Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03711/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03711-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3711

___________

Reginald Young, Director, Omaha *

Human Relations Department on *

behalf of Theardise Lowman, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Theardise Lowman, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Appellant, * District of Nebraska.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Bracston L. Olds; Myrtis E. Olds; *

B.L.’s Homes, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2006

Filed: February 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012257
1

The Honorable William Jay Riley, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth

Circuit, sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the District of

Nebraska.

-2-

Theardise Lowman appeals the district court’s1

 judgment in favor of defendants

following a two-day jury trial in his action for intentional race discrimination in

renting an apartment, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1982,

and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601. We affirm.

We will affirm a jury verdict unless, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that a reasonable jury could not have

found for that party. See Cross v. Cleaver, 142 F.3d 1059, 1066 (8th Cir. 1998). The

evidence here amply supports the jury’s verdict. Given Lowman’s credit score, which

indicated a good chance he would be in default of a rent payment, the jury was free

to believe Olds’s testimony that his decision not to rent to Lowman was based on

Lowman’s credit history rather than his race. See Morse v. S. Union Co., 174 F.3d

917, 922-23 (8th Cir. 1999) (jury is free to credit testimony as it believes appropriate

and is to decide whose witnesses were telling truth); Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d

372, 383 (2d Cir.) (framework of burdens fashioned in Title VII cases is fully

applicable to housing-discrimination cases), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 876 (1994).

Contrary to Lowman’s arguments on appeal, he did not allege in his complaint

that defendants’ policies were discriminatory under a disparate-impact theory, see Oti

Kaga, Inc. v. S.D. Hous. Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003) (to prove

discrimination under disparate-impact analysis, plaintiff must show facially neutral

policy has adverse impact on members of protected group), and he did not attempt to

submit to the jury the investigation report from the City of Omaha’s Human Relations

Department.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny Lowman’s motion to

supplement the record with evidence that was not before the jury. See Dakota Indus.,

Appellate Case: 04-3711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012257
-3-

Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993) (appellate court

generally will not consider evidence not contained in record below).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3711 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012257