Recent Development by Laurie R. Kaufman
Lisa Lincoln and Don Weaver, a biracial couple, sought to rent a new apartment in New Orleans, Louisiana, in November 1999. The couple responded to a newspaper advertisement in the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Walter Case, the owner and landlord of a fourplex, had placed the advertisement and invited potential tenants to see the property on November 26, 1999, between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Lincoln contacted Case, expressing the couple's interest in the apartment. The couple arranged a tour, but when Case arrived at the property and saw Lincoln and Weaver standing together, instead of opening the apartment to them, Case turned away. When Lincoln went after him and pressed, Case told her that he “was holding a deposit on the apartment” at issue. The next week, Lincoln had a Caucasian coworker call the Cases to inquire into the status of the rental property. Upon learning that the apartment was still available, Lincoln contacted the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center to look into the matter. The Center, using both Caucasian and African-American testers, found that the Cases informed the prospective Caucasian tenants that the apartment was available while telling the prospective African-American tenants that it was not.
With this knowledge, Lincoln and Weaver filed suit against the Cases, alleging that by denying the couple the opportunity to rent the apartment at issue, the Cases had violated sections of the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act, in addition to state antidiscrimination laws. Prior to trial, Lincoln and Weaver moved to dismiss their civil rights claims, state law claims, and all claims against Mrs. Case. The district court granted the motion. At trial, a jury heard the remaining claims and found in favor of Lincoln and Weaver, awarding no damages to Lincoln, but finding Weaver entitled to $500 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, Case raised three issues. First, he stated that once Lincoln and Weaver dropped the federal civil rights claims from the suit, the district court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Second, he asserted that under the Fair Housing Act, Weaver lacked standing to sue. Finally, Case contended that the district court erred when it failed to reduce or eliminate Weaver's $100,000 punitive damages award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed part of the district court's judgment, ruling that both subject matter jurisdiction and standing existed, but held that although there was sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages, the $100,000 award would be remitted to $55,000 as a matter of due process. Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283, 288-94 (5th Cir. 2003).
About the Author
Laurie R. Kaufman.
Citation
78 Tul. L. Rev. 1377 (2004)