Woods-Drake v. Lundy

• Decision Date: 18 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 80-3591,WOODS-DRAKE,80-3591
• Citation: 667 F.2d 1198
• Parties: Christina A., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C. L. LUNDY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1198

667 F.2d 1198

Christina A. WOODS-DRAKE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C. L. LUNDY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-3591.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1982.

Frank R. Parker, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Jackson, Miss., Barbara Phillips, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Upshaw, Schissel & Ladner, Heber Ladner, Jr., George Edward Pickle, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Housing Act ¹ and federal civil rights statutes, ² alleging that their landlord evicted them because they had entertained black guests in their rented apartment. After trial, the district judge found that the defendant landlord had indeed conditioned plaintiffs' continued tenancy upon their agreement to no longer receive black guests. Nevertheless, the trial judge concluded that defendants' conduct did not violate federal law, and that plaintiffs had not sustained any damages. After careful review of the record in this case, we conclude that the district court's findings as to both liability and damages must be reversed.

FACTS

Plaintiffs James Drake, a white male, and his wife, Christina Woods-Drake, a Mexican-American, entered into an agreement in October, 1978 with defendant Charles Lundy to rent one of four apartments owned by defendant in Lexington, Mississippi. Kenneth Fujimoto, a Japanese-American, moved into the apartment in November, with Mr. Lundy's permission. Mr. Drake is a minister in the United Church of Christ; Mr. Fujimoto is his co-worker.

Plaintiffs and defendant initially enjoyed a cordial relationship. Mr. Lundy made no complaints to plaintiffs about their conduct as tenants. However, on November 16, 1978, plaintiffs hosted a dinner party at their apartment. Their guests included three black persons. Mr. Lundy learned from another tenant that black persons had visited plaintiffs' apartment. On the following day, according to Mr. and Ms. Woods-Drakes' testimony, Mr. Lundy went to plaintiffs' apartment and told them that they had created a "disturbance," and that they would have to move if they did not stop causing this "disturbance." When pressed by plaintiffs for further explanation, Mr. Lundy said that by "disturbance," he meant the people plaintiffs had brought into the house as guests. According to Mr. and Ms. Woods-Drake, they informed Mr. Lundy that they had a right to have blacks as guests, and that it was against the civil rights laws to evict them for this reason. Mr. Lundy reiterated his intention to evict plaintiffs if they continued to have these guests at their apartment. Several days after the encounter of November 17, plaintiffs received a letter from defendant informing them that he would not rent to them after December 31, 1978. Plaintiffs vacated the apartment shortly thereafter.

In January, 1979, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Mr. Lundy with the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). HUD's attempts to resolve plaintiffs' complaints through informal means of conference and conciliation were In the trial, plaintiffs called seven witnesses: James Drake, Christina Woods-Drake, Kenneth Fujimoto, one of the black persons who had been a guest at their apartment, and three present or former tenants. Plaintiffs also introduced into evidence a HUD investigative report which included the following findings: (1) Mr. Lundy had never had a black tenant, (2) four white tenants had been evicted by Mr. Lundy in May, 1979 because blacks helped move the tenants into their apartment and because the tenants hosted a birthday party at their apartment for a black co-worker, (3) although Mr. Lundy told HUD investigators he evicted plaintiffs because their cars blocked the driveway, there had been no complaints to Mr. Lundy about cars belonging specifically to plaintiffs or to their guests, and (4) plaintiffs' co-tenants had never complained to Mr. Lundy about plaintiffs making noise or disturbances. Defendant Lundy did not testify, nor did he present any witnesses or evidence on his behalf.

unsuccessful. Plaintiffs then brought suit against Mr. Lundy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (b) (the "Fair Housing Act") and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 ³ seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ⁴

In accordance with plaintiffs' uncontradicted testimony, the district court found that, "On November 17, 1978, the defendant threatened to evict the plaintiffs if they continued to receive black persons as guests in their apartment." Nevertheless, the district court found that defendant was not liable under the Fair Housing Act ⁵ because his decision to discontinue renting to plaintiffs was not based on "race". The trial judge "inferred" that Mr. Lundy was antagonized by the presence in his apartment of individuals who were actively engaged in a boycott which defendant opposed, ⁶ and by plaintiffs' practice of blocking a driveway with their cars. The trial judge also stated, possibly as alternative grounds for his decision, that plaintiffs sustained no actual damages, and that they presented no evidence of vindictiveness or oppressiveness on the part of defendant to give rise to punitive damages. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

