Share
A federal district court in Texas addressed damages and attorney fees allowable for a violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The court found that an intervening party may receive compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants, but that only reasonably necessary attorney fees and expenses were recoverable.
The Pines sought to sell their home to Tarrant County Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TCM). TCM proposed to use it as a group home for six retarded children. Several neighbors filed suit to prevent the sale. The federal government (U.S.) filed suit against the neighbors, alleging that they violated the FHA. The Pines intervened as plaintiffs. The liability portion of the case was tried before the district court, which found that six defendants violated the FHA (See 1996 WL 14853 1). A month later, the court heard the damages/remedy portion of the case.
During the liability phase of the case, the district court found that the filing of a lawsuit to prevent the sale of the home violated the FHA. However, it found that the distribution of "emergency" leaflets describing the sale as a "disaster" for "social reasons," constituted protected free speech under the First Amendment. Thus, the defendants were only liable for the filing of the lawsuit. Regarding damages, the court found that in a civil action brought by the U.S. on behalf of aggrieved individuals such as the Pines, the court may grant the same relief that could be granted in a private enforcement action. Accordingly, the court awarded compensatory damages to the Pines, including $3,500 for attorney fees in defending the action and $7,500 for emotional distress due to that lawsuit. The court rejected the Pines' contention that the suit caused a decrease in the sale price of their home.
The district court noted that both the U.S. and private plaintiffs may seek punitive damages under the FHA. These damages are awarded to deter defendants and others from engaging in unlawful conduct. The standard for punitive damages in civil rights cases is when the "defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." (Quoting Smith v.Wade 461 U.S. 30 (1983)). For FHA violations in the Fifth Circuit, punitive damages are granted in cases of "willful and gross" disregard of FHA rights. (Quoting Woods-Drake v.Lundy 667 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir. 1982)). The court found an award of punitive damages appropriate because the filing of the lawsuit involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of the Pines and the defendants acted with willful and gross disregard for the Pines' rights under the FHA. A large award was not necessary because the lawsuit was dismissed one week after being filed; $8,000 in punitive damages was awarded.
The district court noted that a prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees under the FHA. The amount of recovery does not govern the amount of attorney's fees in a civil rights suit. Also, an intervenor bears the burden of proving that the time spent was not redundant or unnecessary. The court found that some of the work performed by the Pines' attorney was redundant and some of his expenses were unnecessary. Further, the court did not allow fees on the free speech issue. Thus, it reduced the total fees and expenses to $46,000 (nearly $200,000 less than originally requested).
United States v. Wagner 930 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D. Tex. 1996).