The United States of America (“the government”) brings this action on behalf of Jermaine Bilbo (“Mr. Bilbo”), Taika Bilbo (“Mrs. Bilbo”), and DeMechia Wilson (“Ms. Wilson”) (collectively “the intervenors”), to enforce the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. The action is brought against Merline Hylton (“Ms. Hylton”), Clifton Hylton (“Mr. Hylton”), and Hylton Real Estate Management (“HREM”) as the owner and managers of a property located at 5 Townline Road, Windsor Locks, CT.
The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act in three ways: (1) by refusing to negotiate for the rental of 5 Townline Road to Ms. Wilson and her two minor children because of their race, in violation of section 3604(a) of title 42 of the United States Code; (2) by discriminating against Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo and Ms. Wilson and her minor children in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of race, in violation of section 3604(b); and (3) by making discriminatory statements based on race regarding the rental of 5 Townline Road, in violation of section 3604(c).
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Mr. and Mrs. Hylton are married and both are black and of West-Indian descent. They both own multiple properties in Connecticut. Mr. Hylton is the sole owner, officer, and director of Hylton Real Estate Management, Inc. (HREM). HREM is a property manager and was created approximately five to seven years ago. A property manager’s role is to interview, select, and correspond with tenants, collect rent, and repair properties. Mrs. . Hylton has no involvement in HREM. Mr. Hylton opened a checking account in the name of HREM, and he sometimes pays his mortgages using that checking account, although sometimes he uses a personal account. Mr. Hylton started HREM in part to organize his real estate holdings and also, in part, to protect himself from liability. From June 2009 to June 2010, Mr. Hylton was engaged in the business of renting dwellings.
Mrs. Hylton owns 5 Townline Road. She had no involvement in renting the house or in interacting with the renters (both the Bilbos and the Joneses, the current tenants). She had Mr. Hylton handle all aspects of the rental. He identified himself as the person of contact for potential renters, he showed the house, he collected the application, he provided and picked up the lease, and he collected rent. However, Mr. Hylton discussed with her all of the actions he was taking. Mr. Hylton did not act alone in renting the property.
The properties owned by the Hyltons are: (1) 6 Meg Way, Windsor Locks, CT (owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Hylton); (2) 73-75 Pine Street, Manchester, CT (owned by an LLC, with Mr. Hylton as the sole member); (3) 92-94 Baltimore Street, Hartford, CT (owned by an LLC, with Mr. Hylton as the sole member); (4) 9-11 Benton Street, Hartford, CT (owned by an LLC, with Mr. Hylton and HREM as the sole members); (5) 27 Norfolk Street, Hartford, CT (owned by an LLC, with Mr. Hylton as the sole member); (6) 9-11 Lilley Street, Manchester, CT (owned by an LLC, with Mr. Hylton as the sole member); (7) 381 Sigourney Street, Hartford, CT (owned by Mrs. Hylton); (8) 5 Towline Road, Windsor Locks, CT (owned by Mrs.
Mr. and Mrs. Hylton were living at 5 Townline Road until they purchased a house at 6 Meg Way in Windsor Locks, CT, on September 10, 2008. They tried to sell 5 Townline Road, but were unable to do so. After trying to sell 5 Townline Road to no avail, the Hyltons offered the house for rent by posting an ad on eraigslist.com. The ad directed interested applicants to contact Mr. Hylton about the рroperty.
Mrs. Bilbo responded to the ad by calling Mr. Hylton. Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo are married with three children. Mr. Bilbo is African-American. Mrs. Bilbo is white. On April 14, 2010, Mr. Hylton met with the Bilbos to show them the house at 5 Town-line Road. Mr. Hylton gave the Bilbos a tour of the property, answered their questions, and provided the Bilbos with a rental application. The Bilbos completed the rental application at the property and provided it to Mr. Hylton. They did not provide, nor did Mr. Hylton request, supporting documentation to confirm the information provided on the rental application. The rental application signed by the Bilbos carried the name “Hylton Real Estate Management, Inc.” At no point while viewing, applying for, or renting 5 Town-line Road did Mr. or Mrs. Bilbo speak with Mrs. Hylton. However, Mr. Hylton consulted with Mrs. Hylton as to renting the house to the Bilbos.
