Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 73-1634.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1634.,73-1634. |
| Citation | 496 F.2d 1119 |
| Parties | Marc Aurele JEANTY and Maxence Jeanty, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McKEY & POAGUE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Douglas C. Nohlgren, Robert G. Schwemm, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Raymond H. Groble, Jr., Joseph H. Taylor, Sr., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and NOLAND,* District Judge.
This action under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) arises from plaintiffs' assertions that the defendants refused to rent an apartment to them on the basis of their race. After trial the District Court dismissed the complaint as to defendants McKey and Poague, Inc., and its employees, defendants George M. Hiles and H. M. Migely. The Court entered judgment against defendant Presbitero & Sons, Inc., awarding $701.64 in damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs contend that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the defendant rental management company and its employees and in awarding inadequate damages and attorneys' fees.
With respect to the plaintiffs' first contention, the Trial Court found that the plaintiffs made application to lease the premises in question and were refused on the ground that the defendant owner would no longer rent to single men. The Court found further that the reason given was a subterfuge and concluded that the refusal to rent to the plaintiffs was racially discriminatory. On the basis of these findings the dismissal of the complaint as to McKey & Poague and its employees, Presbitero's exclusive rental agents, cannot be sustained. Though the management agreement between McKey and Poague and Presbitero states that "Leases and tenants shall be approved by the owner," the evidence disclosed that, whoever decided not to rent to the plaintiffs, the discriminatory acts alleged were performed by McKey & Poague's employees. It is well established that agents will be liable for their own unlawful conduct, even where their actions were at the behest of the principal. Sanborn v. Wagner, 354 F.Supp. 291, 295 (D.Md.1973); Young v. AAA Realty Co. of Greensboro, Inc., 350 F.Supp. 1382, 1387 (M. D.N.Car.1972); Williamson v. Hampton Management Company, 339 F.Supp. 1146, 1149 (N.D.Ill.1972).
Plaintiffs next contend that the Trial Court erred in limiting its award of compensatory damages to $100.00, representing plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses. It appears from the District Court's opinion that the Court considered only out-of-pocket costs in determining the amount of compensatory damages to be awarded. However, recovery may also be had for emotional distress and humiliation, Steele v. Title Realty Company, 478 F.2d 380, 384 (10th Cir. 1973); Smith v. Sol D. Adler Realty Company, 436 F.2d 344, 351 (7th Cir. 1970) and the Court therefore should have considered this element in arriving at the damage award figure.
The plaintiffs next contend that the Trial Court erred in refusing to award punitive damages. In making this determination the Court appears to have considered solely the personality of plaintiff Marc Aurele Jeanty as it appeared to the Trial Judge during that plaintiff's testimony. Upon remand, the appropriate consideration in deciding the issue of punitive damages is the motive and attitude of the defendants in refusing the apartment in question to the plaintiffs. Thus, while punitive damages are not to be allowed for every Title VIII violation, in each case the Court should consider whether or not the defendants acted wantonly and wilfully, Wright v. Kaine Realty, 352 F. Supp. 222, 223 (N.D.Ill.1972) or were motivated in their actions by ill will, malice, or a desire to injure the plaintiffs. Steele v. Title Realty Company, supra at 384.
Finally, plaintiffs assert that the Trial Court erred in limiting attorneys' fees awarded to $400. In view of the substantial time expenditure involved by plaintiffs' highly qualified counsel in bringing this action and the several hearings involved, we feel that the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
...to out-of-pocket expenses, denying recovery for emotional distress and humiliation, has been held improper. Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119, 1121 (7th Cir. 1974); see Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220 at 1227-28, 1230-31 (8th Cir. 1981); Smith v. Anchor Bldg. Corp., 536 F.2d......
-
Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont
...distress damages to cases brought under Titles VII and VIII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1978. E.g., Jeanty v. McKey & Pogue, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir. 1974).15 An example of such a conclusion is:"We conclude that the standard expressed by the Third Circuit in Wehr will best eff......
-
Patton v. Dumpson
...a private suit could be brought under Title IX. 29 See Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735, 740-742 (6th Cir. 1974); Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 474 F.2d 1164, 1168 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 977, 96 ......
-
Cooper v. F.A.A.
...U.S.C. § 1691e, may include "injury to credit reputation, and mental anguish, humiliation or embarrassment"); Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119, 1121 (7th Cir.1974) (holding that "actual damages" under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(c), may include damages for emotional ......
-
Discriminatory housing statements and s. 3604(c): a new look at the Fair Housing Act's most intriguing provision.
...15, [section] 12:10. (497.) E.g., Dillon v. AFBIC Dev. Corp., 597 F.2d 556, 562-63 (5th Cir. 1979); Jeanty v. McKey & Poague, Inc., 496 F.2d 1119, 1120-21 (7th Cir. 1974). (498.) See, e.g., HUD v. Lewis, Fair Hous.-Fair Lending Rptr. [paragraph] 25,118, at 26,014 (HUD ALJ 1996) (landlor......