McDonald v. Burton
2011 Ohio 6178
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Ohio Court of Appeals in Montgomery County reviews Burton v. McDonald et al. following a jury verdict awarding McDonald and FHAA damages for hostile environment and quid pro quo housing claims, and punitive damages; trial court denied Burton’s JNOV and new-trial motions and awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs; appellate reversal and remand for new proceedings are sought.
- McDonald, age 20, rented from Burton who operated multiple properties; recording of conversations occurred; McDonald and FHAA alleged housing discrimination under federal and state law and employment discrimination claims; Burton counterclaimed for interception of communications under R.C. 2933.52.
- Extensive tape-recorded and transcribed conversations between Burton and McDonald were introduced at trial; the jury found liability on several claims and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages, later challenged as excessive and prejudicial.
- The court held the trial court erred by not granting a new trial due to excessive damages influenced by passion or prejudice and erred in denying JNOV on the quid pro quo housing claim; partial summary judgment on Burton’s counterclaims for R.C. 2933.52 was affirmed; appellate reversal and remand for new trial were ordered.
- The punitive damage issue is moot on remand; the case will proceed with new verdict forms and evidence on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict form was properly used (special vs general). | McDonald; Burton invited the form error. | Burton argues Civ.R. 49 violated; form unclear if multiple $50k awards. | Moot; remand for new trial resolves form issue. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Burton’s motion for a new trial due to excessive damages. | McDonald argues damages were warranted. | Burton claims damages were excessive and passion-influenced. | Supported; trial court abused discretion; new trial ordered on remand. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Burton’s JNOV on quid pro quo housing harassment. | McDonald contends evidence supports quid pro quo. | Burton argues no quid pro quo; no eviction tied to sex. | In part sustained; JNOV granted on quid pro quo housing claim. |
| Whether the court properly granted partial summary judgment on Burton’s R.C. 2933.52 counterclaims. | McDonald/Curry urged legality of recording as party to conversation. | Burton contends recordings were unlawful injurious act. | Affirmed; no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether punitive damages violate constitutional/statutory limits. | Remand permits re-evaluation of punitive damages. | Damages may be excessive under SB 80 and constitutional caps. | Moot; remand allows re-evaluation of punitive damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 1993) (quid pro quo/hostile housing environment framework under §3604(b))
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (multifactor test for severe or pervasive harassment; totality of circumstances)
- Kaffeman v. Maclin, 150 Ohio App.3d 403 (2002-Ohio-6479) (new-trial standard; cumulation of improper conduct viewed for passion/prejudice)
- Meredith v. Gavin, 446 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1971) (injurious act concept in wiretap/recording statute analyzed)
- Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 1993) (quid pro quo/hostile housing environment framework under §3604(b))
- Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (standing/damages for fair housing organizations; diversion of resources)