The Bilbos moved into the house at 5 Townline Road shortly before May 1, 2010. Mr. Hylton left a lease in the house for them to complete, which he later picked up. The lease bore the name “Hylton Real Estate Management, Inc.” at the top. Mr. and Mrs. Hylton both signed the lease (as did thе Bilbos). The Bilbos paid a security deposit of $1,750.
Before Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo rented 5 Townline Road, they had considered purchasing a house. Around the second week of May 2010, their mortgage broker advised them that they could obtain a loan from the Department of Veterans Affairs because Mr. Bilbo is a veteran. Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo began looking in the area and found a house they wanted to purchase on May 28, 2010. Their offer on the house was approved on May 29, 2010. On May 29, 2010, Mr. Bilbo called Mr. Hylton to inform him that he and his wife needed to break their lease. Mr. Hylton was upset and informed Mr. Bilbo that he wanted him to buy out the lease, which extended until May 2011. Mr. Bilbo sent Mr. Hylton a letter, on or around June 1, 2010, informing him in writing that he expected to close on a house on June 30, 2010, and would no longer be able to rent 5 Townline Road.
Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo decided they would find someone to sublet the home for Mr. Hylton. On June 18, 2010, the Bilbos posted an advertisement on craigslist.com listing 5 Townline Road for rent for $1,750 per month. The advertisement listed the house available as of July 1, 2010. Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo started showing the property. It was at this time that they reviewed their lease and realized that the lease required the Bilbos to obtain prior written consent to sublet the property. The Bilbos decided to continue showing the house and hope that the Hyltons would agree that it was more profitable to have someone else move in.
Ms. Wilson contacted Mrs. Bilbo on June 21, 2010, about the property. Ms. Wilson is African-American and has two children. She was living in the North End of Hartford, Connecticut at the time, with her children and mother. Ms. Wilson was
Ms. Wilson went to view 5 Townline Road on June 22, 2010. Mr. Bilbo showed her the house and provided her with an application. Mr. Bilbo thought Ms. Wilson would make an excellent tenant and contacted Mr. Hylton to inform him that he found a viable subtenant. Mr. Hylton said he was unhappy that the Bilbos were breaking the lease and that he had bad experiences with subtenants before. Mr. Bilbo told Mr. Hylton that he felt very comfortable with Ms. Wilson and that she could afford the rent, had references saying she never paid her rent late, and was looking for a long-term rental.
Mr. Hylton agreed to sublet the property to Ms. Wilson, but said he would continue to receive rent from the Bilbos (who would receive rent from Ms. Wilson). Mr. Bilbo asked Mr. Hylton to provide written permission as required by the lease. Mr. Hylton then asked Mr. Bilbo whether Ms. Wilson is black or white. When Mr. Bilbo told Mr. Hylton that Ms. Wilson is black, Mr. Hylton said he did not want too many black people at the property. Mr. Hylton told Mr. Bilbo that he only rented to him and his wife because Mrs. Bilbo is white, and “it was a good mix.” Mr. Hylton also said that the neighbors would not want too many black people in the neighborhood. He told Mr. Bilbo to try and find some good white people who could afford the property because Ms. Wilson was not going to be able to pay.
Mr. Bilbo was confused and upset by the conversation. He did not understаnd how Mr. Hylton could make such statements when he himself is black. Mr. Bilbo expects to face racism, but not from older black men who he presumes faced even worse incidents of discrimination than he. He was hurt and shocked by the conversation and upset that he had to play a role in rejecting Ms. Wilson because of her race. Mr. Bilbo called Ms. Wilson immediately after his conversation with Mr. Hylton and told her what happened and apologized that he would not be able to sublet to her. Ms. Wilson was confused by Mr. Hylton’s reaction given Mr. Bilbo is black, and she was disappointed that she would have to start her rental search all over again. However, at the time, she considered it was a good thing she was rejected because she did not want to rent from someone who thinks like Mr. Hylton.
