Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breier-Scheetz Properties, LLC
2:16-cv-00922
| W.D. Wash. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- FHCW is a Washington nonprofit that conducts fair housing testing and education; it tests housing providers by sending paired testers (protected-class and control) to detect discrimination.
- Breier-Scheetz Properties (and owner/manager Frederick Breier-Scheetz) owned/managed the Granada, a 96-unit building with mostly studio apartments, and enforced a longstanding rule allowing only one occupant per studio.
- FHCW’s paired tests (2012–2013) showed Granada staff told testers the one-person-per-studio policy was enforced; FHCW filed an HUD complaint and then this suit alleging familial-status discrimination.
- The court granted FHCW summary judgment on liability, finding the occupancy rule has a disparate impact on families with children under the Fair Housing Act, Washington law, and Seattle code.
- At a bench trial limited to damages, the court found FHCW incurred $9,267 in actual damages and approved $18,035 for remedial measures (training, testing, monitoring, outreach), for total actual damages of $27,302.
- The court also awarded $100,000 in punitive damages (against both defendants) and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting unlawful occupancy restrictions; attorney’s fees to be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one-person-per-studio rule violates Fair Housing Act (familial status) | Rule disparately impacts families with children; liability established by testing and expert analysis | Rule is a legitimate occupancy policy—keeps things simple, longer tenancy for singles, less wear and tear | Court previously granted summary judgment: rule has disparate impact; liability established |
| Appropriate compensatory damages (actual damages and costs of remedial measures) | Seeks recovery for testing, training, monitoring, outreach, and staff time (total $27,302) | Challenged amounts not persuasive at trial | Court awarded $27,302 as reasonable actual damages and costs for remedial measures |
| Whether punitive damages are warranted and amount | Punitive damages needed to deter continued discrimination | Defendants argued justifications and financial condition mitigate punitive award | Court found reckless/callous indifference and awarded $100,000 punitive damages against both defendants |
| Injunctive relief and post-judgment compliance measures | Requests training, testing, monitoring and a permanent injunction barring unlawful occupancy restrictions | Defendants must cooperate in good faith | Court ordered specified remedial measures and entered permanent injunction prohibiting discriminatory occupancy limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Jancik v. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 44 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 1995) (Fair Housing Act authorizes punitive damages)
- Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1977) (factors for punitive damages include nature of conduct and deterrence)
- Fountila v. Carter, 571 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1978) (punitive damages need not be based on personal animus; reckless conduct can suffice)
- Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (punitive damages appropriate where defendant shows evil motive or reckless indifference)
- City of Newport v. Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981) (defendant’s financial condition is relevant when setting punitive damages)
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (punitive damages must be reasonable and proportionate to harm and compensatory damages)