Order Page 5 of 8
24-CV-01091 Kaylee Atwood v. Leland Hill, Jr. et al
Defendants seek $5,000 for discrimination due to the statement by plaintiff stating, “[a]nd you
didn’t mention u had all these kids it was suppose to be u and ur gf and the baby. Start looking for
another place. Once your gone I will work on the place.” Ex. G. Individuals seeking housing are
protected from discrimination by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and the
Vermont Public Accommodations Act (VPPA, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4500-4507. Under the FHA it is unlawful “[t]o
refuse to ... rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the ... rental of, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of ... familial status.” 42 U.S.C. §
3604(a). Under the VPPA it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to ... rent, or refuse to negotiate for the ... rental of, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling or other real estate to any person ... because a person
intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor children.” 9 V.S.A. § 4503(a)(1). The evidence
presented at the hearing does not show that the plaintiff refused to rent to the defendants because they
have multiple children. The statement of plaintiff alone is insufficient to find any direct evidence of
discrimination.
When there is no direct evidence of discrimination, a party may still prove discrimination under the
burden shifting standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). In this
framework, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon
circumstantial evidence. Spinette v. University of Vermont, 2023 VT 12, ¶ 16. If the moving party establishes
a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show the reason for the action was
nondiscriminatory. Id. “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in this case, plaintiff needed to
show that: (1) she was a ‘member[ ] of a protected class’; (2) she ‘sought and w[as] qualified to rent or
purchase the housing’; (3) she ‘w[as] rejected’; and (4) ‘the housing opportunity remained available to other
renters or purchasers.’” Id. at ¶ 18 (quoting Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir. 2003)). In this case,
the defendants have failed to prove they were rejected from housing because of their children. The
statement made by the plaintiff came after the defendants were already tenants. The defendants did not
present any evidence they were rejected by the plaintiff. As such, the defendants have failed to meet their
burden to establish a prima facie case that would shift the burden to the defendant. In addition, the
evidence showed that the plaintiff did not intend to immediately rent the property out after the defendants
vacated. Instead, the plaintiff intended to fix the property and sell it. The defendants are not entitled to
relief on this claim.
Defendants seek $5,000 in damages for a claim of retaliation. The Residential Rental Agreement
Acts prohibits a landlord from engaging in retaliatory action, specifically:
A landlord of a residential dwelling unit may not retaliate by establishing or changing terms
of a rental agreement or by bringing or threatening to bring an action against a tenant who:
(1) has complained to a governmental agency charged with responsibility for
enforcement of a building, housing, or health regulation of a violation applicable to
the premises materially affecting health and safety;
(2) has complained to the landlord of a violation of this chapter; or
(3) has organized or become a member of a tenant's union or similar organization.