Tyus v. Urban Search Management

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996 · Evidence

102 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFair Housing ActExpert TestimonyJury InstructionsVoir DireRule 702Daubertsocial science experts

Facts

The New York, a luxury apartment building in Chicago, used billboard, newspaper, brochure, and radio advertising that featured only White human models over several years, often omitted the Equal Opportunity Logo, and made no equal-opportunity reference in radio ads. African-American plaintiffs and fair housing organizations monitored the ads from 1989 to 1992 and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), alleging selective advertising. At trial, plaintiffs sought to present a sociologist on Chicago housing discrimination and a marketing and psychology expert on how all-White advertising communicates to African-Americans, but both experts were excluded. The jury found only Louis Silverman liable for causing discriminatory advertisements to be printed, but awarded no compensable damages and found for the remaining defendants.

Issue

Whether the district court committed reversible error through its voir dire questioning, exclusion of plaintiffs' expert testimony, and jury instructions on mitigation, actual injury, limitations, and punitive damages in a Fair Housing Act discriminatory-advertising case. Also, whether social science expert testimony must be evaluated under Daubert and whether punitive damages should have gone to the jury.

Rule

Under Rule 702, Daubert's framework applies to social science as well as hard-science expert testimony: the court must determine whether the expert's work meets standards of intellectual rigor, whether the testimony is based on the expert's special skills, and whether it will assist the trier of fact. In Fair Housing Act discriminatory-advertising cases, plaintiffs seeking intangible or organizational damages have no duty to mitigate by notifying the defendant, suing after the first ad, or avoiding further exposure to the ads; repeated exposure may be necessary to establish a discriminatory pattern. A plaintiff alleging a continuous course of discriminatory conduct may recover damages predating the two-year filing period if they stem from a persistent process of illegal discrimination, and punitive damages must go to the jury when evidence would permit finding reckless or callous disregard of plaintiffs' rights or intentional violations of federal law.

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 a Fair Housing Act advertising suit in Milwaukee, two nonprofit housing groups offer Professor Elena Rios, a consumer-behavior scholar, to explain how a years-long apartment campaign using only White models would likely be understood by Black viewers. Her proffer relies on peer-reviewed articles, accepted focus-group techniques, and her review of the challenged ads. The trial judge excludes her testimony solely because "jurors see advertisements every day and can decide for themselves what ads mean."

On appeal, which is the strongest argument that the exclusion was erroneous?

Explanation. The majority held that Daubert's framework applies to social science testimony as well as hard science. The court must examine intellectual rigor, whether the opinion is based on the expert's special skills, and whether it will assist the trier of fact. It also rejected the view that expert testimony must concern matters wholly inaccessible to jurors.