A subsidized-housing provider in Adams County did not discriminate against a Westminster man on account of his race, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit decided on Tuesday, finding the building owner had other reasons for denying him a unit change.

Samuel K. Giles lives in a housing complex that Adams County Housing Authority operates. ACHA in 2017 advertised that it would provide relocation assistance to tenants at the complex in the event of a redevelopment of the property. Giles, who is Black, requested to transfer to another unit under the ownership of Alto Partners, LLLP. Alto also owned Giles’ building.

Alto denied the transfer, saying Giles’ financial information showed he did not earn the minimum amount required and that he refused to provide additional details necessary for his application. 

Not only did Giles disagree with Alto’s methodology for calculating income, but he accused the company of racial discrimination, even though, as circuit Judge Allison H. Eid wrote in the court’s opinion, “African American and other minority residents make up a substantial part of the population at Alto Apartments, and Alto ultimately rented the unit Giles requested to an African American mother and child.”

Instead of taking ACHA up on an offer to assist with his appeal, Giles filed suit, alleging a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and further violations of state fair housing laws.

A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case after ordering Giles to produce two years of tax returns and a profit-and-loss statement for the company he owns. The court found Alto had a nondiscriminatory reason – the inability to verify his income – for denying Giles the transfer. Further, Alto had complied with state and federal guidance for computing income eligibility.

Colorado’s compliance manual for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program requires that, for self-employed residents, “owners must include net income from the operation of a business and any self-employment income received by the applicant/resident.” The manual also lists the documentation required, which includes a tax return and profit-and-loss statement.

On appeal, “[t]he gist of his contention seems to be that Alto (and later the district court) should have looked at his annual or gross income instead of his net income to determine if he qualified for the Alto Apartments,” Eid wrote.

The three-member circuit panel upheld the district court’s decision. The case is Giles v. Alto Partners.