Document: 537 U.S. 280 MEYERv.HOLLEY ET AL. No. 01-1120. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 3, 2002. Decided January 22, 2003. The Fair Housing Act forbids racial discrimination in respect to the sale or rental a dwelling. 42 U. S. C. §§ 3604(b), 3605(a). Respondent Holleys, an interracial couple, tried buy house listed for by Triad, real estate corporation. A Triad salesman is alleged have prevented Holleys from buying racially discriminatory reasons. After filing suit federal court against and filed separate petitioner Meyer, Triad's president, sole shareholder, licensed "officer/broker," claiming that he was vicariously liable one more these capacities salesman's unlawful actions. District consolidated lawsuits dismissed claims Meyer because (1) it considered them vicarious liability assertions, (2) believed did not impose personal upon corporate officer "designated officer/broker." In reversing, Ninth Circuit effect held imposes strict principles beyond those traditionally associated with agent/principal employee/employer relationships. Held: without fault employer accordance traditional agency principles, i.e., normally corporation but its officers owners. Pp. 285-292. (a) Although says nothing about liability, nonetheless well established provides such liability. has assumed that, when Congress creates tort action, legislates legal background ordinary tort-related rules consequently intends legislation incorporate rules. Traditional ordinarily make principals employers acts their agents employees scope authority employment. E. g., Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 742, 756. Absent special circumstances, corporation, owner officer, who principal subject torts agents. Circuit's holding made owners employee's simply they controlled (or had right control) actions rejected. For thing, said legislative history extending this manner. And silence, while permitting inference intended apply cannot show unusual modification This applied unusually only where specified intent. See, e. States Dotterweich, 320 277, 280-281. another Department Urban Development (HUD), primarily charged Act's implementation administration, area, defers administering agency's reasonable statutory interpretation, Chevron A. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-845; Skidmore Swift & Co., 323 134, 140. Finally, no convincing argument supports decision nontraditional principles. It erred relying on language then-applicable HUD regulation, which, taken as whole, ordinary, unusual, apply. holdings cases other Circuits cited do support kind applied, nor does provide rationale conclusions. 285-289. (b) Nothing existence owner's officer's "nondelegable duty" discriminate. Such duty imposed would "go further" than discussed thus far create although done everything could reasonably be required him, irrespective whether agent acting authority. absence support, conclude intended, through protection individual corporations— are contracting parties) corporation's unlawfully employee. Neither help characterize objective overriding societal priority. complex question which two innocent people must suffer, when, should answered liability—unless instructed courts differently. 289-291. (c) address respondents' remaining contentions were Appeals. remains free remand consider any arguments properly raised. 291-292. 258 F. 3d 1127, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Douglas G. Benedon argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Gerald M. Serlin. 3 Robert Schwemm respondents. brief Elizabeth Brancart, Christopher Greg Alexanian. 4 Malcolm L. Stewart amicus curiae urging affirmance. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Boyd, Deputy Clement, David K. Flynn.* 5 JUSTICE BREYER 6 82 Stat. 81, before us residential activity employee agent. We i. e., 7 * purposes we simplify facts follows: Respondents Emma Mary Ellen Holley Holley, Twenty-Nine Palms, California. sale. Grove Crank, salesman, obtaining house—and 8 brought lawsuit Crank Triad. They claimed, among things, both responsible fair housing law violation. later here. said, "officer/ broker," see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2740 (1996) (formerly Admin. Code, 2740) (requiring order engage license required, designate act broker); Bus. Prof. Ann. 10158, 10159, 10211 (West 1987). claimed Crank's 9 lawsuits. all claim statute limitations grounds. his capacity assertions officer. stated "any attach Triad," App. 31. added "not urged theories justify reaching individually." Ibid. went dismiss similar reasons officer/ broker" license. Id., at 52-55. 10 certified judgment final permit appeal determinations. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b). reversed 1127 (2001). Appeals recognized "under general shareholders usually action," but, view, "the criteria Act" "different." 1129. That Act, "specified" "for direct control conduct another" —even if involved itself even relationship, id., 1129, 1131. owner, acts" salesperson. 1133. "did control, conduct" neither participated authorized question, "control" "authority control" "enough . hold personally liable." reasons, license-related officer/broker, activity. 1134-1135. 11 sought certiorari. granted petition, 535 1077 (2002), review agreed decide under different, so corporations" automatically "absolutely agent's violation authorize, otherwise in, acts. Pet. Cert. II 12 focuses prohibited relevant part person entity whose business includes engaging estate-related transactions discriminate," example, "race." U.S.C. adds "[p]erson" includes, individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor unions, organizations. 