Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Krueger v. Cuomo
No. 96-2906 (7th Cir. June 3, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52211
Description
Seventh Circuit Affirms $10,000 Civil Penalty Against Landlord Who Sexually Harassed Section 8 Tenant
Abstract
The Seventh Circuit has affirmed the district court’s finding
that appellant landlord violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3601 et seq., by sexually harassing one of his
tenants. Landlord had agreed to rent an apartment to a Section 8
tenant, despite the fact that she could not afford the rent,
stating that she could pay money on the side or "fool around
or something" to make up the $100 shortfall. On their way to
the housing authority office to sign the rental agreement, landlord
touched tenant, rubbed her, and tried to kiss her. Tenant later
returned to housing authority, reported landlord’s advances,
and filed complaints against landlord with the Urban League and the
federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). However,
landlord continued to harass tenant after she moved in. Ultimately,
after landlord learned that tenant had filed complaints against
him, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, and tenant
moved out after landlord attempted to evict her. Finding that
landlord had engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment, he
administrative law judge (ALJ) enjoined landlord from committing
future acts of discrimination, assessed a civil penalty of $10,000,
and ordered landlord to pay tenant $622 for alternative housing
costs, $2,000 for the inconvenience occasioned by her loss of the
apartment, and $20,000 for emotional distress. The district court
affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On appeal, landlord argued that
the damages and civil penalty were excessive. Affirming, the court
of appeals held that the ALJ was entitled to make a reasonable
estimate, based on all of the evidence before him, of
tenant’s alternative housing costs. The court also found that
the evidence was sufficient to support the award of damages for
emotional distress and that tenant was not obligated to call an
expert witness to testify as to the nature and extent of the
damages she suffered. Finally the court held that the civil fine
assessed by the ALJ, the maximum penalty authorized under the
governing statute, was not excessive.
