used more in the future, "as conditions warrant."

The testing that formed the basis for the case against Greater Elmwood was conducted after settlement of a 2005 discrimination case brought to the commission by an expectant mother.

"We decided to send out testers because the earlier case indicated that Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services was making distinctions between potential renters who were not pregnant and did not have children, versus potential renters who were pregnant and did have children, which is a broad class of people," Evora said.

In the 2005 case, a single expectant mother filed a charge alleging that she was denied housing in Greater Elmwood's Parkis Street property because of her race, and because the apartments were not, in the words of the rental agent, "de-leaded."

"In the first case, the woman actually filed on the basis of race but during the course of the investigation, the investigator was told it had nothing to do with race. It had to do with the fact that she was pregnant," said Evora, as well as that the property ostensibly could not be guaranteed to be lead-free.

The case was settled after Greater Elmwood Neighborhood Services was told it could not discriminate against the pregnant woman by denying her a rental unit, "regardless of the agency's 'concerns' about lead paint, as this constituted familial discrimination," according to a news release from the commission.

After being informed that its conduct violated the Fair Housing Practices Act, the Greater Elmwood agency allowed the woman to move in to a rental unit, and the case was closed.

"A few months later we sent out testers to see if was still happening," said Evora.

Testers seeking to rent a unit were sent to the offices of Greater Elmwood on Parkis Street. One was "obviously pregnant, while the second tester was a single woman with no outward signs of pregnancy," the news release said.

"Agents of Greater Elmwood told the pregnant tester that there were no units available for rent in the Parkis Street property," the release said.

"She was informed that Greater Elmwood had a 'sister company' that had property to rent nearby. The pregnant tester informed Greater Elmwood that she wanted to rent only in the Parkis Street property. She was informed that if a unit became available, she would be called and notified of such availability," the release said.

The second tester went to the Greater Elmwood offices shortly after. She was shown units in the same property that the pregnant tester had expressed interest in.

"No concerns about lead paint were expressed to the second tester. She was not steered to other property of Greater Elmwood. She was given a lease to fill out, which she did, returning it a day later," the release said.

A day after the second tester's visit, the first tester called to see if a unit was now available on Parkis Street.

"She was informed that there were no units," the release stated. "The tester asked if she could fill out an application and she was told that there was no need to do so, but that she could keep checking back to see if a unit became available."

kziner@projo.com / (401) 277-7375