IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CONSTANCE GEORGE, Case No. 3:15-cv-01277-SB 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOUSE OF HOPE RECOVERY and 

PATRICIA BARCROFT, 

Defendants. 

We, the jury, being first duly empaneled and sworn in this case find as follows: 

CLAIM ONE: FAIR HOUSING ACT 

VERDICT 

1. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her race was a 

motivating factor in defendants' decision to terminate her tenancy? 

YES NO _x 

2. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants 

violated her rights under the Fair Housing Act by subjecting her to different terms 

and conditions than a white tenant? 

YES N0 4 

Page 1 - Verdict 

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 140 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 3
3. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants 

violated her rights under the Fair Housing Act by making a statement with respect 

to the rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or 

discrimination based on race? 

YES No_X_ 

CLAIM TWO: SECTION 1981 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

4. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants 

violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by depriving her of the same right 

enjoyed by white persons to make and enforce a contract? 

YES No _X_ 

5. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants 

violated Ms. George's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because her race was the 

determinative factor for defendants' decision to terminate her tenancy? 

YES No _l( 

6. Has Ms. George proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants 

retaliated against Ms. George for making a complaint regarding defendants' 

disparate treatment of her based on her race? 

YES N0 --4-

If you answered "YES" to ANY one or more of Questions 1-6, please proceed to Question 7. If 

you find that Ms. George's rights were violated by Ms. Barcroft, House of Hope, or both, but that 

Ms. George failed to prove any actual injury or damage, you may award nominal damages for 

that violation not to exceed one dollar, instead of actual damages. Do not award both actual 

damages and nominal damages. If you answered "NO" to EACH of Questions 1-6, your verdict 

is for defendants, and you should answer no fitrther questions. Please have the presiding juror 

sign and date this verdict form. Your deliberations are now complete. 

Page 2 - Verdict 

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 140 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 3
7. What is the amount of Ms. George's damages, if any, caused by defendants? 

Economic damages $ _____ _ 

Noneconomic damages $ ------

OR 

Nominal damages $ ___ _ 

8. Did Ms. George prove that she is entitled to recover punitive damages against one 

or more of the defendants? 

House of Hope YES NO 

Patricia Barcroft YES NO 

9. If you answered "Yes" to Question 8, please state the amount in punitive damages 

that you are awarding: 

House of Hope 

Patricia Barcroft 

$ ___ _ 

$ ___ _ 

Your deliberations are now complete. Please have the presiding juror sign and date this 

verdict form. 

DATED this b ti, day of April, 2018. 

Presiding Juro1/ 

Page 3 - Verdict 

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 140 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 3