Mr. Bilbo next called his wife at work and posted on Facebook about what happened. Mrs. Bilbo was very upset about Mr. Hylton’s statements and emailed Ms. Wilson to apologize for what transpired. Mrs. Bilbo was scared because Mr. Hylton was threatening to sue them, and she was upset that she plаyed a part in advertising a house for a man who thinks such things about people who are like her own family. Mrs. Bilbo has experienced discrimination many times as someone in an interracial marriage, but this was the most direct example of such discrimination that she experienced. Mrs. Bilbo remained upset about the situation and was “on edge” for almost a year. She was frightened to go to the store for fear that she would run into Mr. Hylton.
Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo moved out of 5 Townline Road just before July 1, 2010. They never received back their $1,750 security deposit. On August 1, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Hylton entered into a one-year
A few months after the Bilbos moved out of 5 Townline Road, Mr. Bilbo ran into Mr. Hylton at the grocery store. Mr. Hylton waved Mr. Bilbo over and told him that he tried to put “hooligans” in his house.
Ms. Wilson continued loоking for an apartment, but ultimately stayed living with her mother in the North End of Hartford because she did not want to move her children once the school year began. She remained living with her mother until 2012, at which point she had to accept an apartment in another area of Hartford, CT, instead of in Windsor Locks, CT. Windsor Locks is a neighborhood with more opportunities and greater upward mobility than the North End
The driving distance from 5 Townline Road to Windsor Locks South Elementary School and Windsor Locks Middle School is 2 miles and 1.4 miles, respectively. The driving distance from Ms. Wilson’s place of employment — YINFEN-CT, at 860 Prospect Hill Road in Windsor Locks, CT — to Windsor Locks South Elementary School and Windsor Locks Middle School is 7.2 miles and 6.5 miles, respectively. The driving distance from Ms. Wilson’s apartment in the North End of Hartford, CT, to Bolton Elementary School and Bolton Middle School/High School is 17 miles and 16.7 miles, respectively. The driving distance from VINFEN-CT to Bolton Elementary School and Bolton Middle School/High School is 23 miles and 22 miles, respectively. Ms. Wilson travels to and from her children’s school four times per week dur
Mrs. Bilbo researched housing discrimination and contacted the Connecticut Fair Housing Center who submitted a complaint to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD conducted an investigation during which an investigator, Jeffrey Sussman, J.D., spoke with Mr. Hylton. During one of those conversations, Mr. Hylton told the investigator that, “if you rent to a Puerto Rican today, I guarantee there will be 10 people there tomorrow.” PLEx. 1 at 5. He also told the investigator that, if it was a white man who had broken the lease, he would just “sit back and relax and just sue them.” Id. at 12. During the investigation, the Hyltons also responded to the complaints of Ms. Wilson and the Bilbos by claiming that they had advertised the property themselves, received a number of offers, interviewed a number of people including the Wilsоns and made their choice. See PI. Ex. 4.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Fair Housing Act states that an aggrieved person may, after filing a Complaint with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, pursuant to section 3610 of title 42 of the United States Code, elect to have the claims asserted in the charge decided in a civil action. See 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a). On or about September 7, 2011, Mr. Bilbo, Mrs. Bilbo, Ms. Wilson and her minor children,
A. A? U.S.C. § 360U(a)
The FHA makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). “A plaintiff can make out a claim of discrimination either ‘on a theory of disparate impact or one of disparate treatment.’ ” Fair Housing in Huntington Committee Inc. v. Town of Huntington,
To bring a claim for disparate treatment, the plaintiffs may produce either (1) direct evidence of discriminatory intent or (2) indirect evidence creating an inference of discriminatory intent under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Gallagher v. Magner,
Direct evidence of discriminatory treatment is evidence “showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse ... action.” Gallagher,
Before the court is direct evidence that Mr. Hylton refused to allow Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo to sublet the house at 5 Town-line Road to Ms. Wilson because she is black. Although skeptical at first, during a June 22nd telephone call, Mr. Hylton agreed to allow Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo to sublet to Ms. Wilson based on Mr. Bilbo’s representations that Ms. Wilson had good references, a good job, and would make a good tenant. However, he changed his mind and refused to allow the sublet once he inquired about Ms. Wilson’s race and learned that she is black. Therefore, there is clear evidence that it was Ms. Wilson’s race that led to Mr. Hylton’s decision to prevent her from subletting 5 Townline Road.
