## Facts

- Elizabeth A. Honce rented a lot in Jose A. Vigil’s mobile-home park in 1990, moved a mobile home onto the lot in mid-September, and moved in during early October.
- Before move-in, Vigil invited Honce to several social outings (a religious seminar, the state fair, and to view property). Honce declined.
- Shortly before move-in, Vigil asked, “When can we go out?” Honce responded she did not want to go out with him “at any time.” Vigil said he only wanted to be friends and did not ask again.
- Both parties testified Vigil made no explicit sexual remarks or propositions.
- After move-in, Honce and Vigil had disputes about maintenance and park rules, including responsibility for a plumbing problem and conditions for building a dog fence.
- On October 24, 1990, Vigil confronted workers hired by Honce who were building a fence with cement and materials not approved by Vigil; he ordered some workers to leave and yelled during the dispute.
- Honce also alleged Vigil engaged in hostile conduct (including threats of eviction and revving his truck engine near her dog).
- Honce went to the sheriff’s office due to safety concerns and moved out the next day.
- Honce sued under the Fair Housing Act for sex discrimination/sexual harassment and also alleged breach of the state-law covenant of quiet enjoyment.
- The district court entered judgment as a matter of law for Vigil at the close of Honce’s case; Honce appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence allowed a reasonable jury to find sex discrimination in housing under the Fair Housing Act based on disparate treatment.
2. Whether the landlord’s conduct constituted actionable sexual harassment under the Fair Housing Act (quid pro quo or hostile housing environment).
3. Whether the landlord’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute constructive eviction attributable to sex-based discrimination.
4. Whether the landlord’s conduct breached the state-law covenant of quiet enjoyment.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law for Vigil on all claims.
- The court held the record did not support a finding that Vigil treated Honce adversely because of her sex.
- The court held Honce failed to establish quid pro quo harassment or a sex-based hostile housing environment.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to show constructive eviction based on discriminatory, intolerable housing conditions.
- The court held the evidence did not establish a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- The Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination can encompass sexual harassment by a housing provider.
- Actionable harassment in housing may be shown by quid pro quo conduct (housing benefits conditioned on sexual favors) or by severe or pervasive sex-based conduct that alters the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental.
- Disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Act requires evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently because of sex, including comparative evidence that similarly situated tenants of the other sex were treated more favorably or other proof of sex-based motivation.
- Constructive eviction requires conditions so substantial that a reasonable tenant would be forced to leave; ordinary disputes over repairs and rule enforcement, without proof of discriminatory motive and intolerable conditions, are insufficient.
- A breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment requires substantial interference with the tenant’s use and enjoyment; contentious landlord-tenant interactions without serious deprivation of use do not meet the threshold.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed judgment for the landlord because the tenant’s evidence did not show sex-based motivation, quid pro quo demands, or sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to alter housing conditions or amount to constructive eviction, and it also failed to establish a substantial interference with quiet enjoyment under state law.


Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d 1085 (10th Cir. 1993)