109.

Sample Fair Housing Jury Instructions—Damages

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. DAMAGES - GENERALLY If you find that the plaintiff has proven its claim of discrimination against the defendants by a preponderance of the evidence, you must determine the damages to which Robert Gregory and Helen Gregory are entitled. Plaintiff seeks recovery of two types of damages—compensatory and punitive damages. There are different rules which apply to each type. Consequently, you must consider each type separately. AUTHORITY: Damages 15.1, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), U.S. Fifth Circuit, District Judges Association, 1992 Edition, West Publishing Company. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES If you find that the defendants are liable for illegal housing discrimination, then you must determine an amount that is fair compensation for Robert Gregory and Helen Gregory's damages. These damages are called compensatory damages. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole - that is, to compensate the plaintiff for the damage that the plaintiff has suffered. All defendants found liable for discrimination, including those found liable for the acts of their agents or employees, must pay any compensatory damages to which the Gregorys are entitled. The principals, Gorman Towers, Inc. and its board of directors, and Rental Management Co. and its president, must pay compensatory damages resulting from the discriminatory acts of agents and employees. A principal cannot avoid liability for damages by denying that it had control over its agents or employees. The plaintiff has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of damages suffered. In determining the amount of actual damages to which the Gregorys are entitled, you should consider all of the evidence including the following: The amount of rent that Mr. Gregory had to pay during times when he was denied equal opportunity to use and occupy a dwelling. Any other inconveniences or expenses that Robert Gregory or Helen Gregory incurred as a result of discrimination. Any physical injury, pain and suffering experienced by Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory as a consequence of the defendants' conduct, and any medical expenses incurred as a result of these injuries; and Any emotional distress, mental anguish, shock or discomfort suffered by Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory as a result of the defendants' conduct. You may award compensatory damages only for injuries that the plaintiff proves were proximately caused by the defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct. The damages that you award must be fair compensation for all of the Gregorys' damages, no more and no less. You should not award compensatory damages for speculative injuries, but only for those injuries which Mr. Gregory and/or Mrs. Gregory actually suffered or that they are reasonably likely to suffer in the future. If you decide to award compensatory damages, you should be guided by dispassionate common sense. Computing damages may be difficult, but you must not let that difficulty lead you to engage in arbitrary guesswork. On the other hand, the law does not require that the plaintiff prove the amount of losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness and accuracy as the circumstances permit. You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing reasonable inferences where you find them appropriate from the facts and circumstances in evidence. AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. �(o)(3); City of Chicago v. Matchmaker, C.A. Nos. 91-2491 & 91-3861 (7th Cir. 1992); Johnson v. Hale; 940 F.2d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir. 1991); Hamilton v. Svatik, 779 F.2d 383, 388 (7th Cir. 1986); Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir. 1982); Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101, 111-112 (3rd Cir. 1981). PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR INJURY AND PAIN You may award damages for any bodily injury that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory sustained and any pain and suffering that they experienced in the past or will experience in the future as a result of the bodily injury. No evidence of the value of intangible things, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, has been or need be introduced. You are not trying to determine value, but an amount that will fairly compensate Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory for the damages they have suffered. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded for these elements of damage. Any award that you make should be fair in light of the evidence. AUTHORITY: Damages 15.4, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), U.S. Fifth Circuit, District Judges Association, 1992 Edition, West Publishing Company. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. MEDICAL EXPENSES You may award damages for the reasonable expense of any hospitalization and medical care and treatment that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory have experienced or will require because of either of their injuries which were caused by the defendants' wrongful conduct. AUTHORITY: Damages 15.6, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), U.S. Fifth Circuit, District Judges Association, 1992 Edition, West Publishing Company. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES—EMOTIONAL INJURY If you find that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory were unlawfully discriminated against by the defendants, you are to consider whether and to what extent they suffered any emotional injury as a result of that discrimination. With regard to emotional injury, you may compensate Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory for any humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, or emotional distress that they experienced or may experience in the future. This type of relief is within the category of compensatory damages. In this regard, you may consider that embarrassment and humiliation are natural consequences of an act of discrimination. Thus, you may draw inferences from the circumstances of the case to make a finding of emotional injury. In addition, of course, you should consider on this question the testimony of witnesses and any evidence of mental or emotional injury. You may also consider any relevant testimony given by an expert in this case, and give it such weight as you think it deserves. You may award damages for emotional distress and humiliation even if you find that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory suffered no economic loss. AUTHORITY: Johnson v. Hale, 940 F.2d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir. 1991); Marable v. Walker, 704 F.2d 1219, 1220 (11th Cir. 1983); Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 164 (5th Cir. 1977); Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., Inc., 491 F.2d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 1974). PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. CALCULATION OF PAST AND FUTURE DAMAGES If you find for the plaintiff, Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory are entitled to recover an amount that will fairly compensate them for any damages they have suffered to date. If you find that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory are reasonably certain to suffer damages in the future from their injuries, then you should award them the amount you believe would fairly compensate them for such future damages. In calculating future damages, you should consider a recognized mortality table such as the table promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service. An award of future damages necessarily requires that payment be made now for a loss that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory will not actually suffer until some future date. If you should find that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory are entitled to future damages, then you must determine the present worth in dollars of such future damages. However, you must not make any adjustment to present value for any damages you may award for future pain and suffering or future mental anguish. AUTHORITY: Damages 15.3, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), U.S. Fifth Circuit, District Judges Association, 1992 Edition, West Publishing Company. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. PUNITIVE DAMAGES In addition to actual damages, the fair housing laws allow (but do not require) you to award punitive damages against one or more defendants. Punitive damages may be awarded by the jury for two reasons: first, to punish the defendants for their misconduct; and second, to deter the defendants, and other persons, from acting in the same way in the future. In a case like this one, punitive damages may be awarded against the defendants if the plaintiff has proven either that the defendants' conduct was motivated by evil motive or intent, or that the defendants' conduct involved a reckless or callous indifference to the legal rights of Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory that are protected by the laws involved in this case. "Evil motive or intent" means that the defendants deliberately meant to harm Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory. "Reckless or callous indifference" means that the defendants deliberately disregarded Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory's rights. For example, it means defendants knew, or should have known, that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory were in danger of being harmed, and that the defendants could have taken steps either to insure that Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory were not harmed or that the harm to Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory was corrected, but the defendants failed to take those steps. Thus, if you find that defendant Sue Watson has violated the Fair Housing Act, and you further find that she was motivated by evil motive or intent, or that defendant Watson's conduct involved a reckless or callous indifference to the legal rights of Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory to be free of discrimination on the basis of handicap, then you may assess punitive damages. The same is true of defendants Donna Sexton, Same Sexton, Gorman Towers, Inc., and Rental Management, Inc. AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. �(c)(1); Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Haslip, 111 S.Ct. 1032 (1991); Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198, 1203-04 (5th Cir. 1982); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 54-56 (1983); Mitchell v. Keith, 752 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1985); Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101, 111 (3rd Cir. 1981); Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Moter Hotel, Inc., 648 F.2d 548, 553 (9th Cir. 1980); Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 164 (5th Cir. 1977); Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735, 745 (6th Cir. 1974); Damages 15.13, Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), U.S. Fifth Circuit, District Judges Association, 1992 Edition, West Publishing Company. