No. 22-1444 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Louis A. Rupp, II, individually and in his capacity as trustee for the Louis A. Rupp II Revocable Trust; Pauline Rupp, in her capacity as trustee for the Louis A. Rupp II Revocable Trust

Defendants - Appellants ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: January 12, 2023 Filed: May 19, 2023 ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge.

The United States brought an enforcement action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) against Louis Rupp, a St. Louis landlord, alleging that Rupp unlawfully discriminated against renters based on their familial status. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, determining that Rupp violated the FHA. The issue of damages, including punitive damages, was then submitted to a jury. Following a three-day trial, the jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. Rupp filed a post-trial motion to set aside or reduce the punitive damages award, which the district court denied. 1 Rupp appeals the denial of his motion, and we affirm.

I.

Rupp has been a landlord in St. Louis, Missouri, since the 1970s. 2 In 2016, Laura Erwin and Mack Teal sought to rent an apartment from Rupp to live in with their six-year-old son (collectively, the Erwin-Teals or the family). Because Erwin and Teal were not married at the time, Rupp required that they file separate rental applications. Both application forms stated that no children were permitted to reside in the apartment. Erwin and Teal told Rupp they had a son who would be living with them, and Rupp responded that he would allow them to rent on a “trial basis.” Rupp gave Erwin and Teal a lease that contained a “no children” clause, but he included a handwritten amendment stating that the “lease contract is being entered on a trial basis in consideration of the ‘no children’ clause . . . .” Erwin and Teal signed their lease, which was to expire in one year. Later that year, Erwin became pregnant with her and Teal’s second child.

After their lease ended in early 2017, Erwin and Teal continued to rent their apartment month-to-month. Then, in May 2017, Rupp sent Erwin and Teal a letter stating he wanted to renew their lease. Erwin and Teal agreed and signed a renewal contract. Erwin and Teal were relieved to renew the lease, as it gave them “peace of mind” to know they would have stable housing while caring for a newborn child.

1 The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 “We recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938, 944 n.2 (8th Cir. 2010).

-2- Erwin gave birth on May 25, 2017. It was a difficult birth, and Erwin underwent an emergency C-section surgery. She spent a few days recovering in the hospital and was in severe pain for at least a month afterward. She struggled with basic tasks like getting out of bed and climbing the steps of the apartment. Erwin planned to take two-and-a-half months off from work to recover and spend time with her newborn daughter.

But on June 12, just two weeks after Erwin gave birth, Rupp delivered an eviction letter to Erwin and Teal. The letter demanded that the family