48 F.4th 779
7th Cir.2022Background:
- Tonca and Terence Watters, an African‑American married couple, bought lots and built a home in the Preserve at Bridgewater; they were the only Black family there.
- Neighbors Kathryn and Edward Mamaril (former and current HOA presidents) made repeated racist remarks directed at the Watters, including epithets and an altercation at a restaurant involving family members.
- The Mamarils’ cats repeatedly entered the Watters’ yard; Humane Society trapped cats and fined the Mamarils; Kathryn used racial slurs during that episode.
- Terence, a veteran with PTSD aggravated by dogs, requested a six‑foot privacy fence as an accommodation; the HOA denied the request and suggested alternatives; Terence’s formal request referenced the FHA but did not specify PTSD.
- The Watters sued the HOA and multiple individuals under the Fair Housing Act (§3617 and §3604(f)(3)(B)) and 42 U.S.C. §1982; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment as to the Mamarils for the FHA and §1982 claims but affirmed the rest.
- The panel majority held the Mamarils’ conduct could support §3617 and §1982 claims (sufficient discriminatory intent and interference), but the HOA lacked evidence of liability; the failure‑to‑accommodate claim failed for lack of HOA knowledge of PTSD. A dissent would have affirmed as to all defendants for insufficient nexus to housing rights.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mamarils’ conduct violated the FHA (§3617) by interfering with enjoyment of housing | Mamarils’ repeated racial slurs and harassment created a pattern of race‑based interference/attempted constructive eviction | Isolated insults and incidents lack the requisite nexus to a housing right; insults are personal and not housing actions | Vacated summary judgment as to Mamarils on §3617; factual dispute exists—jury may find interference and discriminatory intent |
| Whether the HOA is liable under §3617 for the Mamarils’ conduct | Watters argue Mamarils’ HOA roles and conduct tie the harassment to the HOA | No evidence Mamarils acted on behalf of the HOA when making statements; no HOA intent shown | Affirmed for HOA on §3617—no evidence linking Mamarils’ statements to HOA liability |
| Whether Watters may pursue §1982 claim against Mamarils | Same evidence of racial animus supports §1982 claim (denial of equal property rights) | No nexus to a property right or HOA action; isolated remarks insufficient | Vacated summary judgment as to Mamarils on §1982—sufficient evidence of intent to proceed to jury |
| Whether HOA failed to reasonably accommodate Terence’s PTSD under FHA (§3604(f)(3)(B)) | Denial of privacy fence refused reasonable accommodation for known disability (PTSD) | HOA lacked knowledge of Terence’s PTSD; his request did not disclose PTSD | Affirmed for HOA on accommodation claim—no evidence HOA knew of PTSD, so no liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (§3617 covers post‑acquisition harassment/interference and can reach attempted constructive eviction)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework referenced for discrimination proof)
- Halprin v. Prairie Single Fam. Homes of Dearborn Park Ass’n, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004) (requires nexus between discriminatory conduct and adverse housing action)
- Scaife v. Cook Cnty., 446 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2006) (joint tortfeasor principles; relevance of workplace/Title VII analogies)
- Linkletter v. Western & Southern Fin. Group, Inc., 851 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2017) (§3617 causation can be flexible; discussed by majority and dissent)