The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, December 3, 2002
Decision: Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Issues: Civil Rights, Desegregation

Advocates

Douglas G. Benedon (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Malcolm L. Stewart (Department of Justice, argued the cause as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents)
Robert G. Schwemm (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) forbids racial discrimination in respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. The Holleys, an interracial couple, alleged that a Triad real-estate corporation sales representative prevented them from buying a Triad-listed house for racially discriminatory reasons. The Holleys filed suit against the sales representative and David Meyer, Triad's president, sole shareholder, and licensed "officer/broker," claiming that he was vicariously liable for the sales representative's unlawful actions. The District Court dismissed the claims, stating that the FHA did not impose personal vicarious liability upon a corporate officer or a "designated officer/broker." In reversing, the Court of Appeals ruled that the FHA imposes strict liability principles beyond those traditionally associated with agent/principal or employee/employer relationships.

Question

Does the Fair Housing Act impose personal liability without fault upon an officer or owner of a residential real estate corporation for the unlawful activity of the corporation's employee or agent?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the FHA does not impose liability without fault upon the employer in accordance with traditional agency principles. In other words, the FHA normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation, but not upon its officers or owners. In the absence of a clear indication of congressional intent to abrogate the common law principles of vicarious liability, the Court reasoned that neither the right of the officer to control the salesperson nor the overriding societal priority of the FHA's objectives warranted extending tort-related vicarious liability rules to include the officer. The Court also reasoned that nothing in the FHA supported imposing a non-delegable duty upon the officer to ensure that its salesperson did not discriminate.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Meyer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Fair Housing
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1120/>
(last visited ).