Once a plaintiff produces direct evidence of discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to show that they would have made the same decision regardless of discriminatory animus. Crest Asset Management,
B. 12 U.S.C. § 3601(b)
Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision
The court concludes that Mr. Hylton discriminated in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a rental, in violation of section 3604(b), in two ways. First, as to the Bilbos, Mr. Hylton discriminated in the terms and conditions of a rental by preventing the Bilbos from subletting 5 Town-line Road because of Ms. Wilson’s race. The lease agreement allowed the Bilbos to sublet if they received written permission from the Hyltons. Mr. Hylton, although angry at first, agreed to allow the Bilbos to sublet 5 Townline Road to Ms. Wilson. However, when he later learned that Ms. Wilson was black, he recanted his approval and prevented the Bilbos from subletting. He told Mr. Bilbo to try and find some good white people whо could afford the property. Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Hylton would have allowed the Bilbos to sublet to Ms. Wilson had she been white. By preventing the Bilbos from subletting because of Ms. Wilson’s race, Mr. Hylton discriminated against the Bilbos in the terms of their rental based on race, in violation of section 3604(b). See HUD v. Gugliemi,
Second, Mr. Hylton discriminated against Ms. Wilson in the privileges of a rental by refusing to allow her to rent 5 Townline Road. See Williamsburg Fair Housing,
c. m u.s.c. § mm
Section 3604(c) makes it unlawful to “make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c). This prohibition applies to “all written or oral notices or statements made by a person engaged in the sale or rental of a dwelling,” which “include ... expressing to ... any ... persons a preference for or limitation on any purchaser or renter because of race.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.75; see also Soules v. United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Development,
To determine whether an owner or renter’s statement indicates impermissible racial discrimination, the court asks whether the statement “suggests to an ordinary ... listener that a particular race is preferred or dispreferred for the housing in question.” Soules,
Furthermore, Mr. Hylton violated section 3604(c) as to both Ms. Wilson and the Bilbos, even though Mr. Hylton made the statements only to Mr. Bilbo. Under the FHA, discriminatory remarks that a defendant merely communicates to a person may sufficiently injure that person. See Ragin v. N.Y. Times,
As to Mrs. Bilbo, “[i]t has long been held that whites have standing to sue under section 3604(c) for discriminatory statements made against non-whites.” Wentworth v. Hedson,
Similarly, as to Ms. Wilson, even though she heard about the statements from Mr. Bilbo, not Mr. Hylton, she was injured by the discriminatory attack against her. This is sufficient to warrant relief under section 3604(c). See HUD v. Schmid,
D. Vicarious Liability
Although Mr. Hylton is the individual who directly discriminated against Ms. Wilson and the Bilbos, both Mrs. Hylton and HREM may be held vicariously liable for his discriminatory actions.
1. Mrs. Hylton
“It is clear that under the FHA, owners of real estate may be held vicariously liable for discriminatory аcts by their agents and employees.” Glover v. Jones,
To prove agency, three elements must be proven: “(1) the manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for him; (2) the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking; and (3) the understanding of the parties that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking.” Cleveland v. Caplaw Enterprises,
Mrs. Hylton owns 5 Townline Road. Yet, she had no involvement in renting the house or in interacting with the
2. HREM
As to HREM, the property management company owned by Mr. Hylton, “[t]he Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault on employers in accordance with traditional agency principles.” Mitchell v. Shane,
The overarching issue becomes whether Mr. Hylton was serving as an agent of HREM when he discriminated against Ms. Wilson and the Bilbos. HREM is a property manager. A property manager collects rent, interviews applicants, and performs repairs. In the rental of 5 Townline Road, Mr. Hylton performed those functions: he identified himself as the person of contact for potential renters, he showed the Bilbos the house, he collected the application, he provided and picked up the lease, and he collected rent. Furthermore, when he performed these functions, he used documents bearing the name “Hylton Real Estate Management, Inc.” at the top. In fact, even though only Mrs. Hylton owns 5 Townline Road, Mr. Hylton also signed the Bilbos’ lease. See PI. Ex. 18. There would be no reason for Mr. Hylton to sign the lease unless he was signing the lease in his capacity as property manager.
