## Facts

- Ann Hacklander-Ready leased a four-bedroom house and had permission to let others live with her and share rent.
- Maureen Rowe moved in with Hacklander-Ready; the two later advertised for housemates to replace departing occupants.
- Caryl Sprague applied; Hacklander-Ready and Rowe extended an offer with knowledge of Sprague’s sexual orientation.
- Sprague accepted and paid a rent deposit on May 4, 1989.
- The next day, Hacklander-Ready withdrew the offer, stating discomfort living with someone of Sprague’s sexual orientation.
- Sprague filed a housing-discrimination complaint with the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission (MEOC) under Madison General Ordinances § 3.23(4)(a).
- MEOC found a violation and ordered relief including $3,000 for emotional distress, $300 for loss of a security deposit on another apartment, and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
- The circuit court affirmed MEOC’s decision and remedies.
- Hacklander-Ready (and formally Rowe) appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Madison General Ordinances § 3.23(4)(a), prohibiting housing discrimination by any person “having the right of rental,” applied to a shared-house “housemate” arrangement where the occupants rented rooms for profit.
2. Whether MEOC had authority to award emotional-distress damages under the ordinance and its remedial scheme.
3. Whether Sprague remained a prevailing party entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees if emotional-distress damages were unavailable.

## Decision

- The court held § 3.23(4)(a) unambiguously applied to the housemate rental arrangement at the time of the events.
- The court affirmed MEOC’s finding that Hacklander-Ready and Rowe unlawfully refused to rent to Sprague because of sexual orientation.
- The court affirmed the $300 award tied to Sprague’s lost security deposit on another apartment.
- The court reversed the $3,000 emotional-distress award, concluding MEOC lacked power to grant that remedy.
- The court affirmed MEOC’s award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, concluding Sprague was the prevailing party despite the reversal of emotional-distress damages.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal fair-housing ordinance barring discrimination by any person with a “right of rental” can apply to for-profit shared-housing and housemate selections, not only conventional landlord-tenant leasing.
- When individuals rent housing for profit, privacy- or association-based objections do not bar application of generally applicable local antidiscrimination housing rules in that commercial setting.
- An administrative agency’s remedial authority is limited to remedies authorized by the ordinance and enabling law; absent authorization, the agency may not award emotional-distress damages.
- A complainant may qualify as a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes when establishing a violation, even if certain damages are unavailable and a portion of the monetary award is reversed.

## Conclusion

The court sustained MEOC’s determination that withdrawing a for-profit housemate offer because of sexual orientation violated Madison’s housing ordinance, but limited MEOC’s remedial authority by striking emotional-distress damages while leaving intact economic relief and the complainant’s entitlement to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.


State ex rel. Sprague v. City of Madison, 197 Wis. 2d 459, 541 N.W.2d 598 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995)