United States v. Hurt
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7368
8th Cir.2012Background
- United States sued Hurts under the FHA alleging a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in trailer park housing.
- Eight women testified to sexual harassment by Bobby, including entering homes, exposing genitalia, touching, and lewd comments; some alleged quid pro quo housing favors.
- Sue Hurt, as owner, could be liable for Bobby's conduct if she knew or should have known and failed to prevent it.
- District court denied some challenges but found the pattern or practice theory valid despite credibility disputes; applied a broad statute of limitations approach.
- Jury found against the United States; Hurts awarded costs and the Hurts awarded EAJA attorney fees; district court reduced fees based on credibility and duplicative work.
- On appeal, the United States challenged the fee award as an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated the case as a single pattern claim for EAJA purposes. | United States | Hurt | Yes; reversed; court treated as single claim, vacated fee award. |
| Whether the government's position was substantially justified for EAJA purposes. | United States | Hurt | Yes; the record supports substantial justification; affirmed substantial justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantially justified standard; review for abuse of discretion)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (Supreme Court 1982) (pattern-or-practice timeliness tied to continuing violations)
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (government as plaintiff in pattern-or-practice actions)
- United States v. Big D Enters., Inc., 184 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 1999) (government must prove discriminatory activity as standard operating procedure)
- Williams v. Trans World Airlines, 660 F.2d 1267 (8th Cir. 1981) (proof of damages for emotional distress may rely on plaintiff testimony)
- EEOC v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007) (damages for emotional distress; evidence can be testimony)
- Bale Chevrolet Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010) (novel legal issue affecting substantial justification analysis)
- Johnson v. Carroll, 658 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011) (credibility as a factual question affecting justification)
- Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (hostile environment and quid pro quo harassment elements under FHA)
- EEOC v. Liberal R-II Sch. Dist., 314 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2002) (substantial justification analysis in agency enforcement context)