Therefore, the court concludes that Mr. Hylton managed the 5 Townline Road property as a property manager and that
E. 12 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1) Exemption
The Hyltons argue that they are not subject to the provisions of section 3604(a) and (b) because they are exempt. Under the statute, the prohibitions set forth in section 3604, other than subsection (c), do not apply to:
any single-family house sold or rented by an owner provided that such private individual does not own more than three such single-family homes at any one time ... if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings ... and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 3604(c) of this title ...”
42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1). In other words, “[t]he single-family dwelling owner can escape the rigors of Section 3604 ... only if he goes his discriminatory way alone.” Dixon v. Muchnik,
First, the court notes that only Mrs. Hylton may reap the benefit of the 3603(b) exemption as owner of 5 Townline Road. See HUD ex rel. Garrett et al. v. Maze et al., No. 10-M-015-FH4,
Mrs. Hylton meets the first requirement of the exemption: she owns no more than three single-family homes. Further, she did not rent her home by using a publication, posting, or advertisement that violat
Mrs. Hylton relies on Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Babin,
However, the Babin court also stated that section 3603(b) “indicates a congressional desire to provide an exemption only for those homeowners operating in [a] purely nonprofessional manner — that is, not acting as professionals or retaining a professional on their behalf.” In Babin, the defendant — although a real estate agent — was merely trying to sell the home she owned and not acting as a real estate agent in the process. The same cannot be said of Mr. and Mrs. Hylton.
Mr. Hylton stipulated that he is in the business of renting dwellings. He testified that in that business, he performs tasks such as showing rental properties, meeting with prospective tenants, selecting tenants, collecting rent, and performing repairs. Those are the same tasks he performed in the rental of 5 Townline Road (except for performing repairs, which thе Bilbos were obligated to do pursuant to the lease agreement). In the process of renting 5 Townline Road, he also used rental applications and leases that bore the name Hylton Real Estate Management, Inc. He used these documents not only when renting to the Bilbos, but also when he later rented the house to the Joneses. In addition to using HREM documents, he personally signed each of the leases, along with Mrs. Hylton, even though he holds no ownership interest in the property. To the court, this supports the court’s finding that Mr. Hylton was renting the house in his capacity as an officer of HREM, see supra, p. 191 (finding HREM vicariously liable for Mr. Hylton’s actions).
Mr. Hylton attempted to explain his use of the HREM documents by claiming that he had extra leases in his truck at the time and that his use of the HREM documents was merely a coincidence. However, the court does not find this claim compelling for two reasons. First, Mr. Hylton’s explanation only addresses why he used an HREM lease when renting to the Bilbos. He also used an HREM rental application, which he gave to the Bilbos at least a week beforе he left the lease for them when they moved in. Second, Mr. Hylton continued to use HREM documents when renting 5 Townline Road to the Joneses in 2010 and 2011. Therefore, the court concludes that it was no mere “coincidence” that led Mr. Hylton to use the HREM documents in the rental of 5 Townline Road.
The court notes that there is language in Babin that one could interpret to suggest that a defendant’s use of documents bearing a corporate logo is not a factor in the exemption analysis. ' In Babin, the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant used the services of a real estate agency by utilizing closing documents that bore the company logo. Ba-
Unlike the facts in Babin, here, Mr. Hylton performed all of the tasks of a property manager in the rental of 5 Town-line Road, see HUD ex rel. Garrett et al. v. Maze et al., No. 10-M-015-FH4,
F. Damages
The intervenors arе seeking injunctive relief — in the form of three hours of training annually and three years of monitoring — as well as compensatory and punitive damages. See Compl. at 6.
1. Injunctive Relief
Section 3613(c)(1) authorizes the court to award a plaintiff relief in the form of “any permanent or temporary injunction ... or other order (including an order enjoining the defendant from engaging in such practice or ordering such affirmative action as may be appropriate).” 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1). Numerous courts have granted injunctive relief in the form of training and monitoring. See e.g., Southern California Housing Rights Ctr. v. Krug,
The government and intervenors have not indicated how the Hyltons would be monitored or what type of training they would receive and by whom. Without such guidance, the court does not see how it can abide by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring it to state the terms of every injunction specifically. Therefore, the court directs the government and intervenors to file a Motion for Injunctive Relief with the court within 14 days (the defendants may respond 14 days later) so it can consider whether the pro
2. Compensatory Damages
Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo request damages totahng $76,750. That number reflects the $1,750 security deposit that the Hyltons never returned, $50,000 in damages for Mr. Bilbo’s emotional distress, and $25,000 in damages for Mrs. Bilbo’s emotional distress. Ms. Wilson requests damages totaling $28,440. That number reflects $3,440 in economic damages totaling the amount of money she spent on gas driving the farther distance to and from her children’s schools for 80 weeks. In addition, it includes $25,000 for emotional distress and loss of housing opportunity.
