Quigley v. Winter

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010 · Property

PropertyFair Housing ActSex discriminationSexual harassmentAttorney feesPunitive damageshostile housing environmentsexual harassment

Facts

Winter owned many rental homes and rented to low-income women, including Quigley, who used a Section 8 housing voucher. Quigley testified that Winter repeatedly engaged in unwanted sexualized conduct toward her during her tenancy, including touching her, rubbing his genitals in front of her, making sexually suggestive comments, making late-night calls, entering or visiting without notice, and refusing to leave promptly when in her home. Quigley wanted to leave but feared losing her voucher unless released from the lease, and Winter refused to rescind it. Near the end of the tenancy, when Quigley asked about return of her deposit, Winter touched her stomach and said, "My eagle eyes have not seen everything yet," and he later kept the deposit.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Quigley's FHA theories of hostile housing environment, quid pro quo harassment, sex discrimination, and interference with housing rights; whether punitive damages were properly submitted and constitutionally excessive; and whether the district court erred in reducing attorney fees without using the lodestar method.

Rule

Under the FHA, a hostile housing environment sexual-harassment claim is actionable when a landlord subjects a tenant to unwelcome sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with or deprive the tenant of the right to use or enjoy the home. Quid pro quo housing harassment occurs when housing benefits are explicitly or implicitly conditioned on sexual favors. Punitive damages are available when the defendant acts with evil motive or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights, and their constitutionality is assessed under the Gore factors: reprehensibility, ratio to actual harm, and comparable sanctions. Attorney fees for a prevailing FHA party must begin with the lodestar calculation of reasonable hours times reasonable rates.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, landlord Eric Nolan manages a four-unit building where tenant Marisol Vega rents an apartment. Over four months, Eric repeatedly appears at her door late at night without notice, comments on her body, twice brushes against her waist while inside, and once stays seated in her living room until she asks him three times to leave; Marisol testifies she no longer feels safe relaxing or sleeping in her home.

Marisol sues under the Fair Housing Act for sexual harassment. Which is the strongest argument that her hostile-housing claim should survive judgment as a matter of law?

Explanation. The majority recognized a hostile housing environment claim under the FHA when a landlord subjects a tenant to unwelcome sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with or deprive the tenant of the right to use or enjoy the home. Repeated late-night intrusions, unwanted touching, sexual comments, and refusal to leave the apartment can support that inference. The rule does not require an express sexual demand, automatic liability for any isolated comment, or proof of physical injury.