The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 1																																																																																																								

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. SIMON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

CONSTANCE GEORGE

Plaintiff,

v.

HOUSE OF HOPE RECOVERY and 

PATRICIA BARCROFT

Defendants.

NO. 3:15-CV-01277-SI

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

The Plaintiff submits the following proposed jury instructions.

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 2																																																																																																								

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No. Title Source 

1 Duty of Jury-Beginning of Trial 9th Cir. 1.1B

2 Duty of Jury-End of Case 9th Cir. 1.1C

3 Claims and Defenses 9th Cir. 1.2

4 Burden of Proof-Preponderance 9th Cir. 1.3

5 Two or More Parties-Diff. Legal Rts. 9th Cir. 1.5

6 What is Evidence 9th Cir. 1.6

7 What is Not Evidence 9th Cir. 1.7

8 Direct and Circumstantial Evid. 9th Cir. 1.9

9 Ruling on Objections 9th Cir. 1.10

10 Conduct of the Jury 9th Cir. 1.12

11 Taking Notes 9th Cir. 1.15

12 Questions to Witnesses by Jurors 9th Cir. 1.16

13 Bench Conferences and Recesses 9th Cir. 1.17

14 Outline of Trial 9th Cir. 1.18

15 Charts and Summaries Not in Evid. 9th Cir. 2.14

16 Evidence in Electronic Format 9th Cir. 2.16

17 Duty to Deliberate 9th Cir. 3.1

18 Consider. of Evid.-Conduct of Jury 9th Cir. 3.2

19 Communication with Court 9th Cir. 3.3

20 Return of Verdict 9th Cir. 3.5

21 Damages – Proof 9th Cir. 5.1, 5.2

22 Punitive Damages 9th Cir. 5.5

23 Fair Housing Claim - Disparate Treatment – “Sole Reason” or “Motivating Factor”

9th Cir. 10.1 (modified)

24 Fair Housing Claim – Disparate Treatment – “Sole Reason” – Elements and Burden 

of Proof

9th Cir. 10.2 (modified)

25 Fair Housing Claim – Disparate Treatment – “Motivating Factor” – Elements and 

Burden of Proof

9th Cir. 10.3 (modified)

26 Fair Housing Claim – Discriminatory Statement

42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)

27 Fair Housing Claim – Discriminatory Statement – Elements and Burden of Proof

42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 3																																																																																																								

28 Section 1981 Claim – Introductory Instruction

3rd Cir. 6.0 (modified)

29 Section 1981 Claim – Disparate Treatment – Elements of Section 1981 Claim –

Motivating Factor 

3rd Cir. 6.1.1 (modified)

30 Section 1981 Claim – Disparate Treatment – Elements of Section 1981 Claim –

Pretext

3rd Cir. 6.1.2 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 4																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 23

FAIR HOUSING CLAIM—DISPARATE TREATMENT – WHEN EVIDENCE 

SUPPORTS “SOLE REASON” OR “MOTIVATING FACTOR”

The plaintiff has brought a claim for housing discrimination against the defendants. The plaintiff 

claims that her race was either the sole reason or a motivating factor for the defendant’s decision 

to terminate plaintiff’s tenancy or subject her to different terms and conditions. The defendants 

deny that the plaintiff’s race was either the sole reason or a motivating factor for the defendants’ 

decision to terminate plaintiff’s tenancy or subject her to different terms and conditions.

Ninth Circuit Model Instruction No. 10.1 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 5																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 24

FAIR HOUSING CLAIM—DISPARATE TREATMENT – “SOLE REASON” –

ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her race was the sole reason for the defendants’ decision to 

terminate her tenancy or subject her to different terms and conditions, the plaintiff has the burden 

of proving both of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The plaintiff’s tenancy was terminated by the defendants; or

2. The plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions in her tenancy; and

3. The defendants’ actions were solely because of plaintiff’s race.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved these elements, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. 

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Ninth Circuit Model Instruction No. 10.2 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 6																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 25

FAIR HOUSING CLAIM—DISPARATE TREATMENT – “MOTIVATING FACTOR” –

ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her race was a motivating factor for the defendants’ decision to 

terminate her tenancy or subject her to different terms and conditions, the plaintiff has the burden 

of proving both of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The plaintiff’s tenancy was terminated by the defendants; or

2. The plaintiff was subjected to different terms and conditions in her tenancy; and

3. The plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in the defendants’ actions.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved these elements, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. 

