213 Conn.App. 635
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Julissa Cortes, a Section 8 voucher holder, contacted Margaret Valentin in July 2016 to view a rental in East Hartford; Valentin told Cortes (and Cortes’ contact) the unit "was not section 8 ready" and later said Cortes’ "fair" credit did not meet her requirements, refusing to show or rent the unit to Cortes.
- The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) sued Valentin under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-64c(a)(1) (deny rental because of lawful source of income) and (a)(3) (statements indicating discriminatory preference); Cortes intervened as plaintiff.
- The CHRO introduced evidence from four fair-housing testers (written "Rental Test Assignment Forms") showing Valentin provided applications, showings, or agreed rentals to non‑Section 8 testers but denied a tester who disclosed a Section 8 voucher.
- After a bench trial the court found Valentin violated § 46a-64c(a)(1) and (3), awarded Cortes $7,500 in noneconomic (emotional distress) damages and imposed a $5,000 civil penalty against Valentin.
- Valentin appealed (claiming insufficient evidence, improper reliance on tester forms, and that the damages award was excessive) and later sought a writ of audita querela with affidavits she said were newly discovered; the trial court denied the writ and denied reargument. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence showed Valentin refused to rent or show the unit because Cortes had Section 8 (§ 46a-64c(a)(1)) | CHRO/Cortes: Valentin’s statement "not section 8 ready," testimony from testers and Cortes, and Valentin’s failure to apply her credit policy consistently show discrimination based on lawful source of income. | Valentin: She refused because Cortes’ credit (described as "fair") did not meet a legitimate credit‑score requirement; tester forms were unreliable. | Affirmed. Court credited Cortes and testers, found Valentin’s credit‑score justification unavailing or applied discriminatorily, and held there was sufficient evidence of § 46a-64c(a)(1) violation. |
| Whether Valentin’s statement that the unit "was not section 8 ready" violated § 46a-64c(a)(3) (discriminatory statement) | CHRO/Cortes: The phrase is facially discriminatory and, coupled with other evidence, signals a preference for non‑Section 8 tenants. | Valentin: The phrase meant the unit needed repairs to pass a Section 8 inspection; context shows no discriminatory intent. | Affirmed. The statement was facially discriminatory so context need not be probed; court’s finding that it conveyed a discriminatory preference was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on tester forms and related testimony | CHRO/Cortes: Forms and testimony authenticated at trial support findings; weight/accuracy for trier of fact to decide. | Valentin: Forms are unreliable, untested, and inadmissible; credibility should not rest on the "cold printed record." | Affirmed. Valentin failed to preserve an evidentiary objection at trial; alleged inaccuracies go to weight, which is for the trial court. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by awarding emotional‑distress damages and by denying writ of audita querela/hearing/reargument | CHRO/Cortes: Cortes testified about stress, physical symptoms, inferior replacement housing, and impact on her son; Harrison factors support the award. | Valentin: Award speculative and unsupported (relying solely on Cortes’ testimony); newly discovered affidavits justify a hearing and vacatur via audita querela. | Affirmed. Emotional distress award fell within trial court discretion; audita querela was inapplicable because the issues could/should have been raised at trial, so no hearing or reargument was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed‑motive framework in discrimination law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (pretext — burden‑shifting framework)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (clarifies McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting)
- Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 343 Conn. 31 (2022) (ordinary‑listener standard; facially discriminatory statements need no contextual inquiry)
- Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 236 Conn. 96 (1996) (discussion of disparate treatment and evidentiary frameworks)
- Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296 (2002) (standard of review for factual findings — clear error)
- Soules v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1992) (use of ordinary‑listener standard in housing contexts)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan, 285 Conn. 208 (2008) (application of mixed‑motive analysis to CHRO enforcement)