The Santa Monica City Attorneys Office has filed a lawsuit against a landlord, alleging violations of the citys housing anti-discrimination laws involving two elderly Army veteran brothers. According to the complaint, the landlord refused to accept a Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) voucher that would have helped the 77- and 80-year-old tenants afford rent at their rent-controlled apartment. The filing also alleges the landlord denied a request for installation of a chair liftfunded by the Office of Veterans Affairsthat would allow the brothers to safely navigate stairs in their two-story unit. Under Santa Monicas Housing Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, landlords are prohibited from discriminating against tenants with disabilities or those using housing vouchers, including VASH or Section 8. The ordinance requires reasonable accommodations for disabled tenants and bars refusing rental subsidies or expressing discriminatory preferences. Violations can carry penalties of up to $10,000 per offense, a standard the City Attorneys Consumer Protection Unit cites in pressing the case. The lawsuit seeks a court order directing the landlord to stop discriminatory practices, complete fair-housing training, approve installation of the chair lift, and accept the tenants VASH voucher. In addition to injunctive relief, the city is asking for monetary and punitive damages as well as attorneys fees. Framed as an enforcement action meant to secure both immediate accessibility and long-term affordability, the filing underscores the citys position that disability access and voucher acceptance are mandatory where applicable under local law. Santa Monica officials characterize the case as part of a broader, ongoing effort to enforce the voucher discrimination ban, which was strengthened in 2015 and upheld after a legal challenge in 2017. According to the City Attorneys Office, this is the third lawsuit brought to enforce the prohibition and the first to involve a VASH voucher specifically. In two prior cases, court judgments required landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. The City Attorneys announcement links these past outcomes to the current strategy: use targeted litigation to compel compliance and establish clear expectations across the local rental market. The complaint emphasizes the practical stakes for the two veterans. Without voucher acceptance, the filing says, the brothers face increased housing insecurity despite a federally supported benefit designed for precisely this situation. Without the chair liftpaid for by the VAtheir ability to safely access their home is compromised. By bundling the accommodation claim with the voucher acceptance issue, the city presents the case as a combined test of disability rights and source-of-income protections under the local ordinance. City attorneys also point to the ordinances structure: it not only forbids explicit refusals but also bans policies and practices that effectively deny access to voucher holders or disabled tenants. The requested remedies aim to correct both alleged violationsensuring the voucher is accepted going forward and that the accessibility feature is installedwhile creating a compliance framework through training and court oversight. The $10,000-per-offense penalty provision, if applied, adds financial consequence to future noncompliance.