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. If you find that the defendants did provide a parking space to the Gregorys prior to May, 1993, but that defendants had delayed acting on the Gregorys' initial request for a parking space, you may conclude that their conduct amounted to a denial of the request, and you may calculate the damages suffered by Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory from the date on which you find that the defendants should reasonably have acted on their request. AUTHORITY: HUD v. Ocean Sands, Inc., HUDALJ 04-90-0231-1, slip op. at 19, 20, 25 (1993) PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. PRINCIPAL CORPORATION'S LIABILITY FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES In this case, you must also consider whether the owner of Gorman Towers Apartments, defendant Gorman Towers, Inc., will also be liable for punitive damages for the discriminatory acts of its employees and agents. As well, you must consider whether the owners of Rental Management Company, defendants Sam Sexton, Jr. and Donna Sexton, will also be liable for the punitive damages for the discriminatory acts of its employees and agents. If you find that Gorman Towers, Inc. and Rental Management Company's employees and agents engaged in intentional discrimination against the Gregorys within the scope of their jobs as employees or agents of the corporations, then you may in your discretion award punitive damages against the defendant corporations, their owners, officers, and board of directors who are defendants in this case. AUTHORITY: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Haslip, 111 S.Ct. 1032 (1991); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 39-45 (1983); American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556, 575, n.14 (1982)(citing Kelite Products, Inc v. Binzel, 224 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1955)). PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. PRINCIPAL OFFICER'S LIABILITY FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES You must also consider whether Sam Sexton, Jr., the chief executive officer of Rental Management, Inc., is liable for punitive damages. You may, in your discretion, award punitive damages against Sam Sexton, Jr. in his role as an officer of Rental Management, Inc. if you find that he took actions in reckless, callous, or willful disregard for the rights of Robert Gregory and/or Helen Gregory. Even if his actions did not directly interfere with the rights of the Gregorys, you may still find him liable if he encouraged any discriminatory acts or policies, or if he endorsed or ratified discriminatory conduct by other employees or agents of Rental Management, Inc. Ratification means approval of an act after it is done. Whether or not the president and officer of Rental Management, Inc. ratified the conduct of the employees may be inferred from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. In determining whether the president and officer ratified the discriminatory conduct of the employees, you may consider, among others, the following factors: Whether or not the employees and agents continued to carry out discriminatory actions or policies after allegations of unlawful conduct were made; What, if any, efforts were made by the president and chief executive officer to investigate or remedy the conduct of any employees in connection with the allegation of discrimination; and The truthfulness of the owner's testimony that no discrimination occurred. If the presence of any of these factors convinces you that Sam Sexton, Jr., in his capacity as chief executive officer, approved of discriminatory actions or policies carried out by agents or employees of Rental Management, Inc., then you may find him liable for punitive damages. AUTHORITY: Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 52 (1983); Asbury v. Brougham, 866 F.2d 1276 (10th Cir. 1989); Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1974); Bradley v. John Brabham Agency, Inc., 463 F. Supp.27, 32 (D.S.C. 1978); Davis v. Mansards, 597 F. Supp. 334, 347 (N.D. Ind. 1984). PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. FACTORS IN ASSESSING PUNITIVE DAMAGES In assessing punitive damages, you should bear in mind the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the injured party. Rather, punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendants and to serve as an example and a warning to others not to engage in such conduct. If you determine that it is appropriate to award punitive damages, you should consider several factors in determining what amount of such damages will serve as an appropriate penalty against the defendants and as a deterrent to others. These factors include the defendants' financial status, the defendants' motivations, and the character and degree of purposefulness or wilfulness of the defendants' actions. If you award punitive damages against the defendants, they should be large enough to act effectively as a deterrent. An award of punitive damages may cause the defendants some hardship, but that is an essential part of the function of punitive damages. AUTHORITY: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Haslip, 111 S.Ct. 1032 (1991); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 39-45 (1983); Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc., 646 F.2d 101, 111 (3rd Cir. 1981); Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 164 (5th Cir. 1977); Grayson v. S. Rotundi & Sons Realty Co., 1985 P-H Fair Housing-Fair Lending Rptr. para. 15,516, at 16,417 (E.D.N.Y. 1984); Davis v. Mansards, 597 F. Supp. 334, 347 (N.D. Ind. 1984). [cited in Civil Rights Resource Manual 60]