3602(d). 13 Nonetheless, noted action compensation victim is, effect, action. Curtis Loether, 415 189, 195-196 (1974). Monterey Del Monte Dunes Monterey, Ltd., 526 687, 709 (1999) (listing Court's precedents interpret Rev. 1979, 1983, created "a species liability," "in light liability" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf. Astoria Sav. Loan Assn. Solimino, 501 104, 108 (1991) ("Congress understood legislate common-law principles"); Texas, 507 529, 534 (1993) ("In abrogate principle, `speak directly' addressed common law"). 14 756 (1998) ("An may negligent intentional committed within her employment"); New Orleans, M., R. Co. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 657 (1873) ("The negligence course employment, authorize know complained of"); Rosenthal Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 802 2d 963, 967 (CA7 1986) ("`respondeat superior' doctrine principals"); Restatement (Second) Agency 219(1) (1957) (Restatement). circumstances employer, 3A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia Law Private Corporations 1137, pp. 300-301 (rev. ed. 1991-1994); 4877 1997-2001). specifies principal/agency relationship demands also manifestation consent shall behalf ., act." (Emphasis added.) typically extensive liability—that basis agree extended way. 16 Congress' 17 Where Congress, civil rights statutes, expressed contrary intent, drawn supra, 754-755 (deciding employer's Title VII based principles); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB Vinson, 477 57, 72 (1986) wanted look guidance"). 18 280-281 (1943) (Congress "standing relation" violations Federal Food, Drug, Cosmetic 1938, 52 1040, 21 301-392); Park, 421 658, 673 (1975) (discussing, congressional intent "responsible agents"); Wise, 370 405, 411-414 (1962) (discussing 38 736, currently 24, provides: "[W]henever violate antitrust laws, deemed directors, officers, authorized, ordered, constituting whole violation"); 46 12507(d) ("If person, individual, [relating vessel identification system], president chief executive penalty provided section"). 19 administration statute, 3608, area. defer interpretation statute. 842-845 (1984); 140 (1944). 20 regulation applicable during time periods analogous administrative complaints alleging "against directs controls, aspect dwellings directing controlling engaged practice." 24 CFR 103.20(b) (repealed) (emphasis added). 22 Gladstone, Realtors Village Bellwood, 441 91, 107 (1979) (treating 3610 3613 alternative, parallel, proceedings). 23 When adopted predecessor (then codified 105.13, 53 Reg. 24185 (1988)), explained "respondent" (defined 3602) raise proceeding defense "that raised court." Reg., 24185. underscored phrase designed clear complaint person." adding words "acting person," disclaimed "intent absolute mere "to control." Ibid.; 54 3232, 3261 (1989). found principles—a respondents defend fact concede incorrect. Brief 6, 10-11, 43 (conceding apply); Amicus Curiae 8, 22. rested referred. "`or contro[l] person.'" 3d, 1130. Its explain, however, why read modified subsequent limited "`employee Taken our 25 referred several decided Circuits. actual cases, applied. Chicago Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, 982 1086 1992) (defendant agents; shareholder directly, vicariously, liable); Walker Crigler, 976 900 (CA4 (owner property agent, property's manager); Marr Rife, 503 735 (CA6 1974) (real salespersons, statement corporation). Nor 26 further "non delegable discriminate "overriding priority." 1131, 1132 (citing 1096-1097, 904-905). "[w]hen permitted wrong occur bear burden." 1132. 27 "[A] nondelegable affirmative obligation ensure whom runs." Building Contractors Assn., Pennsylvania, 458 375, 396 (1982) (finding 1981). "although [the principal] himself him," Prosser, Torts 71, p. 470 (4th 1971), identifies liability—the might certain hires independent contractor. 214; Harper, James, O. Gray, 26.11 (2d 1986); 470-471. corporations—who 28 statute's characterization. But characterization carries rule every supervisor she supervise. Rather, "of suffer," ibid., just matter. believe determine matter liability—unless, course, better able weigh policy considerations, Cf., Sykes, Economics Vicarious Liability, 93 Yale J. 1231, 1236 (1984) (arguing expansion shifting due insurance, diminish incentives police behavior). different instruction III 29 Respondents, conceding apply, 289, argue themselves warrant say, California what amounts, employer/employee principal/agent between designated broker issued employee/salesperson. 6-8, 13-36. Insofar rests solely broker/officer's employee/salesperson, accepted it. reject given determination Part "right insufficient itself, establish employer/ relationship. B 30 aspects control," would, consistent agency," S., 754 omitted), necessary consideration Appeals, Pennsylvania Dept. Corrections Yeskey, 206, 212-213 ("`Where issues [were not] will them'" (quoting Adickes H. Kress 398 144, 147, n. (1970))). 31 point out imputed appropriate case "`piercing veil.'" Bestfoods, 51, 63, Cordova Chemical Michigan, 113 572, 580 1997)). application "veil piercing" either. falls outside presented here 32 questions and, so, them. 33 34 vacated, remanded proceedings opinion. 35 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Association June Babiracki Barlow Neil Kalin; National Home Builders Senior; Laurene Janik Ralph Holmen. amici affirmance International Official Human Rights Agencies Bruce V. Spiva Jessie Liu; Alliance et al. John P. Relman, Meera Trehan, Virginia Seitz.

Category: 1