## Facts

- Ernest and Linda LaBrie owned and operated Limehurst Mobile Home Park in Williamstown, Vermont, later through LaBrie, Inc., where Ernest was president and Linda was vice-president/treasurer and managed leasing, rules, and tenant approvals.
- The park’s lease originally limited occupancy to “one family”; in 1982 defendants revised the lease to bar all residents under eighteen.
- After Vermont law prohibited housing discrimination against persons with minor children, defendants replaced the express “no children” clause with a facially neutral “two-person occupancy limit” per mobile home.
- Despite the neutral wording, no minor children moved into the park after defendants acquired it, and the limit was enforced against families with children.
- Scott and Luanne McCarthy bought a mobile home in the park while childless and were subject to the two-person limit.
- When the McCarthys had a baby in September 1989, they received a notice to vacate upon the “arrival of your third occupant,” followed by repeated demands to leave and an eviction action based on the occupancy rule.
- The trial court found the McCarthys suffered financial loss and emotional distress and sold their home for less than market value due to the pressure to move.
- The McCarthys filed an administrative complaint; the Vermont Human Rights Commission brought suit alleging violations of 9 V.S.A. § 4503(a).

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ two-person occupancy policy and its enforcement constituted intentional discrimination against persons with minor children in violation of 9 V.S.A. § 4503(a).
2. Whether the trial court erred by relying on witness testimony without formal expert qualification and by awarding emotional-distress damages without expert medical testimony.
3. Whether the attorney’s fee award was excessive, whether Ernest LaBrie could be held personally liable, and whether exclusion of certain defense testimony was reversible error.

## Decision

- Affirmed the finding that defendants committed unfair housing practices by intentionally discriminating against persons with minor children in violation of 9 V.S.A. § 4503(a).
- Upheld the determination that the two-person occupancy cap was adopted and applied to exclude families with minor children, relying on circumstantial evidence including defendants’ prior express ban on children and the enforcement against the McCarthys after childbirth.
- Agreed that defendants’ asserted septic and water-capacity rationale was not supported by the evidence and could be treated as pretext.
- Sustained compensatory damages, including emotional-distress damages, without requiring expert medical testimony.
- Rejected challenges to the use of Commission witnesses based on lack of formal expert designation where the testimony was grounded in relevant experience and did not prejudice defendants.
- Upheld personal liability for Ernest LaBrie based on his role and participation in the discriminatory practices.
- Affirmed evidentiary rulings excluding certain defense testimony.
- Remanded only to reduce attorney’s fees by deducting time spent reconstructing time sheets; otherwise affirmed the fee award, including use of market rates for nonprofit counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional housing discrimination may be proven through circumstantial evidence; a facially neutral rule can violate fair-housing law when adopted or enforced to exclude a protected group.
- A prior express discriminatory policy may support an inference of continued discriminatory intent when replaced by a neutral-sounding policy that produces the same exclusionary result.
- A landlord’s asserted business justification may be rejected as pretext where unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with the policy’s practical effect.
- Emotional-distress damages for discriminatory housing practices may be supported by lay testimony and surrounding circumstances; expert medical testimony is not invariably required.
- Trial courts have discretion in admitting and weighing opinion testimony based on experience; lack of formal “expert” labeling is not necessarily error absent prejudice.
- Corporate officers may be held personally liable where they knowingly participate in or authorize discriminatory housing practices.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court upheld liability and remedies for familial-status housing discrimination where a two-person occupancy cap functioned as a substitute for an earlier “no children” rule, sustained emotional-distress damages based on lay proof, and ordered only a limited reduction of attorney’s fees for time spent reconstructing time records.


Human Rights Comm’n v. LaBrie, Inc., 164 Vt. 237, 668 A.2d 659 (Vt. 1995)