Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632

Relators Arnold and her two minor children sought to rent from Forvil defendants; they offered a guarantee in lieu of cash for the security deposit, which defendants required cash despite the guarantee; relators were denied occupancy; CHRO filed suit for housing discrimination under §46a-64c(a)(1) based on lawful source of income; trial court found discriminatory rejection on May 1, 2006 and awarded damages including compensatories, punitive, civil penalty, and attorney’s fees; defendants raised multiple defenses including constitutionality and statutory interpretation; judgment entered June 4, 2009, affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had timely jurisdiction to render judgment	Court timely under reopening within 120 days	Judgment rendered after 120 days, jurisdiction lapsed	Timely; reopening extended completion date Gomez?
Whether a guarantee qualifies as a lawful source of income under §46a-64c(a) and §46a-63(3)	Guarantee is housing assistance and within lawful income	Income must involve money; guarantee not income	Guarantee constitutes lawful source of income under the statute
Whether the validity of the guarantee affects the discrimination claim	Discrimination proven regardless of validity	Discriminatory motive could be impacted by validity	Irrelevant to the discrimination claim; validity not required to establish liability
Whether compensatory damages were excessive	Damages appropriate to conduct; suffering supported by testimony	Awards excessive and speculative	Damages within trial court’s broad discretion; not shock to justice

Miko v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 220 Conn. 192 (1991) (direct evidence standard for discriminatory motive; Price Waterhouse framework adopted)
Frank v. Streeter, 192 Conn. 601 (1984) (completion date includes briefing period; jurisdictional timing rule)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (emotional distress damages; proof may be inferred from circumstances)
Ankerman (Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ankerman), 74 Conn.App. 464 (2003) (opening of case tolls 120-day period when rescheduled proceedings occur)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (framework for proving discriminatory motive in mixed-motive cases)
Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763 (1999) (housing vouchers constitute lawful income)
Schanzer v. United Technologies Corp., 120 F.Supp.2d 200 (2000) (emotional distress damages context; damages not to shock conscience)
Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., 491 F.2d 634 (1974) (humiliation/education of damages; evidence may be inferred)