Rita Fox v. Lucille F. Gaines
20-12620
11th Cir.Jul 16, 2021Background
- Fox rented an apartment managed by Dana Gaines after Gaines pressured her for a kiss to hold the unit; she later entered an informal arrangement in which rent reductions were exchanged for sexual favors for about 3½ years.
- Gaines monitored Fox (surveillance cameras, restricting male visitors) and controlled her living conditions.
- After Fox ended the sexual relationship, Gaines issued bogus violation notices, threatened eviction, and ultimately initiated eviction proceedings that forced her to move out.
- Fox sued Gaines and the property owner under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Florida FHA, alleging quid pro quo and hostile-housing-environment sexual harassment (and related claims).
- The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding the FHA did not reach sexual harassment, despite finding Fox had pleaded severe, pervasive harassment.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile-environment) can violate the FHA when the harassment would not have occurred but for the victim’s sex.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sexual harassment is actionable under the FHA | Fox: FHA’s ban on discrimination “because of…sex” encompasses sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile-environment) | Gaineses: FHA’s text does not create a cause of action for sexual harassment | Yes. Sexual harassment is actionable under the FHA if the plaintiff shows but-for causation (harassed because of sex). |
| Whether Fox’s complaint survives dismissal on the merits | Fox: complaint sufficiently alleges quid pro quo and hostile-housing-environment harassment causing loss of housing | Gaineses: district court previously dismissed as a matter of law; did not contest some factual sufficiency on appeal | Court did not decide factual sufficiency; vacated dismissal and remanded for district court to reconsider in light of holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savs. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (Title VII treats sexual harassment as sex discrimination)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (Title VII prohibits sexual harassment meeting statutory standards)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) ("because of" denotes but-for causation)
- Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) (hostile/offensive atmosphere can violate Title VII)
- United States v. Hurt, 676 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2012) (FHA sexual harassment actionable as hostile housing environment or quid pro quo)
- DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1996) (recognizing sexual harassment claims under the FHA)
- Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 1993) (same)
- Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (defines hostile housing environment under FHA)
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972) (FHA’s language is broad and remedial)