Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)

Citation: Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Parent Document: Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1996-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7038055/jankowski-lee-associates-v-cisneros/ ↗

Full Text

1,170 chars

Two of the Petitioners raise an additional issue. Petitioners River Park Development Corporation (“RPDC”) and John Pankratz argue that no credible evidence was presented that could tie them to any liability. The record contradicts their assertions. Owners of real estate may be held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by their agents and employees. Chicago v. Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, 982 F.2d 1086, 1096-99 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, Ernst v. Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, 508 U.S. 972, 113 S.Ct. 2961, 125 L.Ed.2d 662 (1993); see also Marr v. Rife, 503 F.2d 735, 740 (6th Cir.1974). This principle applies to suits alleging violations of the FHA. Matchmaker, 982 F.2d at 1096. Building Manager Sellin testified that Petitioner Pankratz is one of the investors in RPA and the managing partner of RPA She also testified that the decision to increase the number of handicapped parking spaces rather than assign Rusinov a separate space “was a mutual and joint agreement between myself, my supervisor, Mr. Paul Lee, [and] Mr. Pankratz, our managing partner .... ” Thus, the evidence is clear that Pankratz may be held liable.

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text