SUMMARY

Reversal and remand of this case is so clearly compelled by the facts and the law that we engage in only an exiguous, rather than an exegetic, analysis. The district court found that, "defendant threatened to evict plaintiffs if they continued to receive black persons as guests in their house." It is well established that such conduct-discrimination against whites because of their association with blacks-is proscribed by 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and by the Fair Housing Act. Moreover, under both the Fair Housing Act and under Section 1982, plaintiffs need not show that racial animus was the sole motivation for eviction; only that race was a significant factor. Accordingly, it is irrelevant that defendant Lundy may also have been angry at plaintiffs for violating his parking rules, or that Lundy disagreed with plaintiffs' guests' political views, as the district court "inferred". So long as the race of plaintiffs' guests was a significant factor in defendant's decision to evict plaintiffs, the eviction was in violation of Section 1982 and of the Fair Housing Act. Given the district court's finding that defendant evicted plaintiffs because plaintiffs had black persons as guests, the conclusion of liability under Section 1982 and under the Fair Housing Act is inescapable. Finally, when plaintiffs were forced to leave their apartment, and to locate and move into other quarters, a finding that plaintiffs sustained no damages as the result of their unlawful eviction is clearly erroneous.

A. The Scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and of the Fair Housing Act

It is well-established that whites have a cause of action under Section 1982 when discriminatory actions are taken against them because of their association with blacks. In Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229, 90 S.Ct. 400, 404-405, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969), plaintiff Sullivan, a white member of a private corporation organized to operate a community park, was expelled from the corporation for attempting to lease his home to a black family. The Supreme Court held that Sullivan's expulsion was in violation of Section 1982, reasoning that to allow discrimination against whites for advocating the rights of blacks "would give impetus to the perpetuation of racial restrictions on property." 90 S.Ct. 400, 404. Thus, in keeping with the aims of the civil rights laws, the courts have held that denial of housing to whites because of their association with blacks violates Section 1982. See Bills v. Hodges, 628 F.2d 844, 845 (4th Cir. 1980) (attempted eviction of white tenants because of their biracial dating and entertainment practices enjoined under Section 1982); Bishop v. Pecsok, 431 F.Supp. 34, 37 n.4 (N.D. Ohio 1976) (denial of housing to white man because of wife's race violates Section 1982); Lamb v. Sallee, 417 F.Supp. 282, 287 (E.D.Ky.1976) (denial of housing to white tenant because of roommate's race violates Section 1982); Walker v. Pointer, 304 F.Supp. 56, 58-62 (N.D.Tex.1969), cited with approval in Evans v. Tubbe, 657 F.2d 661, 662, n.2 (5th Cir. 1981) (eviction of whites for entertaining black guests violates Section 1982). See generally Developments in the Law-Section 1981, 15 Harv.C.R.-C.L.Rev. 29, 75-76, 142-146 (1980).

Not only was defendant's conduct-threatening to evict plaintiffs if they continued to have black guests-a violation of Section 1982; such conduct is also prohibited by the express terms of the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) reads, in relevant part, "(I)t shall be unlawful ... to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of ... rental of a dwelling ... because of race ..." (emphasis added). The provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 are to be given broad and liberal construction, in keeping with Congress' intent in passing the Fair Housing Act of replacing racially segregated housing with "truly integrated and balanced living patterns." Trafficanti v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 409 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 364, 368, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) quoting statement of Senator Mondale, 114 Cong.Rec. 2706. It is evident that when a landlord imposes on white tenants the condition that they may lease his apartment only if they agree not to receive blacks as guests, the landlord has discriminated against the tenants in the "terms, conditions and privileges of rental" on the grounds of "race." Therefore, the imposition upon white tenants of a rule that they may not receive black guests violates the Fair...