Opinion
CVH7749
12-20-2012
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Ex Rel. Becky Palmer et al. v. Kenneth Burkamp
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DAMAGES
Oliver, Vernon D., J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter involves a claim of discrimination brought by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter " CHRO") on behalf of the relator, Becky Palmer and the relator, Becky Palmer, individually. After trial on the bifurcated issue of liability, this Court found the defendant, Kenneth Burkamp, intentionally discriminated against the relator by willfully refusing to accept her state-issued Security Deposit Guarantee (hereinafter " SDG"). Thereafter, at a hearing in damages held July 18, 2012, both sides presented evidence and opted to write briefs in lieu of closing argument. The Court, in this Memorandum, relies on evidence and testimony from both phases of this litigation. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Court's May 16, 2012 Memorandum of Decision on the liability phase of these proceedings are incorporated herein.
The plaintiffs seek both compensatory (monetary) damages, punitive damages, a civil penalty, a cease and desist order, fair housing training and the award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46a-64(c), 46a-86(c), 46a-89(b)(2).
DISCUSSION
DAMAGES
Pursuant to statute, an individual plaintiff aggrieved by a violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 46a-64c is entitled to both compensatory damages including but not limited to expenses incurred in obtaining alternate housing, emotional distress, and other costs actually incurred as a result of such discriminatory practices as well as punitive damages including reasonable attorneys fees. Section 46a-89 also allows for appropriate injunctive relief in the form of a temporary or permanent restraining order (cease and desist order) prohibiting the alleged discriminatory conduct. Additionally, the State can seek a civil penalty, pursuant to Section 46a-89(b)(2)(D).
The relator is not seeking any out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the discrimination visited upon her by the respondent. She does seek compensatory damages for the emotional distress related to the defendant's conduct, however. It is well settled in Connecticut housing discrimination law that the broad authority to award damages under Section 46a-86(c) includes the authority to award damages, for emotional distress. Fulk v. Lee, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, CV 970063572 (February 7, 2002, Scholl, J.) [ 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 375]. The largely subjective injuries associated with claims of this nature may be established by testimony from the relator and competent witness, as well as the relator's conduct as observed by others. Chestnut Realty, Inc. v. Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities, 201 Conn. 350, 366 (1986); Busche v. Burke, 649 F.2d 509, 519 n. 12 (1981); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 264 n.20, 98 S.Ct. 1042 (1978).
This Court considers what have been described as the Harrison factors in assessing damages for emotional distress. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ex rel. Harrison v. Greco, CHRO No. 7930433 (1985) These factors, initially delineated by CHRO referees have been adopted at the superior court level. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket Nos. CV94 4031061, CV95 4031060 (Wilson, J., June 6, 2011). The Court credits the relator's testimony as to her emotional reaction to having her SDG refused in front of Ms. Davis and three children. The Court finds that her reaction was intense but not prolonged. Her reaction was, however, understandable. The relator's housing situation after suffering the defendant's discrimination are undisputed. The relator was briefly concerned with the prospect of homelessness. She and her children accepted housing inferior to that owned by the defendant. The Court further notes that the discrimination occurred in front of another adult, Ms. Davis, who was attentive to the situation and able to understand what had occurred. The Court finds the defendant's discrimination offensive, but does not find, based on the entire record, that the refusal of the SDG was done with the intention of producing the maximum pain, embarrassment and humiliation. For the degree of pain, embarrassment and humiliation inflicted, however, the credible evidence warrants an amount of ten thousand ($10, 000.00) dollars. The Court awards no punitive damages as none are warranted by the weight of the credible evidence.
CIVIL PENALTY
The Commission seeks a civil penalty against Kenneth Burkamp for his discriminatory conduct pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46a-89(b)(1) and 46b-89(b)(2)(D)(I). These statutes allow for the imposition of civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars to vindicate the public interest against discriminatory practices.
In the instant matter, the respondent's discriminatory actions were directed more towards challenging the State's authority than inflicting harm upon the relator. Clearly, if respondent landlords such as Mr. Burkamp were allowed to simply " opt out" of compliance with the statutory framework and thwart anti-discrimination laws designed to provide prospective tenants with an opportunity to acquire suitable housing regardless of source of income, then the work of the legislature and the courts would be a sham. At trial, the respondent was far from contrite, referring to the State of Connecticut as a " deadbeat." To vindicate that interest, and to punish and deter such discriminatory conduct, a civil penalty in the maximum amount of ten thousand ($10, 000.00) dollars is assessed against the respondent.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The CHRO's claim for injunctive relief is denied.
ATTORNEYS FEES
Section 46a-86(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes allows for the award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs upon a finding of a discriminatory practice. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Sullivan., 285 Conn. 208, 237 (2008).
HOURLY RATES
In the instant matter, based on the affidavits submitted, the testimony provided and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds the hourly rates proposed by the plaintiffs to be reasonable for Attorneys Greg Kirschner, Timothy Bennett-Smyth, Brian Smith, Joel Norwood and Evan Seaman.
NUMBER OF HOURS BILLED
Based on the fact-intensive nature of this case, the number of witnesses and the issues involved the Court finds the number of hours of attorneys fees requested to be billed for the liability portion of this matter to be reasonable. However, this Court does not deem it reasonable to award any attorneys fees for the damages phase of these proceedings for the following reasons: First, the plaintiffs made the strategic legal decision to move to bifurcate these proceedings over the objection of the defendant. As part of his objection, the defendant asserted the routine nature of the matter to be tried and justifiably voiced concerns regarding the efficient trial of this matter. Additionally, though the respondent chose to litigate this manner in this venue, this court will not cause the respondent to bear the financial burden of the plaintiffs' trial strategy. In the instant matter, there was, in retrospect, little need for bifurcation. Further, as the issues in this case were fact-intensive but not legally complex, a consolidated hearing was the more reasonable course. Also, there was little of additional evidentiary value adduced at the hearing in damages. Finally, the additional filing of post-trial briefs on the issue of liability added little to the necessary legal and factual findings required to be made by this Court.
Accordingly, the Court awards the following:
To Relator: BECKY PALMER
Economic Damages: $ 0.00
Non-economic Damages $ 10, 000.00
(Emotional Distress)
Total Damages to Palmer: $10, 000.00
Attorneys Fees:
Connecticut Fair Housing Center: $32, 895.00
Robinson & Cole: $ 56, 893.50
Total Attorneys' Fees: $89, 788.50
To CHRO
Civil Penalty: $10, 000.00
The Court further taxes costs of this action against the respondent Kenneth Burkamp, pursuant to a bill of costs to be filed by the Plaintiffs.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Vernon D. Oliver