Marya v. Slakey
190 F. Supp. 2d 95 (2001)
Rule of Law:
An agency relationship, for the purpose of vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act, can be implied from the conduct of the parties. A landlord may be held liable for the discriminatory acts of a tenant if the landlord delegates tenant-selection responsibilities to existing tenants and consistently acquiesces in their decisions.
Facts:
- Linda Slakey owned a six-bedroom house and leased it to six unrelated individuals under a single joint lease.
- By custom, the existing tenants were responsible for advertising vacancies, interviewing applicants, and selecting new tenants by unanimous vote.
- The lease gave Slakey the final authority to approve or reject any new tenant, but in practice, she never rejected a candidate selected by her tenants.
- Kriti Arora, a citizen of India, applied to fill a vacancy and met the established criteria of being a student, vegetarian, and non-smoker.
- Paul Norris, an existing tenant, voted to reject Arora's application, stating explicitly that he did not want to live with three Indian women and did not want a 'preponderance of one culture' in the house.
- Another tenant, Suzanne Castello, also voted against Arora, citing a personality conflict.
- Two other tenants informed Slakey of Norris's discriminatory statements and asked her to intervene in the selection process.
- After speaking with Norris, Slakey chose not to involve herself further, thereby allowing the rejection of Arora's application to stand.
Procedural Posture:
- Kriti Arora sued landlord Linda Slakey and tenant Paul Norris in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- Arora's complaint alleged housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, and Massachusetts state law.
- A second plaintiff, Deepika Marya, was previously dismissed from the case for lack of standing.
- The defendants, Slakey and Norris, filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, Slakey could not be held liable because Norris was not her agent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agency relationship, for purposes of vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act, exist between a landlord and a tenant when the landlord delegates the responsibility of selecting new tenants to the existing tenants and consistently acquiesces in their decisions?
Opinions:
Majority - Freedman, Senior District Judge
Yes, a reasonable jury could find that an agency relationship exists. An agency relationship can be established by the conduct of the parties, even without an express agreement. Slakey's long-standing practice of delegating the entire tenant-selection process to her tenants and her consistent acquiescence in their decisions constituted a manifestation of consent for the tenants to act on her behalf. Slakey retained sufficient control because the lease gave her the ultimate authority to approve or reject candidates, and she benefited from the arrangement by being relieved of the burden of finding new tenants. Therefore, because a jury could find that Norris was acting as Slakey's agent, Slakey can be held vicariously liable for his discriminatory actions under the Fair Housing Act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that landlords cannot insulate themselves from liability under the Fair Housing Act by informally delegating tenant-selection duties to existing tenants. The court's focus on agency implied by conduct puts landlords on notice that they have a non-delegable duty to prevent discrimination in their properties. By consistently acquiescing to tenants' decisions, a landlord may be found to have created an agency relationship, making them vicariously liable for any discriminatory acts committed by those tenants during the selection process. This ruling reinforces the broad application of the Fair Housing Act and discourages landlords from adopting a 'hands-off' approach to renting.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Marya v. Slakey (2001)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"