Rita Fox v. Lucille F. Gaines
USCA11 Case: 20-12620 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sexual harassment constitutes a form of sex discrimination actionable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), provided the plaintiff demonstrates that the harassment occurred but for their sex.
Facts:
- Rita Fox, a single mother facing foreclosure, visited the Rose Bush Apartments in Jupiter, Florida, to view an available unit.
- Dana Gaines, the property manager for Rose Bush Apartments, commented on Ms. Fox’s looks and offered to keep the unit available for her if she would give him a kiss, which she eventually did.
- After moving in, Ms. Fox struggled to pay her full monthly rent, and Mr. Gaines offered to reduce her rent in exchange for sexual favors, an arrangement Ms. Fox eventually acquiesced to for approximately three and a half years.
- Mr. Gaines subjected Ms. Fox to a pattern of controlling behavior, including questioning her whereabouts, demanding she not invite male visitors, and installing surveillance cameras facing her unit.
- Ms. Fox ended the sexual relationship with Mr. Gaines, hoping to stop his controlling and harassing behavior.
- In response, Mr. Gaines began serving Ms. Fox with fraudulent violation notices, threatened eviction, and initiated formal eviction proceedings against her.
- Ms. Fox moved out of her apartment on the agreed-upon date after Mr. Gaines called the police and tried to have her arrested for trespassing.
Procedural Posture:
- Rita Fox sued Dana Gaines and Lucille Gaines in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the FHA and the Florida FHA based on sexual harassment.
- Defendants Dana Gaines and Lucille Gaines filed separate motions to dismiss Ms. Fox's complaint.
- The district court granted the motions to dismiss, ruling that sexual harassment claims were not actionable under the FHA, despite finding that Ms. Fox had adequately pled severe and pervasive harassment.
- Ms. Fox appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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:
Does sexual harassment, including hostile housing environment and quid pro quo harassment, constitute sex discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968?
Opinions:
Majority - Jill Pryor
Yes, sexual harassment, including hostile housing environment and quid pro quo harassment, constitutes sex discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, provided the plaintiff demonstrates but-for causation. The Eleventh Circuit joined its sister circuits in holding that sexual harassment is actionable under the FHA by interpreting the FHA's language prohibiting discrimination "because of . . . sex" to mean "but-for causality." The court noted that it looks to Title VII jurisprudence, which uses virtually identical language, when interpreting the FHA. Citing Supreme Court cases like Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., and its own precedent in Henson v. City of Dundee, the court reaffirmed that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Therefore, applying this established interpretation, sexual harassment, when motivated by the claimant's sex, is prohibited under the FHA, aligning with the statute's broad remedial purpose. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for reconsideration of Ms. Fox's complaint in light of this ruling.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear legal standard in the Eleventh Circuit, aligning it with other federal appellate courts that have recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination under the FHA. It clarifies that both quid pro quo and hostile housing environment harassment are actionable, providing victims of such discrimination with a cause of action. The ruling reinforces the FHA's broad remedial purpose and provides a framework for future litigation, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the harassment occurred 'but for' their sex. This precedent offers significant protection to tenants and prospective homeowners from gender-based harassment in housing.
