Commonwealth Court Overturns Award of Damages Assessed Against Landlord on Claims of Unlawful Discrimination

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently issued an opinion in 1400 Main Holdings v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 2024 WL 4683928, in which it held that an award of damages assessed against a landlord and a property management company by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) was not supported by the evidence.

Specifically, the landlord and property management company in 1400 Main Holdings, LLC challenged the award of damages assessed against them for failure to reasonably accommodate the disability of a tenant, April Crenney, who lived in a unit at an apartment building owned by AJH and managed by Shay Carelly, the opinion said.

Crenney and her husband signed a lease with 1400 Main for the leased premises in July 2021, the opinion said.

AJH owned the building, and Carelly managed it, the opinion said.

According to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement entered into by the parties, Crenney was required to seek permission from the landlord before making any changes to the leased premises and to restore the leased premises to their original condition upon vacating, the opinion said.

During her occupancy of the leased premises, Crenney sent an email to Carelly advising him that she suffered from numerous disabilities and requested that that an additional parking space be designated as handicap-accessible or that she be designated a specific parking space, the opinion said.

Carelly responded that the landlord could not assign Crenney a specific parking space but that he would look into adding an additional handicap-accessible parking space.

Thereafter, Crenney emailed Carelly again, this time requesting permission to install metal grab bars in the shower at the leased premises, the opinion said.

Carelly responded that grab bars were not permitted, but advised Crenney that she could use plastic suction-cap grab bars, the opinion said.

An attorney acting on Crenney’s behalf then sent an email to Carelly stating that metal grab bars were necessary to accommodate Crenney’s disability, the opinion said. In response, Carelly reiterated that metal grab bars were not allowed at the leased premises, the opinion said.

Crenney then filed a complaint with the PHRC, alleging that the landlord, among others, had engaged in unlawful discrimination, namely, failing to accommodate her disabilities by not providing additional handicap-accessible parking and declining her request to install metal grab bars in the shower, the opinion said.

After a hearing, the PHRC dismissed Crenney’s claims regarding parking. However, the PHRC found that Crenney had made a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination as to her claims regarding the refusal of the landlord to permit metal grab bars in the shower.

In its final order, the PHRC ordered the landlord and the property management company to pay damages of $60,000 to Crenney for humiliation and embarrassment, as well as a civil penalty in the amount of $7,000 to the commonwealth.

The landlord and the property management company then sought review in the Commonwealth Court of the monetary judgment only.

On appeal, the landlord and the property management company argued that the PHRC’s award of damages was not supported by the evidence, in that it failed to further the purpose of the PHRC and was excessive.

The Commonwealth Court began its analysis on appeal by noting that the PHRC’s enabling act requires it to be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose for which it was enacted.

According to the Commonwealth Court, upon a finding that a party has engaged in unlawful discrimination, the PHRC can award damages to the aggrieved party and the damages are intended to serve two purposes—discouraging discrimination and making the injured party whole.

The Commonwealth Court first took up the issue of the $60,000 in damages the PHRC awarded to Ms. Crenney for humiliation and embarrassment. To determine whether an award is appropriate, the Commonwealth Court pointed out that it would consider the direct evidence of emotional distress and the circumstances of the conduct that allegedly caused it.

The Commonwealth Court emphasized that there is no strict formula or calculation that it must apply. Rather, the Commonwealth Court stated that the case law requires a fact-specific analysis of the conduct and the aggrieved party’s physical and mental reaction to the conduct.

In support of its award of damages, the PHRC found that testimony from Crenney and her husband supported a $60,000 award of damages because the lack of metal grab bars had caused Crenney to suffer from skin irritation, a need for excessive sleep, and problems in her marital relationship. The PHRC also appeared to rely heavily on Crenney still not having metal grab bars over two years after filing her complaint, characterizing this as ongoing discrimination.

The Commonwealth Court specifically found that the PHRC erred in finding that the landlord and the property management company engaged in ongoing discriminatory conduct. Rather, the Commonwealth Court stated that from the time Crenney first emailed Carelly, and continuing through the subsequent proceedings before the PHRC, the landlord and the property management company remained actively involved in the process and, additionally, had no prior history of violations.

Moreover, the Commonwealth Court rejected the PHRC’s conclusion that Crenney not having access to metal grab bars during the pendency of the litigation constituted ongoing discrimination.

On this basis, the Commonwealth Court found that the PHRC’s award of damages was not supported by the record and was an error of law. The Commonwealth Court vacated the award of damages and remanded the decision to the PHRC for additional consideration.

Similarly, the Commonwealth Court also found that the PHRC’s assessment of a civil penalty of $7,000 against the landlord and the property management company was unsupported by the record, reasoning that the discriminatory conduct was not ongoing and that the record contained no evidence regarding the financial status of the landlord and the tenant.

The PHRC, in support of the civil penalty, again relied on Crenney not having metal grab bars two years after first requesting them. Additionally, it relied upon Carelly’s testimony that the apartment building was “somewhat high end” and contained approximately 376 residential dwelling units.

Rejecting the PHRC’s findings, the Commonwealth Court first reiterated its conclusion that there was no ongoing discrimination. Second, the Commonwealth Court found that PHRC improperly relied exclusively on Carelly’s characterization of the apartments as “somewhat high end” and the number of units as the sole basis for calculating the civil penalty, without any evidence in the record as to the financial means of the landlord and the property management company.

The Commonwealth Court vacated the civil penalty and remanded the decision to the PHRC for additional consideration as well.

Alan Nochumson is the principal of Nochumson P.C., a legal services firm with a focus on real estate, land use and zoning, litigation, and business counseling for the people of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Nochumson is a frequent author and lecturer on issues commonly confronting businesses, individuals and professionals. You can reach him at 215-600-2851 or alan.nochumson@nochumson.com.

Alex Hamilton is an associate attorney at the firm. You can reach him at 215-399-1346 or alex.hamilton@nochumson.com.