Journal on Burlington Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) case
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) forbids any form of discrimination regarding the sale of real estate property or transaction. The court ruling on the case filed by Holley and provides for vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is whereby an individual is held liable for another person’s tort even though he did not commit the Act (Bradford, 2015). I do not agree with the court ruling on remanding the case against the officer because the Act provides for vicarious liability on employees. Under any circumstances, racial discriminations are not allowed in real estate transactions, and all the involved personnel, i.e., the corporate, shareholders, and salesperson, are held vicariously liable for the tort (Bradford, 2015). The Case against Meyer was dismissed because there was no proof of any rules indicating that racial groups were not allowed to own property. The U.S supreme court applies strict vicarious liability only when the congress has specified its intentions.
Holley had valid grounds on filling the lawsuit against the broker, agent, and the realty company. Holley was discriminated against, and this is against the FHA, which states that no racial discrimination is allowed in the real estate business. The property owners and shareholders are vicariously liable for the actions of the other (Schlemm, 2018). The FHA reinforcement actions mandate filing violations directly or have the right to control any aspect of property sale on behalf of another person, and acts within the scope of his or her authority. The Act enforces obligation upon the employer according to traditional policies in that vicarious liability is imposed on the firm and not the officers or owners.
The broker should be held vicariously liable for violating the Act. The Act states that those who have the right to direct or control the conduct of another even though they were not involved in the discrimination are still held liable (Schlemm, 2018). Meyer is the president of the Triad realtors and has the authority to control. Even though he did not participate, I firm that he is vicariously liable for the officer’s actions under the FHA. Therefore, property owners need to state and explain to their employees the term of conduct and the rules governing the sale of the property to avoid unwarranted liabilities.
References
Bradford, J. M. (2015). Environmental Crimes. S. Tex. L. Rev., 45, 5. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stexlr45&div=9&id=&page=
Schlemm, R. G. (2018). Discriminatory Effect and the Fair Housing Act. Notre Dame Law., 54, 199. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tndl54&div=16&id=&page=