control, the conduct of the salespersons who allegedly discriminated against the Holleys with respect to the sale of real estate. While we recognize that corporate officers and shareholders are generally shielded from personal liability, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that “where common ownership and management exists, corporate formalities must not be rigidly adhered to when inquiry is made of civil rights violations.” Matchmaker, 982 F.2d at 1098. Thus, under relevant HUD regulatory history, and because the duty not to discriminate is a non-delegable one, we join other courts in holding that officers can be individually liable for discriminatory acts of corporate employees under their management and control. See e.g., Tropic Seas, 887 F.Supp. at 1365; Northside, 605 F.2d at 1354 (<HOLDING>). Our decision recognizes the duty under the
holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation holding that the real estate brokers law which provided for the investigation of the acts of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for specified acts is penal and must be strictly construed holding president and vicepresident of real estate corporation accountable for discriminatory acts of their agents whether or not the officers directed or authorized the particular discriminatory acts that occurred holding that no  prohibition  prevents the imposition of liability vicariously on corporate persons on account of the acts of their agents particularly where the corporation benefitted by those acts