Opinion ID: 580745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Loss of Civil Rights

Text: 45 The government argues in its brief that the additional $2,500 designated as compensatory damages by the ALJ was apparently based on compensation for actual injury, not on the abstract value of civil rights. There may be some presumed intangible injury from a violation of the Fair Housing Act by reason of illegal discrimination, but we have never decided that a single act of gender discrimination triggers presumed damages for a decisionmaker's opinion about importance of civil rights as an abstract matter. Memphis Community Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 2543, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). The $2,500 award for loss of civil rights made by the ALJ was a means of showing that the loss of civil rights is a serious matter. He also made brief mention in respect to this award of the taking away of choice as to where Holley would live. We do not agree with the government that the ALJ intended this to be anything but an added award for an intangible injury not in the nature of proven compensatory damages. 46 Amicus curiae and the government call our attention to a recent unpublished case, Woods v. Beavers, 922 F.2d 842 (6th Cir.1991), with respect to this question. Woods involved a combination of § 1981, § 1982 and Fair Housing Act claims and also involved a jury trial. We cannot tell which act the contested jury instruction involved. The panel in Woods seemed to indicate that Fair Housing Act injury may be impossible to measure under Stachura standards, but, nevertheless, is compensable even absent physical or mental injuries. Woods, slip op. at 8. The thrust of the decision, however, involved a punitive damages award and whether certain testimony was admissible. We find Woods not to be controlling under the circumstances here. Amicus curiae urge that Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1981), to which Woods made reference by a footnote, holds that a Fair Housing Act violation per se establishes compensable injury. Havens Realty involved a showing by plaintiffs of a distinct and palpable injury, id. at 372, 102 S.Ct. at 1120-21, and the real issue discussed was whether certain plaintiffs had standing and retained standing. There was, however, no award of damages for mere violation of a civil right, as such, in that case. 47 Stachura discusses damages allowable in a case of a constitutional tort, and first noted that damages in such a case are ordinarily determined according to principles derived from the common law of torts. 477 U.S. at 306, 106 S.Ct. at 2543. It added that compensatory damages may include not only out-of-pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also ... 'impairment of reputation ... personal humiliation, and mental anguish.'  Id. at 307, 106 S.Ct. at 2543, quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The latter components also include emotional distress. Id. 477 U.S. at 307, 106 S.Ct. at 2543. Stachura held specifically that a trier of fact may not also include as damages subjective perception of the importance of constitutional rights as an abstract matter. Id. at 308, 106 S.Ct. at 2543. The ALJ, by allowing $2500 in damages for his subjective perception that violation of this Fair Housing Act was a serious matter was in error. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 255, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1047-48, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (damages are available [for violations of constitutional rights that] 'have caused compensable injury....' ) (emphasis in original) (quoting from Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 319, 95 S.Ct. 992, 999, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). Piphus recognized that proven mental and emotional distress caused by a constitutional violation is compensable. Id. 435 U.S. at 264, 98 S.Ct. at 1052-53; cf. Seaton v. Sky Realty Co., 491 F.2d 634 (7th Cir.1974) (permitting damages of $500 for humiliation and distress); Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 (3d Cir.1965) (nominal award was made for such damages but not for loss of civil rights as such). Stachura disapproved the concept of abstract non-compensatory damages as unnecessary to vindicate ... constitutional rights. Id. 477 U.S. at 309, 310, 106 S.Ct. at 2544, 2544-45. 48 This is not a case for a substitution for compensatory damages (such as presumed damages in a defamation case). Here, we have approved two different areas of compensatory damages for the inconvenience, emotional distress, and hurt suffered by Holley. The damages allowed have taken into account recompense for intangible 'dignitary interests'  discussed in Brandon v. Allen, 719 F.2d 151 (6th Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 105 S.Ct. 873, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984). We have allowed elements of damages which are difficult to measure in order to compensate Holley for the single violation in this case of the Fair Housing Act. The damages totalling $1500 do roughly approximate the harm that the [charging party] suffered and compensate for harms impossible to measure as stated in Stachura and reiterated in Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 882 F.2d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir.1989) (damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish and the like are available). See also Walje v. City of Winchester, 827 F.2d 10, 13 (6th Cir.1987) (The Stachura Court admonished us that the proper focus of damage awards for constitutional torts should be compensatory and that it is proper to look to common law principles ... where specific damages are difficult to establish.) 9 49 In reaching our decision under the facts of this case on the issue of emotional distress and inconvenience, we do not preclude an award of presumed damages in civil rights claims in all events but in cases where plaintiff fails to prove an actual injury. While a trier may not award damages for perceived subjective perception of the importance of constitutional rights as an abstract matter, it may be in particular situations that some form of presumed damages may possibly be appropriate. Stachura, 477 U.S. at 308, 311 n. 14, 106 S.Ct. at 2543, 2545 n. 14 (emphasis added). There is no need on the facts of this case to presume any added damages. 50 In sum, we will set aside the award of damages of $2500 for loss of civil rights on the basis asserted by the ALJ because it is an unwarranted, subjective, additional assessment beyond the proper measure of compensatory damages proven in this case. We have presumed some damages for intangible dignitary interests of Holley, and have allowed for his inconvenience, emotional distress, hurt, and mental anguish in the total amount of $1500 for compensatory damages.