## Facts

- Tammy and Thomas Shellhammer rented an apartment from Norman and Jacqueline Lewallen under a month-to-month tenancy beginning in March 1982.
- Shortly after the Shellhammers moved in, Norman Lewallen asked Tammy Shellhammer to pose for nude photographs while she was cleaning an apartment; she refused and told her husband.
- About a month later, Lewallen asked Tammy Shellhammer to have sex with him and offered to pay her; she refused and again informed her husband.
- In July 1982, the parties disputed responsibility for providing a working refrigerator, and rent was not paid on time.
- The Lewallens initiated eviction proceedings, and the Shellhammers moved and incurred higher rent.
- The Shellhammers alleged the stated basis for eviction (late/nonpayment of rent) was pretext and that the true reason was Tammy Shellhammer’s refusal of Lewallen’s sexual demands.
- Plaintiffs presented testimony from other women describing similar conduct by Lewallen, including requests for nude photos, sexual favors tied to housing-related benefits, and eviction efforts following refusals.
- Jacqueline Lewallen served as the building manager, was aware of her husband’s conduct, and had authority over building operations.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning rental terms or continued occupancy on a female tenant’s submission to sexual demands constitutes sex discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of rental under the Fair Housing Act.
2. Whether eviction allegedly motivated by a tenant’s refusal of sexual demands constitutes discrimination because of sex under the Fair Housing Act.
3. Whether a co-owner/manager who knows of the discriminatory practice and has authority to act may be held liable under the Fair Housing Act.
4. Whether the action should proceed as a class action rather than only on the named plaintiffs’ claims.

## Decision

- The court found that Norman Lewallen violated the Fair Housing Act by making sexual demands in connection with housing and by evicting (or attempting to evict) female tenants who refused.
- The court held Jacqueline Lewallen liable because she knew of the practice and, as building manager with control, was in a position to prevent or stop it.
- The court awarded relief to the named plaintiffs but did not certify a class or grant class-wide relief in the trial proceedings.
- On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment, including the denial of additional relief and the denial of class certification.

## Legal Principles

- Sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act includes imposing different housing-related terms or consequences on women through sexual demands connected to rental benefits or continued occupancy.
- Retaliatory or pretextual eviction based on a woman’s refusal to submit to sexual demands constitutes discrimination because of sex in the rental of a dwelling.
- A co-owner or property manager may be liable under the Fair Housing Act when the person has knowledge of discriminatory conduct and sufficient authority or control to take corrective action but fails to do so.
- Courts may draw on Title VII sexual-harassment concepts to assess whether sexual coercion tied to economic housing benefits is discrimination because of sex under the Fair Housing Act.

## Conclusion

The court held that a landlord’s practice of conditioning housing benefits on sexual favors and using eviction after refusals violates the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination, and it imposed liability on the co-owner/manager who knew of the misconduct and had authority to intervene; individual relief was granted to the tenants, and class certification was denied and later affirmed.


Shellhammer v. Lewallen, No. C 82-689 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 1983)