First, as the court found that the Hyltons failed to return the Bilbo’s security deposit, and there is no evidence that there was a basis for such withholding— given that the Bilbos found a satisfactory subtenant willing to pay rent at the same rate — the court awards $1,750 to the Bilbos in money damages for loss of their security deposit. Second, the court also awards Ms. Wilson money damages to compensate her for the cost of gas used to drive the further distance from Hartford to her job in Windsor Locks and to the children’s schools in Bolton. Had Ms. Wilson been allowed to sublet the house at 5 Townline Road, she could have sent her children to school in Windsor Locks, which would have shortened her commute both to her children’s schools and to her office.
Ms. Wilson testified that she drives to and from her children’s schools approximately two times per week. During football season, which lasts from the beginning of the school year in September to right before Thanksgiving, she drives to and from school four times per week. Connecticut law requires public schools to be in session for at least 180 days, or 36 weeks, per year. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10-16. Therefore, for about 12 weeks out of the year, Ms. Wilson drives to school four times per week. For the other 24 weeks, she drives two times per week.
Ms. Wilson testified that she would either leave from work or her house to pick up her children. Therefore, the court will determine damages based on half of her round trips each week beginning from her office to school to her home and the other half from her home to school and back. Based on the mileage from her office and home in Hartford to the children’s schools in Bolton, the court determines that she drove 3,552 miles per year. Based on the mileage from her office and 5 Townline Road to the Windsor Locks schools, the court determines that she would have driven 633.6 miles per year. The difference in mileage per year is 2,918.4 miles. She suffered damages from the start of the school year in September 2010 to the present, which equals 2 years and approximately 7 months. The total difference in mileage is, therefore, 8,025.6 miles.
The federal mileage reimbursement scale set the standard mileage rate at 50 cents per miles in 2010; 51 cents per miles from January 1 to June 30, 2011; 55.5 cents per mile from July 1, 2011 to December 30, 2012; and 56.5 cents per miles starting January 1, 2013. See Internal Revenue Service website, available at http:// www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/StandardMileage-Rates; see also http://www.irs. gov/uac/2013-Standard-Mileage-RatesUp-l-Cent-per-Mile-for-Business,Medical-and-Moving. The average rate over 2 years and 7 months is 54.09 cents. Therеfore, the court awards Ms. Wilson $4,341.05 in economic damages.
When claims have been categorized as “garden variety” — meaning the claim for distress is devoid of evidence of medical treatment or physiсal manifestation — the amount of damages authorized ranges from $5,000 to $125,000. Parris,
Mrs. Bilbo spoke of the pain she felt upon hearing of Mr. Hylton’s comments, particularly as the wife and mother of an Afriсan-American husband and children. She also testified that she was afraid of Mr. Hylton after he threatened to sue her and her husband for breaking the lease. She testified that she was afraid of running into Mr. Hylton at the grocery store. However, these fears were as much because she and her husband broke then-lease, which angered Mr. Hylton, as it was about his discriminatory comments. The court cannot determine that all of Mrs. Bilbo’s emotional distress was a result of the Hylton’s discriminatory conduct. Therefore, the court awards $5,000 in damages reflecting Mrs. Bilbo’s emotional distress.
