Supreme Court of the United States
Meyer v. Holley
January 22, 2003537 U.S. 280
Summary
Justice Breyer delivered the unanimous opinion holding that the Fair Housing Act incorporates traditional agency principles rather than imposing automatic personal liability on corporate officers or owners for employees’ discriminatory acts. Ordinarily, the corporation is the employer or principal subject to vicarious liability; an officer’s or owner’s right to control an employee does not alone establish the necessary agency relationship. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded, leaving that court free to consider properly raised arguments concerning additional features of California’s broker relationship and piercing the corporate veil. There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- The scope of vicarious liability under the Fair Housing Act.. The Fair Housing Act incorporates traditional agency principles, ordinarily imposing vicarious liability on the corporate employer rather than its officers or owners. Authority to direct or control an employee, standing alone, does not establish personal vicarious liability.
Docket 01-1120
Cited authorities
- 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604
- 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a)
- 21 U.S.C. §§301-392
- 82 Stat. 81
- 42 U.S.C. § 3605
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 52 Stat. 1040
- 21 U.S.C. §§301-392
Cited by
- Malka L. Fishman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd.
- Donahue Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., Corrine Downing, Raymond Endres
- Adt, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc.
- Yvonne Chavez v. Dick Aber
- In Re: Harry Neal McMillan, Dismissed Debtor. Harry Neal McMillan v. Lawrence Maestri, Donal R. Schmidt and Thimothy…
- Arias v. Zachry LLCCase remanded to the 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
- Noonkester v. Elite Debt Brokers, LLC
- Davis v. CenturyLink, Inc