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Ninth Circuit Model Instruction No. 10.3 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 7																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 26

FAIR HOUSING CLAIM—DISCRIMINATORY STATEMENT

The plaintiff has brought a claim for housing discrimination against the defendants. The plaintiff 

claims that the Defendants made a statement that indicated a preference, limitation, or 

discrimination based on her race with respect to renting plaintiff a dwelling. The defendants 

deny that they made such a statement.

42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 8																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 27

FAIR HOUSING CLAIM—DISCRIMINATORY STATEMENT – ELEMENTS AND 

BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that defendants made a statement that indicated a preference, 

limitation, or discrimination based on her race with respect to renting plaintiff a dwelling, the 

plaintiff has the burden of proving the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The defendants made a statement; and

2. That statement indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved these elements, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. 

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 8 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 9																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 28

SECTION 1981—INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION

In this case plaintiff has made a claim under the Federal Civil Rights statute that prohibits 

discrimination against a tenant because of the person’s race.

Specifically, plaintiff claims that she was terminated from her tenancy by Defendant House

because of her race.

Defendant denies that plaintiff was discriminated against in any way.

Third Circuit Model Instruction No. 6.0 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 9 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 10																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 29

SECTION 1981 CLAIM—DISPARATE TREATMENT – ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 

1981 CLAIM – MOTIVATING FACTOR

In this case plaintiff is alleging that Defendant House terminated her tenancy because of her race. 

In order for plaintiff to recover on this discrimination claim against Defendant House, plaintiff 

must prove that Defendant House intentionally discriminated against plaintiff. This means that 

plaintiff must prove that her race was a motivating factor in Defendant House’s decision to 

terminate her tenancy.

To prevail on this claim, plaintiff must prove both of the following by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. Defendant House terminated plaintiff’s tenancy; and

2. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Defendant House’s decision.

Although plaintiff must prove that Defendant House acted with the intent to discriminate, 

plaintiff is not required to prove that Defendant House acted with the particular intent to violate 

plaintiff’s federal civil rights.

In showing that plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor for Defendant House’s action, plaintiff is 

not required to prove that her race was the sole motivation or even the primary motivation for 

Defendant House’s decision. Plaintiff need only prove that her race played a motivating part in 

Defendant House’s decision even though other factors may also have motivated Defendant 

House.

As used in this instruction, plaintiff’s race was a “motivating factor” if her race played a role in 

Defendant House’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s tenancy.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved these elements, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. 

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Third Circuit Model Instruction No. 6.1.1 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 10 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 11																																																																																																								

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instruction No. 30

SECTION 1981 CLAIM—DISPARATE TREATMENT – ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 

1981 CLAIM – PRETEXT 

In this case plaintiff is alleging that the defendants terminated her tenancy because of her race. 

In order for plaintiff to recover on this discrimination claim against defendants, plaintiff must 

prove that defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff. This means that plaintiff must 

prove that her race was a determinative factor in defendants’ decision to terminate her tenancy.

To prevail on this claim, plaintiff must prove both of the following by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. Defendant House terminated plaintiff’s tenancy; and

2. Plaintiff’s race was a determinative factor in Defendant House’s decision.

Although plaintiff must prove that defendant acted with the intent to discriminate, plaintiff is not 

required to prove that defendant acted with the particular intent to violate plaintiff’s federal civil 

rights. Moreover, plaintiff is not required to produce direct evidence of intent, such as 

statements admitting discrimination. Intentional discrimination may be inferred from the

existence of other facts.

Defendant has given a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate her tenancy. If you 

disbelieve defendant’s explanations for its conduct, then you may, but need not, find that 

plaintiff has proved intentional discrimination. 

Ultimately, you must decide whether plaintiff has proven that her race was a determinative factor 

in Defendant House’s decision to terminate her tenancy. “Determinative factor” means that if 

not for plaintiff’s race, her tenancy would not have been terminated.

Third Circuit Model Instruction No. 6.1.2 (modified)

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 11 of 12
The	Good	Law	Clinic,	PLLC

WSBA#36036OSB#012636

211 E. 11th Street, Suite 105

Vancouver, WA 98660

Phone: (360) 694-4530

Facsimile: (360) 694-4659

E-mail: moloy@goodlawclinic.com

George	v.	House	of	Hope et	al.	– Plaintiff’s	Proposed	Jury	Instructions	– Page 12																																																																																																								

DATED this 14th day of March 2017.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

THE GOOD LAW CLINIC

/s/ Moloy K. Good

MOLOY K. GOOD WSBA #36036

(360) 694-4530

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-01277-SB Document 50 Filed 03/14/17 Page 12 of 12