## Facts

- Debbie Maze, a Section 8 voucher holder, sought housing while her voucher was nearing expiration and her living conditions were overcrowded.
- Maze contacted Lyle Krueger about an apartment he owned in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and met him for breakfast to discuss renting.
- Maze’s voucher did not cover the full rent for a three-bedroom unit; Krueger later suggested she could cover the shortfall either with off-the-books payments or by “fool[ing] around or something,” which Maze refused.
- After agreeing to rent to her, Krueger touched Maze without consent (including rubbing her thigh) and made remarks implying an intimate relationship; Maze told him not to touch her.
- When accompanying Maze to sign paperwork at the housing authority, Krueger touched her in an elevator and attempted to kiss her; Maze told him to stop.
- During the tenancy, Krueger repeatedly entered Maze’s apartment without notice or consent, touched her, and made sexual comments and propositions despite her repeated objections.
- Maze ultimately moved out, attributing her departure to Krueger’s conduct, and filed an administrative complaint with HUD alleging sex discrimination and harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s unwelcome sexual propositions and physical touching, including suggesting sexual favors to cover rent, constitute discrimination “because of sex” in the terms and conditions of rental under the Fair Housing Act.
2. Whether such conduct unlawfully interferes with a tenant’s exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights under 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
3. Whether the HUD Secretary’s findings (including credibility and causation) were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit denied Krueger’s petition for review and affirmed the HUD Secretary’s decision and order adopting the ALJ’s findings.
- The court held that Krueger’s conduct constituted sex discrimination in rental terms and conditions and unlawful interference with Maze’s fair housing rights.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings that the conduct occurred, was unwelcome, and caused Maze to vacate.
- The court deferred to the ALJ’s credibility determinations and relied in part on corroboration from contemporaneous reports Maze made to a housing-authority official.
- The court treated HUD’s interpretation that landlord sexual harassment is actionable under the FHA as reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), discrimination because of sex in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling is unlawful; sexual harassment by a landlord can constitute such discrimination.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3617, conduct that coerces, intimidates, threatens, or interferes with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights is unlawful; serious, unwelcome sexual conduct by a landlord may qualify.
- Sexual-harassment frameworks used in employment law (quid pro quo and hostile-environment concepts) may be applied to evaluate sex discrimination claims in housing.
- On appellate review of agency action, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; reviewing courts generally defer to the agency’s credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld HUD’s determination that a landlord’s repeated, unwelcome sexual propositions, touching, and intrusive entries into a tenant’s home constituted sex discrimination and unlawful interference under the Fair Housing Act, and that the agency’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.


Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 1997)