Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Meyer v. Holley
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2003-01-22
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that the Fair Housing Act follows traditional vicarious liability principles and “imposes liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners”
- finding that, ordinarily, principals or employers are vicariously liable for the acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment
- indicating that Chevron deference is appropriate for FHA regulations promulgated by HUD
- noting that the FHA “focuses on 9 prohibited acts” and “says nothing about [defendants’] vicarious liability”
- explaining that Alaska courts apply respondeat superior when an employee’s conduct is “reasonably foreseeable and sufficiently related” to job duties.”
- affirming that courts should determine FHA 2 principal liability “in accordance with traditional principles of vicarious liability”
- finding that 16 property owner could be held vicariously liable for discriminatory conduct of rental agent under 17 FHA
- noting that “an action brought for compensation by a victim of housing discrimination pursuant to the FHA is, in effect, a tort action”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Meyer v. Holley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 411 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Rights Law — Housing Discrimination Because a compensation action by a victim of housing discrimination is in effect a tort action, Congress is understood to have legislated against the background of ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules and intended the Fair Housing Act to incorporate them, even though the Act itself says nothing about vicarious liability. 537 U.S. at 285–287
- Civil Rights Law — Housing Discrimination Traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers liable for the acts of their agents or employees within the scope of their authority or employment; absent special circumstances, it is the corporation, not its owner or officer, that is the principal or employer subject to vicarious liability for torts committed by corporate employees or agents, and a corporate employee typically acts on behalf of the corporation rather than its owner or officer. 537 U.S. at 287
- Civil Rights Law — Housing Discrimination The Fair Housing Act does not extend traditional vicarious liability principles so as to make corporate owners and officers personally liable for a corporate employee's unlawful acts merely because the owner or officer controlled, or had the right to control, the employee's actions; an owner's or officer's mere right to control the conduct of a salesperson is insufficient, under traditional agency principles, to establish a principal/agent or employer/employee relationship. 537 U.S. at 287–288, 290
- Statutory Interpretation — Congressional Silence and Background Tort Principles Congressional silence in a statute and its legislative history, while permitting an inference that Congress intended ordinary background tort principles to apply, cannot show that Congress intended an unusual modification of those rules; the Court applies unusually strict liability rules only where Congress has specified that such was its intent. 537 U.S. at 287–288
- Statutory Interpretation — Deference to Administering Agency Where the agency charged with a statute's implementation and administration has reasonably interpreted the statute to apply ordinary vicarious liability rules, the Court ordinarily defers to that interpretation. 537 U.S. at 288
- Civil Rights Law — Housing Discrimination Nothing in the language or legislative history of the Fair Housing Act supports imposing on a corporate owner or officer a nondelegable duty not to discriminate—a duty that would create liability although the principal has done everything reasonably required of him and irrespective of whether the agent acted with or without authority—and the Court cannot conclude that Congress intended, through silence, to impose such a special duty of protection on individual officers or owners who are not principals or contracting parties in respect to the corporation's unlawfully acting employee. 537 U.S. at 290–291
- Civil Rights Law — Housing Discrimination Characterizing the Fair Housing Act's objective as an overriding societal priority does not carry with it a legal rule holding every corporate supervisor personally liable without fault for the unlawful act of every corporate employee whom he or she has the right to supervise; the question which of two innocent parties must bear the loss should ordinarily be resolved in accordance with traditional principles of vicarious liability unless Congress has instructed the courts otherwise. 537 U.S. at 291
- Civil Procedure — Issues Not Decided Below The Court will not ordinarily consider issues that were not considered by the Court of Appeals; the court of appeals remains free on remand to determine whether such questions were properly raised and, if so, to consider them. 537 U.S. at 291–292
MEYER v. HOLLEY,537 U.S. 280(2003)
123 S.Ct. 824
MEYER v. HOLLEY ET AL.
No. 01-1120.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
Argued December 3, 2002.
Decided January 22, 2003.
