Asbury v. Brougham
866 F.2d 1276 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of housing discrimination by showing disparate treatment, which the defendant can rebut with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; the plaintiff can then prevail by proving the reason is pretextual. A property owner may be liable for punitive damages if they establish policies with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights or ratify an employee's discriminatory actions.
Facts:
- On February 23, 1984, Rosalyn Asbury, a Black woman with one daughter, inquired in person about renting an apartment or townhouse at Brougham Estates.
- Wanda Chauvin, the rental manager, told Asbury there were no vacancies and refused to provide an application, show a model unit, or give her floor plans.
- Chauvin suggested Asbury inquire at a different apartment complex known for housing mostly Black families.
- The next day, Asbury’s sister-in-law, Linda Robinson, who is white, called Brougham Estates and was invited by Chauvin to view available apartments.
- The following day, Chauvin showed Robinson floor plans, a model unit, and several available two-bedroom apartments, indicating they were available for immediate rental.
- Evidence showed that at the time of Asbury's inquiry, several townhouses were either available or soon to be available and were subsequently rented to white men.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosalyn Asbury sued Leo Brougham, Brougham Estates, and Wanda Chauvin in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the Fair Housing Act.
- A jury found for Asbury, awarding $7,500 in compensatory damages against all defendants and $50,000 in punitive damages against Leo Brougham.
- The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding of intentional racial discrimination when a rental agent tells a Black applicant there are no vacancies but shortly thereafter shows available units to a white applicant, and can the property owner be held personally liable for punitive damages for establishing policies that facilitated the discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, J.
Yes. Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding of intentional racial discrimination and the award of punitive damages against the owner. Asbury established a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework by showing she was a member of a protected class, was qualified to rent, was denied the opportunity to negotiate for a rental, and that housing remained available. The defendants' proffered non-discriminatory reason—that their policy restricted families with children to townhouses and none were available—was shown to be pretextual. Evidence demonstrated that exceptions to this policy had been made and that the policy was not mentioned to the white tester. Furthermore, providing false information about availability to a minority applicant constitutes a cognizable injury under the Fair Housing Act. The property owner, Leo Brougham, is liable for punitive damages because his conduct demonstrated a reckless or callous indifference to Asbury's federally protected rights. This liability stems from his own actions, including establishing policies that facilitated discrimination (such as requiring in-person screening) and his subsequent ratification of Chauvin's discriminatory conduct by investigating Asbury in a hostile manner and failing to remedy the situation.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the practical application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in the context of the Fair Housing Act. It reinforces the validity of using 'testers' of different races to produce powerful circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination. The decision also clarifies the grounds for imposing punitive damages directly on a property owner, moving beyond simple vicarious liability. By focusing on the owner's role in establishing discriminatory policies and ratifying an employee's actions, the court establishes a basis for holding owners accountable for creating an environment where discrimination can occur, regardless of their direct interaction with the victim.
Unlock the full brief for Asbury v. Brougham