•  
  •  
 

Keywords

Fair Housing Act; FHA; punitive damages; Gilead Community Services; housing discrimination; damages; Section 1983; civil rights; discrimination; municipal liability; municipal immunity

Abstract

Combatting housing discrimination by municipalities is a core function of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Courts disagree, however, as to whether punitive damages can be awarded against municipal defendants. The purpose of this Note is twofold. First, it compares the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, which held that punitive damages were appropriate against the Town of Cromwell, with the reasoning of district courts that came to the opposite conclusion in reliance on § 1983 precedent. Second, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the statutory analysis, it evaluates the public policy concerns of awarding punitive damages against municipalities in the context of the FHA.

This Note argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires courts looking for municipal immunity waivers to read statutes alongside their legislative history. Therefore, it contends that the Second Circuit is correct that the FHA authorizes punitive damages against municipalities. It then supplements the Second Circuit’s statutory analysis with an analysis of public policy factors specific to punitive damages against municipalities in FHA litigation. This Note concludes that public policy necessitates the availability of such damages because taxpayers are key players in municipal housing decisions and the taxpayers themselves must therefore be punished and deterred from continuing housing discrimination. Finally, it recommends that when text, legislative history, and public policy all point toward allowing punitive damages, the procedural safeguards already in place, including holistic jury instructions and multiple layers of excessiveness review, best address public policy concerns.

Download

Share

COinS