(a) Although the Act says nothing about vicarious liability, it is nonetheless well established that it provides for such liability. The Court has assumed that, when Congress creates a tort action, it legislates against a legal background of ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules and consequently intends its legislation to incorporate those rules. Traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for the acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment.E.g., Burlington Industries, Inc.v.Ellerth,524 U.S. 742,756. Absent special circumstances, it is the corporation, not its owner or officer, who is the principal or employer subject to vicarious liability for the torts of its employees or agents. The Ninth Circuit's holding that the Act made corporate owners and officers liable for an employee's unlawful acts simply because they controlled (or had the right to control) that employee's actions isPage 281rejected. For one thing, Congress said nothing in the Act or in the legislative history about extending vicarious liability in this manner. And such silence, while permitting an inference that Congress intended to applyordinarybackground tort principles, cannot show that it intended to apply an unusual modification of those rules. This Court has applied unusually strict rules only where Congress has specified that such was its intent. See,e.g., United Statesv.Dotterweich,320 U.S. 277,280-281. For another thing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency primarily charged with the Act's implementation and administration, has specified that ordinary vicarious liability rules apply in this area, and the Court ordinarily defers to an administering agency's reasonable statutory interpretation,e.g., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.v.Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,467 U.S. 837,842-845;Skidmorev.Swift Co.,323 U.S. 134,140. Finally, no convincing argument supports the Ninth Circuit's decision to apply nontraditional vicarious liability principles. It erred in relying on language in a then-applicable HUD regulation, which, taken as a whole, says that ordinary, not unusual, liability rules apply. And the holdings in cases from other Circuits that the Ninth Circuit cited do not support the kind of nontraditional liability that it applied, nor does the language of those cases provide a convincing rationale for the Ninth Circuit's conclusions. Pp. 285-289.
(b) Nothing in the Act's language or legislative history supports the existence of a corporate owner's or officer's "nondelegable duty" not to discriminate. Such a duty imposed on a principal would "go further" than the vicarious liability principles discussed thus far to create liability although the principal has done everything that could reasonably be required of him, and irrespective of whether the agent was acting with or without authority. In the absence of legal support, the Court cannot conclude that Congress intended, through silence, to impose a special duty of protection upon individual officers or owners of corporations — who are not principals (or contracting parties) in respect to the corporation's unlawfully acting employee. Neither does it help to characterize the Act's objective as an overriding societal priority. The complex question of which one of two innocent people must suffer, and when, should be answered in accordance with traditional principles of vicarious liability — unless Congress has instructed the courts differently. Pp. 289-291.
(c) The Court does not address respondents' remaining contentions because they were not considered by the Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit remains free on remand to consider any such arguments that were properly raised. Pp. 291-292.258 F. 3d 1127, vacated and remanded.Page 282
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
I
For purposes of this decision we simplify the background facts as follows: Respondents Emma Mary Ellen Holley andPage 283David Holley, an interracial couple, tried to buy a house in Twenty-Nine Palms, California. A real estate corporation, Triad, Inc., had listed the house for sale. Grove Crank, a Triad salesman, is alleged to have prevented the Holleys from obtaining the house — and for racially discriminatory reasons.
The Holleys brought a lawsuit in federal court against Crank and Triad. They claimed, among other things, that both were responsible for a fair housing law violation. The Holleys later filed a separate suit against David Meyer, the petitioner here. Meyer, they said, was Triad's president, Triad's sole shareholder, and Triad's licensed "officer/broker," see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2740 (1996) (formerly Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 10, § 2740) (requiring that a corporation, in order to engage in acts for which a real estate license is required, designate one of its officers to act as the licensed broker); Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Ann. §§ 10158, 10159, 10211 (West 1987). They claimed that Meyer was vicariously liable in one or more of these capacities for Crank's unlawful actions.
The District Court consolidated the two lawsuits. It dismissed all claims other than the Fair Housing Act claim on statute of limitations grounds. It dismissed the claims against Meyer in his capacity as officer of Triad because (1) it considered those claims as assertions ofvicariousliability, and (2) it believed that the Fair Housing Act did not impose personal vicarious liability upon a corporateofficer.The District Court stated that "any liability against Meyer as an officer of Triad would only attach to Triad," the corporation. App. 31. The court added that the Holleys had "not urged theories that could justify reaching Meyer individually."Ibid.It later went on to dismiss for similar reasons claims of vicarious liability against Meyer in his capacity as the "designated officer/broker" in respect to Triad's real estate license.Id., at 52-55.Page 284
The District Court certified its judgment as final to permit the Holleys to appeal its vicarious liability determinations. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.54(b). The Ninth Circuit reversed those determinations.258 F. 3d 1127(2001). The Court of Appeals recognized that "under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee's action," but, in its view, "the criteria for the Fair Housing Act" are "different."Id., at 1129. That Act, it said, "specified" liability "for those who direct or control or have the right to direct or control the conduct of another" — even if they were not at all involved in the discrimination itself and even in the absence of any traditional agent/principal or employee/employer relationship,id., at 1129, 1131. Meyer, in his capacity as Triad's sole owner, had "the authority to control the acts" of a Triad salesperson.Id., at 1133. Meyer, in his capacity as Triad's officer, "did direct or control, or had the right to direct or control, the conduct" of a Triad salesperson.Ibid.And even if Meyer neither participated in nor authorized the discrimination in question, that "control" or "authority to control" is "enough . . . to hold Meyer personally liable."Ibid.The Ninth Circuit added that, for similar reasons, Meyer, in his capacity as Triad's license-related officer/broker, was vicariously liable for Crank's discriminatory activity.Id., at 1134-1135.
