GIRARD — A Portage County woman filed a federal lawsuit in 2024 against her landlord, alleging that he committed federal Fair Housing Act violations and otherwise harmed her by allegedly trying to coerce her into giving him sexual favors in exchange for favorable treatment on the terms of her rental payments for a Girard property.

The attorney for the landlord, Alfred Falgiani Jr. of Girard, filed a motion for summary judgment last October asking U.S. District Court Judge John R. Adams in Akron to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is “no genuine issue of material fact” left in the case and that “reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion,” that the case should be dismissed.

The attorneys for the woman, Amber Howard, filed a response to the motion for summary judgment in December, and now the parties are waiting for a ruling to see whether Adams will end the case now or whether it will proceed to trial or settlement without a trial.

Howard’s amended complaint, filed in January 2025, alleges that she began renting a home in Girard from Falgiani in October 2022 and that Falgiani repeatedly asked her to date him “in exchange for reduced rent.” It added that “On one occasion, he rescinded an eviction against Ms. Howard only after she agreed to show him her breasts and send him a nude photograph.”

LANDLORD ARGUMENTS

The response Falgiani’s attorney, Jason Whitacre of Kent, filed last October states that Falgiani is the owner of a rental duplex on Woodlawn Avenue in Girard that he rented to Howard in 2022. The filing states that Howard lied on her rental application by not listing the court appearances she had in the previous seven years, including several evictions in Newton Falls Municipal Court between November 2019 and November 2022.

He would not have rented to her at all if he had known those facts and other information in that court’s records, the Falgiani response states.

Howard missed one of her first rental payments Dec. 1, 2022, the response states. After repeated text messages to Howard and her not paying the rent, he posted an eviction notice Dec. 9, 2022, and started eviction proceedings Dec. 19, 2022. He later withdrew the eviction after Howard paid her rent, the filing states. Falgiani filed more eviction proceedings in the months to come.

On Aug. 21, 2023, after Girard Municipal Court ordered Howard evicted, she accepted Falgiani’s invitation to have pizza with him. But Falgiani did not know Howard was recording their conversation on her phone, which was in her purse, the filing states.

Four days later, Aug. 25, 2023, she told Falgiani that she was contesting the eviction, that she had recorded their Aug. 21, 2023, conversation and was going to file a Fair Housing Act complaint against him, Falgiani’s filing states. Howard had never stated any concerns about Falgiani’s words or actions toward her prior to Aug. 25, 2023, the filing states. Girard Municipal Court entered a judgment entry against Howard for $4,476 plus interest and court costs.

The Falgiani filing states that “Although Falgiani denies violating the FHA in his interactions with Howard, he also did not understand the FHA prohibited him from entering into a personal relationship with a tenant.”

The filing states that a motion for summary judgment “gives the trial judge an initial opportunity to assess the need for a trial” and provides an opportunity to determine whether “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require a submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”

TENANT ARGUMENTS

The December 2025 summary judgment response from attorney Thomas Kayes of Chicago, who represents Howard, agrees that Howard fell behind on her rent in December 2022 and that Falgiani filed for eviction. Her filing states that she was given until Jan. 31, 2023, to leave the home. Her filing states that she met with Falgiani Jan. 28, 2023, and Falgiani “proposed to Howard that they have a relationship” and that Falgiani would give her discounts on her rent.

That night, she gave Falgiani $1,400 toward her back rent. She knew her eviction was still pending and that she still owed Falgiani other rent money, so she agreed to go to his house, where Falgiani grabbed her sexually, but she pushed him away, her filing states.

Later, she agreed to clean the other half of the duplex where she lived to “work off” the balance she owed Falgiani, the filing states. Falgiani showed up there while she was cleaning and repeatedly made sexual comments, her filing states. She later wore baggy clothes that she hoped would reduce his interest in her, she stated. She declined his invitations to go out with him.

But as her eviction remained pending in February 2023, she “relented” on some of Falgiani’s requests, including a photo, her filing states.

Falgiani filed additional evictions against Howard, who went to dinner with Falgiani and recorded their conversation, her filing states. During the dinner, Falgiani “can be heard talking about” the woman’s body, and Howard was heard saying no to his “physical advances,” the Howard filing states.

The Howard filing states that the Fair Housing Act “prohibits conduct that it defines as “discriminatory housing practices.” It adds that federal courts have found that sexual harassment “is a discriminatory housing practice and therefore ‘actionable under the FHA.'”

It argues that Adams should refuse to grant summary judgment in Falgiani’s favor because “there is ample evidence that Falgiani’s conduct was severe and persisted throughout Howard’s 10-month tenancy.” It adds that a “reasonable jury could find that Falgiani’s harassment was both severe and pervasive.”

It states that “Quid pro quo harassment is another discriminatory housing practice,” defining it as any “unwelcome request or demand to engage in conduct where submission to the request or demand, either explicitly or implicitly is made a condition related to: The sale, rental or availability of a dwelling.”

FALGIANI RESPONSE

Falgiani filed a response in January 2026 to Howard’s amended complaint and her response to Falgiani’s request for summary judgment. In that filing, Falgiani argues that there is reason not to believe Howard’s allegations because of the “striking” differences between her verbal testimony at her deposition and the allegations in her response to the motion for summary judgment.

Falgiani’s filing states that Howard’s Fair Housing Act claims against Falgiani narrowed and now only accuse Falgiano of creating a “hostile housing environment and quid pro quo'” and that she “abandoned” other allegations involving “discriminatory statements and retaliation.”

Howard’s response filing states the following: “Howard’s response focuses on her hostile housing environment and quid pro quo claims under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and her request for compensatory and punitive damages related to those claims (Count 1); her discriminatory housing claim under Ohio’s Fair Housing Law (Count 2); and her assault and battery claims (Counts 4 and 5).”

In a foot note, Howard’s filing states that “In the interest of narrowing the issues, (Howard) abandons her discriminatory statements and retaliation claims under the FHA (part of Count 1).”

The Falgiani filing states that Howard’s response filing to the motion for summary judgment alleges that Falgiani engaged in similar conduct with other women. “However, none of those individuals provided sworn testimony in this case.”