Brown v. Pfeiffer
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:19-cv-03132
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Brown v. Pfeiffer, Judge Wright granted Brown a temporary order preventing eviction while her housing-discrimination claims proceed.
Shatara Brown, whose lease and occupancy were protected temporarily; Reese Pfeiffer and the other defendants, who were barred from evicting her or terminating her lease during the order’s effective period.
What happened
In Brown v. Pfeiffer, Shatara Brown alleged that Reese Pfeiffer sexually harassed her and offered relief from rent and other fees in exchange for sexual favors. She claimed that Pfeiffer then tried to evict her after she rejected his requests. Brown asked the court to temporarily prevent the defendants from ending her lease, and the defendants did not respond on time.
The court found that Brown was likely to succeed on her claim that Pfeiffer made housing benefits conditional on sexual favors. It also found that losing her home could cause irreparable harm, that keeping her as a paying tenant would not meaningfully injure the defendants, and that the public interest favored enforcing fair-housing protections.
Judge Wright granted Brown’s temporary restraining order. The defendants may not threaten to evict Brown, evict her, or end her lease, and the order requires no bond. The order was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2020, unless extended by the court.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Pfeiffer · No. 0:19-cv-03132
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Dec. 27, 2019
Background
Shatara Brown and two other tenants sued Reese Pfeiffer, Fruen & Pfeiffer LLP, Michael Fruen, and M Fruen Properties LLC. They alleged that Pfeiffer sexually harassed them in connection with their tenancies and retaliated against them for rejecting his requests for sexual favors. Their claims included sex discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631, discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and negligent supervision under Minnesota common law.
Brown alleged that Pfeiffer made sexual advances and comments toward her and told her she could avoid paying some rent and fees in exchange for sexual favors. She also alleged that Pfeiffer tried to overcharge her and filed three eviction actions. The first was dismissed and expunged after Pfeiffer agreed to dismiss it; the second was dismissed and expunged by the Hennepin County Housing Court; and the third was pending when Brown sought relief in federal court. Pfeiffer had also given Brown a notice of lease non-renewal requiring her to vacate by December 31, 2019.
Brown moved for a temporary restraining order, which is a short-term court order intended to preserve the existing situation while the court considers further relief. The defendants did not file a response within the deadline set by the court.
Analysis
The court applied the four factors used for temporary emergency injunctive relief: the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits, the threat of irreparable harm, the balance of harms between the parties, and the public interest.
On likelihood of success, the court focused on Brown’s claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. This occurs when housing benefits are explicitly or implicitly conditioned on sexual favors. The court stated that, if proven, Pfeiffer’s alleged offer of rent relief in exchange for sex would show an unwanted request for a sexual favor, harassment based on sex, and an express condition linking the favor to a housing benefit. Based on the record at this stage, the court found that Brown had established that this claim was likely to succeed.
The court found that Brown faced irreparable harm because, without an order, she would have to leave her home and might become homeless. It found no meaningful injury to the defendants from allowing Brown to remain as a paying tenant under the existing lawful terms. The court also concluded that the public interest favored effective enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.
Order
The court granted Brown’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It enjoined Reese Pfeiffer, Fruen & Pfeiffer LLP, Michael Fruen, and M Fruen Properties LLC from threatening to evict Brown, taking action to evict her, or terminating her lease of the home. No bond was required based on Brown’s assurance that she would pay her portion of the monthly rent to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid’s client trust account.
The order stated that the temporary restraining order would expire at 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2020, unless the court extended it. The court also set deadlines and a hearing concerning Brown’s requested preliminary injunction and ordered the parties to schedule a settlement conference.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.