Meyer sought certiorari. We granted his petition,535 U.S. 1077(2002), to review the Ninth Circuit's holding that the Fair Housing Act imposes principles of strict liability beyond those traditionally associated with agent/principal or employee/employer relationships. We agreed to decide whether "the criteria under the Fair Housing Act . . . are different, so that owners and officers of corporations" are automatically and "absolutely liable for an employee's or agent's violation of the Act" — even if they did not direct or authorize, and were otherwise not involved in, the unlawful discriminatory acts. Pet. for Cert. i.Page 285
II
The Fair Housing Act itself focuses on prohibited acts. In relevant part the Act forbids "any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate," for example, because of "race."42 U.S.C. § 3605(a). It adds that "[p]erson" includes, for example, individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor unions, and other organizations. § 3602(d). It says nothing about vicarious liability.
Nonetheless, it is well established that the Act provides for vicarious liability. This Court has noted that an action brought for compensation by a victim of housing discrimination is, in effect, a tort action. SeeCurtisv.Loether,415 U.S. 189,195-196(1974). And the Court has assumed that, when Congress creates a tort action, it legislates against a legal background of ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules and consequently intends its legislation to incorporate those rules.Montereyv.Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.,526 U.S. 687,709(1999) (listing this Court's precedents that interpret Rev. Stat. § 1979,42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which Congress created "a species of tort liability," "in light of the background of tort liability" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf.Astoria Fed.Sav. Loan Assn.v.Solimino,501 U.S. 104,108(1991) ("Congress is understood to legislate against a background of common-law . . . principles");United Statesv.Texas,507 U.S. 529,534(1993) ("In order to abrogate a common-law principle, the statute must `speak directly' to the question addressed by the common law").
It is well established that traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment.Burlington Industries, Inc.v.Ellerth,524 U.S. 742,756(1998) ("An employer may be liable for both negligent and intentional torts committed by an employee within the scope of his or her employment");New Orleans, M.,C.R. Co.v.Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 657 (1873)Page 286("The principal is liable for the acts and negligence of the agent in the course of his employment, although he did not authorize or did not know of the acts complained of"); seeRosenthal Co.v.Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n,802 F. 2d 963,967(CA7 1986) ("`respondeat superior' . . . is a doctrine about employers . . . and other principals"); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1) (1957) (Restatement). And in the absence of special circumstances it is the corporation, not its owner or officer, who is the principal or employer, and thus subject to vicarious liability for torts committed by its employees or agents. 3A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 1137, pp. 300-301 (rev. ed. 1991-1994); 10id., § 4877 (rev. ed. 1997-2001). The Restatement § 1 specifies that the relevant principal/agency relationship demands not only control (or the right to direct or control) but also "the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall acton his behalf. . ., and consent by the other so to act." (Emphasis added.) A corporate employee typically acts on behalf of the corporation, not its owner or officer.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Fair Housing Act imposed more extensive vicarious liability — that the Act went well beyond traditional principles. The Court of Appeals held that the Act made corporate owners and officers liable for the unlawful acts of a corporate employee simply on the basis that the owner or officer controlled (or had the right to control) the actions of that employee. We do not agree with the Ninth Circuit that the Act extended traditional vicarious liability rules in this way.
For one thing, Congress said nothing in the statute or in the legislative history about extending vicarious liability in this manner. And Congress' silence, while permitting an inference that Congress intended to applyordinarybackground tort principles, cannot show that it intended to apply an unusual modification of those rules.Page 287
Where Congress, in other civil rights statutes, has not expressed a contrary intent, the Court has drawn the inference that it intended ordinary rules to apply. See,e.g., BurlingtonIndustries, Inc., supra, at 754-755 (deciding an employer's vicarious liability under Title VII based on traditional agency principles);Meritor Savings Bank, FSBv.Vinson,477 U.S. 57,72(1986) ("Congress wanted courts to look to agency principles for guidance").
