United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2023 Argued: February 13, 2024 Decided: August 12, 2024

No. 22-1209

GILEAD COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TOWN OF CROMWELL,

Defendant-Appellant,

ENZO FAIENZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF CROMWELL, ANTHONY SALVATORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF CROMWELL, JILLIAN MASSEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE TOWN OF CROMWELL,

Defendants.

1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut No. 17-cv-627, Bolden, Judge.

Before: Parker, Lynch, and Nathan, Circuit Judges.

The Town of Cromwell appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bolden, J.) after a jury verdict finding it liable for violating the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act and awarding compensatory and punitive damages against it. On appeal, the town argues that the district court erred in applying a motivating-factor (rather than but- for) causation test to claims under the Fair Housing Act, and in subjecting a municipality to vicarious liability and punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act. It also argues that the amount of punitive damages assessed against it is unconstitutionally excessive. We reject each of Cromwell’s arguments regarding the Fair Housing Act, but agree that the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive. First, Cromwell’s causation argument is squarely foreclosed by binding Circuit precedent, which no intervening Supreme Court decision has effectively overruled. Second, Cromwell provides no basis to exempt municipalities from the vicarious liability that is generally available under the Fair Housing Act. Third, the text of the Fair Housing Act unambiguously allows for punitive damages with no exception for municipal defendants and we decline to create a judicial carveout from the statute where Congress has not created one. Fourth and finally, we conclude that the punitive damages award in this case is unconstitutionally excessive. Despite Cromwell’s reprehensible conduct, the ratio of punitive to compensatory

2 damages is too high, and the disparity between the punitive damages and the civil fines available for similar conduct is too great, for the award to comport with due process. We therefore AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Tara K. Ramchandani (Yiyang Wu, Valerie Comenencia Ortiz, Gemma Donofrio, on the brief), Relman Colfax PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

NATHAN , Circuit Judge: This case involves the Fair Housing Act, a landmark civil rights statute passed by Congress as a vital tool for preventing, rooting out, and deterring housing discrimination in its various forms. A jury found the town of Cromwell, Connecticut liable for a campaign of discriminatory conduct meant to keep a group ho