215 Remedies

[Ed. Note: Wis. State 106.50 allows for economic and noneconomic (compensatory) damages, injunctive relief, forfeiture, attorneys fees and costs. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/106.50(6)(h).]

It was inappropriate to assess a forfeiture against the Respondents where there was no questioning of them regarding their awareness of the Open Housing Law at the hearing. Imposing a forfeiture is only appropriate where there is proof of a knowing and reckless disregard as to whether an action violates the law. Parkinson v. Obernberger (LIRC, 10/15/93).

The Department's decision finding that a newspaper violated the Wisconsin Open Housing Act by publishing advertisements in connection with the rental of housing did not violate the newspaper's rights to freedom of speech and press as protected by the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. Hartford Times Press (LIRC, 08/31/93).

The requirement that a newspaper which had published a discriminatory advertisement for housing provide staff with training in the effects of the Open Housing Act on the legality of advertisements for housing is a reasonable exercise of the Department's authority under sec. 101.22(4)(d), Stats., to order such action by the Respondent as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. MMFHC v. South Side Spirit (LIRC, 08/26/92). (Ed. note: sec. 101.22(4)(d), Stats., has been renumbered sec. 106.50(6)(f)5, Stats.).

The requirement of the imposition of a forfeiture contained in the Wisconsin Open Housing Act is indisputably a penal provision. Insofar as the Act is penal in nature (i.e., designed not to provide a remedy to the person wronged but to exact punishment from the person committing the wrong) it must be strictly construed. A violation must also be found to be "willful" for a forfeiture to be imposed. The Respondent must have acted in spite of knowing of the illegality of his conduct under the Wisconsin Open Housing Act, or in "reckless disregard" of the law. Where the Respondent did not know of the existence of the Wisconsin Open Housing Act or of the potential illegality of his conduct under the Act, an assessment of a forfeiture is not appropriate. Metro. Milwaukee Fair Hous. Council v. Goetsch (LIRC, 12/06/91).

The Complainant failed to present adequate proof that he had suffered a monetary loss as a result of the Respondent's discriminatory action of denying him permission to have a roommate where the Complainant: (1) submitted absurdly high estimates of gas and electric costs, (2) failed to prove whether his rent would have stayed the same if he was allowed to have a roommate, and (3) did not have anyone ready to share his apartment and share expenses. Dude v. Thompson (LIRC, 11/16/90), aff'd., sub nom. Dude v. LIRC (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 08/08/91).

The Respondent's repeated verbal abuse (including his reference to black tenants as "you people" and stating "see how much trouble black people can cause") constituted a willful violation of the Open Housing Act. The Commission, while noting that it did not wish to deprecate the seriousness of the Respondent's conduct, found the conduct less egregious than cases in which racial slurs were used, thus warranting the imposition of a $100.00 forfeiture. Pryor v. Knecht (LIRC, 04/21/89).

The Equal Rights Division has authority to award out-of-pocket expenses, interest, attorney's fees and costs to remedy violations of the Wisconsin Open Housing Act. Davis v. Piechowski (LIRC, 10/24/86); MMFHC v. Hartford Times Press (LIRC, 08/31/93).

As a penalty for the willful violation of the Open Housing Act by refusing to rent to an unmarried woman, the owner must forfeit $100.00 to the State of Wisconsin. Stroud v. Evans (LIRC, 06/25/82).