Ms. Wilson testified that she was confused by Mr. Hylton’s comments and disappointed that she would have to keep looking for a place to live. But, she did not testify to feeling hurt or pained by his conduct. She merely said that she was glad she was rejected because she did not
However, the court finds that Ms. Wilson suffered damages in the form of lost housing opportunities. See Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc.,
In the North End of Hartford, there are a lower proportion of white residents, a substantially higher rate of unemployment, a greater percentage of residents on food stamps, a higher percentage of female-headed households, and a significantly higher crime rate, particularly as to violent crime. All of these factors are considered to be indicators of disadvantage. Meanwhile, in Windsor Locks, the home ownershiр rate is a little over two times greater than the rate in the North End of Hartford whereas the median income is twice as high in Windsor Locks as compared to the North End of Hartford. Both of these factors are indicators of advantage. Based on these statistics, Professor Freeman concluded that there is more opportunity and greater upward mobility and achievement in Windsor Locks as compared to the North End of Hartford. According to Professor Freeman, the North End of Hartford is a particularly disadvantaged area relative to Windsor Locks. He testified that the difference in the rate of violent crime is so dramatic and that such violence, regardless of whether someone is personally a victim of crime, indisputably impacts the quality of life in the neighborhood. Further, Professor Freeman testified that even though Ms. Wilson sends her children to school in Bolton, CT, they are still affected by their peers in the North End of Hartford who are not getting the same high quality education. Based on Professor Freeman’s testimony — which the court found credible and compelling — the court awards $20,000 in damages for lost housing opportunities.
3. Punitive Damages
The intervenors also seek punitive damages. “The FHA expressly provides for the recovery of punitive damages by plaintiffs who have suffered discriminatory housing practices.” United States v. Space Hunters, Inc.,
Mr. Hylton’s conduct was, by its very nature, indicative of evil motive. See Gonzalez v. Rakkas,
Furthermore, a principal may be liable for punitive damages for the act of her agent if the principal knew or ratified the acts of the agent. Gonzalez,
“Although the Supreme Court has ‘decline[d] ... to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed,’ it has ‘referenced a long legislative history ... providing for sanctions of double, treble, or quadruple damages to deter and punish.’ ” Parris,
4. Attorney’s Fees
Lastly, the intervenors noticed their intention to seek attorney’s fees for the Connecticut Fair Housing Center if they are the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2). The court directs the inter
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court orders that judgment in the amount of $31,750 be entered in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Bilbo, and $44,341.05 in favor of Ms. Wilson. The government and intervenors are directed to file their Motions for Injunctive Relief and Attorneys’ Fees by May 15, 2013.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. The Ruling is amended to correct a misreference to "East Hartford,” which should have been to the "northeast neighborhood of Hartford,” or the "North End of Hartford.”
. The neighborhood in which Ms. Wilson lived from 2010 to 2012 — when she was living at 111 Montville Street, Hartford, CT — was referred tо by Ms. Wilson — and is known colloquially — as the North End of Hartford. However, when Professor Lance Freeman testified to the advantages and disadvantages facing residents of Ms. Wilson's neighborhood, he referred to the "northeast neighborhood of Hartford,” which is the neighborhood in which Ms. Wilson lived as described in the census. For purposes of this Ruling, when discussing where Ms. Wilson lived as well as setting forth the statistical differences between that area and Windsor Locks, the court will refer to the neighborhood as the North End of Hartford.
. The court granted the Motion to Withdraw Wilson’s minor children as parties on October 28, 2012.
. Again, direct evidence of discrimination obviates the need to apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
. The fact that Mr. Hylton is Mrs. Hylton's husband does not change the analysis. “The principal owner’s liability is unaffected by the fact that the person committing the discriminatory acts in the course of disposing of the property is a relative or neighbor rather than a professional real estate agent.” Cato,
. By finding HREM vicariously liable for Mr. Hylton’s actions, the court has not transferred liability for damages from Mr. Hylton to HREM. Rather, both HREM and Mr. Hyltоn, along with Mrs. Hylton, are liable for the violations. See City of Chicago v. Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, Inc.,
. Mrs. Hylton testified that only her husband met with prospective tenants, collected rent, and served as the contact for the rental. In addition, a number of ads were posted regarding rental of 5 Townline Road. Mrs. Hylton testified that, after the Bilbos moved out of 5 Townline Road, one of those advertisements was placed by her niece, at her request.
. Ms. Wilson also requested damages reflecting the additional time she spent driving to and from her children's school multiplied by her hourly wage. There is no evidence that Ms. Wilson had to miss work to drive her children the extra distance to and from school. Therefore, the court does not award such damages.