United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 19-2465

___________________________ 

Robyn G. Edwards; Mikki Adams

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Gene Salter Properties, Inc.; Salter Construction Inc.; Brittany Pringle, Employee

 Defendants - Appellees

___________________________

No. 19-2593

___________________________ 

Robyn G. Edwards; Mikki Adams

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

Gene Salter Properties, Inc.

 Defendant - Appellant

Salter Construction Inc.; Brittany Pringle, Employee

 Defendants 

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________ 
- 2 -

Submitted: October 22, 2020

 Filed: November 2, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Robyn Edwards and Mikki Adams appeal the district court’s1 damages award 

following a bench trial in their discrimination action against Gene Salter Properties 

(GSP) arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (it is unlawful 

to discriminate in rental of dwelling because of renter’s handicap; discrimination 

includes refusal to make reasonable accommodations in policies to afford equal 

opportunity to use and enjoy dwelling).2

 Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, this court affirms.

This court concludes there is no merit to appellants’ arguments that greater 

damages are warranted because the course of litigation was distressing, or because 

GSP did not pay their costs. See Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625, 642 (4th 

Cir. 2001) (litigation-induced distress is not compensable element of damages); 

Taxpayers for the Animas-La Plata Referendum v. Animas-La Plata Water 

Conservancy Dist., 739 F.2d 1472, 1480 (10th Cir. 1984) (legal costs generally are 

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

Pringle and Salter Construction Inc. are nominal appellees, as this court 

previously upheld the grant of summary judgment in their favor. See Edwards v. 

Gene Salter Props., 739 Fed. Appx. 357, 359 (8th Cir. 2018) (unpublished per 

curiam); Specialty Mills, Inc. v. Citizens State Bank, 51 F.3d 770, 771 n.1 (8th Cir. 

1995) (treating party that had not participated in appeal and had no stake in outcome 

as nominal appellee). 
- 3 -

not considered damages, as they are not consequence of tort sued upon). Upon 

review of the trial transcript, this court finds no abuse of discretion in the district 

court’s denial of punitive damages. See Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 

535-37 (1999) (punitive damages are appropriate in civil rights action when 

defendant’s conduct is motivated by evil intent, or involves reckless or callous 

indifference to federally protected rights of others; those who believe discriminatory 

action is lawful, such as when underlying theory of discrimination is novel, are not 

liable for punitive damages); EEOC v. Flambeau, Inc., 846 F.3d 941, 947 (7th Cir. 

2017) (in finding punitive damages were unavailable because plaintiff’s theory of 

discrimination was novel at relevant time, court noted that cases raising similar 

question could be “counted on one hand”); cf. United States v. Space Hunters, Inc., 

429 F.3d 416, 428 (2d Cir. 2005) (consideration of punitive damages was 

appropriate where defendant’s “evil motive” could be inferred from threats to 

disabled tenant, and defendant had history of FHA violations such that punitive 

damages could deter resumption of previous practices). 

As for GSP’s cross-appeal, this court affirms the district court’s finding of 

liability, as the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes GSP’s argument that it did not 

need to accommodate Edwards and Adams because they could have obtained a cosigner to rent an apartment. See Edwards, 739 Fed. Appx. at 358 (allowing co-signer 

was not substitute for accommodating plaintiffs, because this option placed 

additional burden on disabled applicant rather than leveling playing field); Yankton 

Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994, 1004 (8th Cir. 2010) (under law-of-thecase doctrine, when court decides upon rule of law, that decision continues to govern 

same issues in subsequent stages of same case). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________