This Court has applied unusually strict rules only where Congress has specified that such was its intent. See,e.g.,United Statesv.Dotterweich,320 U.S. 277,280-281(1943) (Congress intended that a corporate officer or employee "standing in responsible relation" could be held liable in that capacity for a corporation's violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938,52 Stat. 1040,21 U.S.C. §§ 301-392);United Statesv.Park,421 U.S. 658,673(1975) (discussing, with respect to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, congressional intent to impose a duty on "responsible corporate agents");United Statesv.Wise,370 U.S. 405,411-414(1962) (discussing38 Stat. 736, currently15 U.S.C. § 24, which provides: "[W]henever a corporation shall violate any of the . . . antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation"); see also46 U.S.C. § 12507(d) ("If a person, not an individual, is involved in a violation [relating to a vessel identification system], the president or chief executive of the person also is subject to any penalty provided under this section").
For another thing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency primarily charged with the implementation and administration of the statute,42 U.S.C. § 3608, has specified that ordinary vicarious liability rules apply in this area. And we ordinarily defer to an administering agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute.Page 288Chevron U.S.A. Inc.v.Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.,467 U.S. 837,842-845(1984);Skidmorev.Swift Co.,323 U.S. 134,140(1944).
A HUD regulation applicable during the relevant time periods for this suit provided that analogous administrative complaints alleging Fair Housing Act violations may be filed
"against any person who directs or controls, or has the right to direct or control, the conduct of another person with respect to any aspect of the sale . . . of dwellings . . .if that other person,acting within the scope of his or her authority asemployee or agent of the directing or controllingperson. . . has engaged . . . in a discriminatory housing practice."24 CFR § 103.20(b) (1999) (repealed) (emphasis added).
SeeGladstone, Realtorsv.Village of Bellwood,441 U.S. 91,107(1979) (treating administrative actions under42 U.S.C. § 3610and civil actions under § 3613 as alternative, but parallel, proceedings).
When it adopted the similar predecessor to this regulation (then codified at 24 CFR § 105.13, see53 Fed. Reg. 24185(1988)), HUD explained that it intended to permit a "respondent" (defined at42 U.S.C. § 3602) to raise in an administrative proceeding any defense "that could be raised in court." 53 Fed. Reg., at 24185. It added that the underscored phrase was designed to make clear that "a complaint may be filed against a directing or controlling person with respect to the discriminatory acts of another only if the other person was acting within the scope of his or her authority asemployee or agent of the directing orcontrolling person."Ibid.(emphasis added). HUD also specified that, by adding the words "acting within the scope of his or her authority as employee or agent of the directing or controlling person," it disclaimed any "intent to impose absolute liability" on the basis of the mere right "to direct or control."Ibid.;see54 Fed. Reg. 3232, 3261 (1989).Page 289
Finally, we have found no convincing argument in support of the Ninth Circuit's decision to apply nontraditional vicarious liability principles — a decision that respondents do not defend and in fact concede is incorrect. See Brief for Respondents 6, 10-11, 43 (conceding that traditional vicarious liability rules apply); Brief for United States asAmicus Curiae8, 22. The Ninth Circuit rested that decision primarily upon the HUD regulation to which we have referred. The Ninth Circuit underscored the phrase "`or has the right to direct or contro[l]the conduct of another person.'"258 F. 3d, at 1130. Its opinion did not explain, however, why the Ninth Circuit did not read these words as modified by the subsequent words that limited vicarious liability to actions taken as "`employee or agent of the directing or controlling person.'"Id., at 1131. Taken as a whole, the regulation, in our view, says that ordinary, not unusual, rules of vicarious liability should apply.
The Ninth Circuit also referred to several cases decided in other Circuits. The actual holdings in those cases, however, do not support the kind of nontraditional vicarious liability that the Ninth Circuit applied. SeeChicagov.Matchmaker RealEstate Sales Center, Inc.,982 F. 2d 1086(CA7 1992) (defendant corporation liable for the acts ofitsagents; shareholder directly, not vicariously, liable);Walkerv.Crigler,976 F. 2d 900(CA4 1992) (owner of rental property liable for the discriminatory acts of agent, the property's manager);Marrv.Rife,503 F. 2d 735(CA6 1974) (real estate agency's owner liable for the discriminatory acts of his agency's salespersons, but without statement of whether agency was a corporation). Nor does the language of these cases provide a convincing rationale for the Ninth Circuit's conclusions.
The Ninth Circuit further referred to an owner's or officer's "non delegable duty" not to discriminate in light of the Act's "overriding societal priority."258 F. 3d, at 1131,1132(citingChicagov.Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, Inc., supra, at 1096-1097, andWalkerv.Crigler, supra, atPage 290904-905). And it added that "[w]hen one of two innocent people must suffer, the one whose acts permitted the wrong to occur is the one to bear the burden."258 F. 3d, at 1132.
