## Facts

- Low-income female tenants and prospective tenants alleged that their landlord, John R. Koch, engaged in sex-based harassment in connection with renting dwellings.
- The women alleged Koch made sexual demands and requests tied to housing, including requiring strip-tease dances in lieu of rent and making sexual propositions connected to their tenancy.
- The alleged conduct included home invasions and unauthorized entries, unwanted touching and groping, indecent exposure, and other unwelcome sexual behavior.
- Three women alleged they engaged in sexual activity with Koch because they feared eviction if they refused.
- Some alleged harassment occurred during the lease-signing stage, but most incidents occurred after the women became tenants.
- The claims were brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), including 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (discrimination in the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of rental and related services) and § 3604(c) (discriminatory statements).
- After the plaintiffs presented their evidence at trial, Koch moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), arguing that the FHA did not support claims based on post-acquisition (after move-in) harassment and that the evidence was insufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHA’s prohibitions in § 3604(b)-(c) can apply to sexual harassment and coercion occurring after a tenant has already obtained housing (post-acquisition conduct).
2. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, a reasonable jury could find that Koch’s conduct constituted sex-based discrimination in violation of the FHA, such that judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 was improper.

## Decision

- The court denied Koch’s Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The court concluded that § 3604(b) is not limited to conduct occurring only at the point of sale or rental; it may reach conduct during an ongoing tenancy when the conduct affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental, or services and facilities connected to the dwelling.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could treat a landlord’s unwelcome sexual demands, threats, and intrusions—when tied to rent, continued occupancy, or the landlord’s control over the dwelling—as discrimination because of sex under the FHA.
- Given the trial evidence of repeated sexual demands and harassment aimed at multiple women, including conduct allegedly linked to fear of eviction and landlord control, the court found there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to decide liability.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 is appropriate only when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, no reasonable jury could find for that party.
- FHA § 3604(b) can apply to discriminatory conduct that occurs after a tenant moves in if the conduct affects rental terms, conditions, privileges, or related services and facilities.
- Sexual harassment by a housing provider can constitute discrimination “because of sex” under the FHA when it is connected to housing benefits or burdens (such as rent, repairs, access, or continued occupancy) or otherwise alters the conditions of tenancy.
- Evidence that a landlord made sexual demands in connection with rent or threatened housing consequences for refusal can support a finding of discriminatory treatment in the rental relationship.
- When trial evidence shows multiple instances of similar sex-based harassment involving tenants or prospective tenants, the case generally presents factual questions for the jury rather than resolution as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court denied Koch’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the Fair Housing Act can reach a landlord’s sex-based harassment occurring during an existing tenancy when it affects the conditions or privileges of rental, and finding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to decide whether Koch violated the FHA.


United States v. Koch, 352 F. Supp. 2d 970 (2004)