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
Woodard v. Fanboy, L.L.C.
No. 00-12507 (11th Cir. July 26, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54832
Description
Tenant Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Jury’s Finding of Familial-Status Discrimination
Abstract
The Eleventh Circuit has held that plaintiff presented sufficient
evidence to support a jury’s finding of familial-status
discrimination. Plaintiff tenant lived in defendant
landlord’s apartment building with her ten-year-old daughter
and eight-year-old son. After defendant evicted plaintiff, she
brought suit claiming that defendant had discriminated against her
in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).
Plaintiff alleged that defendant evicted her because she would not
have sex with him and because she had children. The jury found in
plaintiff’s favor and awarded her $8,000 in damages. However,
the district court overturned the verdict, finding that
insufficient evidence supported plaintiff’s familial-status
claim. Accordingly, the court ordered a new trial of
plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim. Plaintiff appealed.
Reversing, the court of appeals held that plaintiff’s
familial-status discrimination claim was supported by sufficient
evidence. The court found that the evidence at trial was capable of
refuting defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s apartment
was “filthy.” The court also found that a reasonable
jury could find that defendant’s second asserted
nondiscriminatory reason for evicting her—that plaintiff and
her children were responsible for trash left outside her
apartment—was also a pretext. Noting that defendant advanced
no other reason for plaintiff’s eviction, and finding that
defendant was generally hostile to plaintiff’s children, the
court concluded that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to
support a jury’s finding of familial-status discrimination.