"[A] nondelegable duty is an affirmative obligation to ensure the protection of the person to whom the duty runs."GeneralBuilding Contractors Assn., Inc.v.Pennsylvania,458 U.S. 375,396(1982) (finding no nondelegable duty under42 U.S.C. § 1981). Such a duty imposed upon a principal would "go further" than the vicarious liability principles we have discussed thus far to create liability "although [the principal] has himself done everything that could reasonably be required of him," W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 71, p. 470 (4th ed. 1971), and irrespective of whether the agent was acting with or without authority. The Ninth Circuit identifies nothing in the language or legislative history of the Act to support the existence of this special kind of liability — the kind of liability that, for example, the law might impose in certain special circumstances upon a principal or employer that hires an independent contractor. Restatement § 214; see 5 F. Harper, F. James, O. Gray, Law of Torts § 26.11 (2d ed. 1986); Prosser,supra, § 71, at 470-471. In the absence of legal support, we cannot conclude that Congress intended, through silence, to impose this kind of special duty of protection upon individual officers or owners of corporations — who are not principals (or contracting parties) in respect to the corporation's unlawfully acting employee.
Neither does it help to characterize the statute's objective as an "overriding societal priority."258 F. 3d, at 1132. We agree with the characterization. But we do not agree that the characterization carries with it a legal rule that would hold every corporate supervisor personally liable without fault for the unlawful act of every corporate employee whom he or she has the right to supervise. Rather, which "of two innocent people must suffer,"ibid., and just when, is a complex matter. We believe that courts ordinarily should determine that matter in accordance with traditional principles ofPage 291vicarious liability — unless, of course, Congress, better able than courts to weigh the relevant policy considerations, has instructed the courts differently. Cf.,e.g., Sykes, The Economics of Vicarious Liability, 93 Yale L.J. 1231, 1236 (1984) (arguing that the expansion of vicarious liability or shifting of liability, due to insurance, may diminish an agent's incentives to police behavior). We have found no different instruction here.
III
A
Respondents, conceding that traditional vicarious liability rules apply, seesupra, at 289, argue that those principles themselves warrant liability here. For one thing, they say, California law itself creates what amounts, under ordinary common-law principles, to an employer/employee or principal/agent relationship between (a) a corporate officer designated as the broker under a real estate license issued to the corporation, and (b) a corporate employee/salesperson. Brief for Respondents 6-8, 13-36. Insofar as this argument restssolelyupon the corporate broker/officer'sright to controlthe employee/salesperson, the Ninth Circuit considered and accepted it.258 F. 3d, at 1134-1135. But we must reject it given our determination in Part II that the "right to control" is insufficient by itself, under traditional agency principles, to establish a principal/agent or employer/employee relationship.
B
The Ninth Circuit did not decide whetherotheraspects of the California broker relationship, when added to the "right to control," would, under traditional legal principles and consistent with "the general common law of agency,"BurlingtonIndustries, Inc.v.Ellerth,524 U.S., at 754(internal quotation marks omitted), establish the necessary relationship. But in the absence of consideration of that matter by the Court of Appeals, we shall not consider it. SeePennsylvaniaPage 292Dept. of Correctionsv.Yeskey,524 U.S. 206,212-213(1998) ("`Where issues [were not] considered by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not ordinarily consider them'" (quotingAdickesv.S.H. Kress Co.,398 U.S. 144,147, n. 2 (1970))).
Respondents also point out that, when traditional vicarious liability principles impose liability upon a corporation, the corporation's liability may be imputed to the corporation's owner in an appropriate case through a "`piercing of the corporate veil.'"United Statesv.Bestfoods,524 U.S. 51,63, n. 9 (1998) (quotingUnited Statesv.Cordova Chemical Co. ofMichigan,113 F. 3d 572,580(CA6 1997)). The Court of Appeals, however, did not decide the application of "veil piercing" in this matter either. It falls outside the scope of the question presented on certiorari. And we shall not here consider it.
The Ninth Circuit nonetheless remains free on remand to determine whether these questions were properly raised and, if so, to consider them.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered.Page 293
- Briefs ofamici curiaeurging reversal were filed for the California Association of Realtors byJune Babiracki BarlowandNeil Kalin;for the National Association of Home Builders byChristopher G. Senior;and for the National Association of Realtors byLaurene K. JanikandRalph W. Holmen.
Briefs ofamici curiaeurging affirmance were filed for the International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies byBruce V. SpivaandJessie K. Liu;and for the National Fair Housing Alliance et al. byJohn P. Relman, Meera Trehan, andVirginia A. Seitz. ↩