)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Administrative Law Judge, David M. Maloney, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on February 18 and 19, 1997 in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Linda C. Andzulis, pro se
546-202 Via Fontana Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
For Respondent: Linda M. Skipper, Esquire
Paul L. Wean, P.A.
1305 East Robinson Street, Suite C Orlando, Florida 32801
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether La Vita Condominium Association, acting through its Board of Directors, refused to allow Linda C. Andzulis, a member of the association, to fill a vacancy on the board because of her gender, and thereby committed a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On September 3, 1995, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a Transmittal of Petition from the Commission on Human Relations advising that the Commission “has received a Petition for Relief . . . by Linda C. Andzulis”. In the transmittal the Commission further requests the Division of Administrative Hearings to “assign this matter to a hearing officer [administrative law judge],. . . conduct all necessary proceedings required under the law and submit a recommended order to the Commission.”
Attached to the Transmittal is a ”Housing Discrimination Complaint” filed February 21, 1995 with the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,(“HUD”). Filled out on a HUD form by Ms. Andzulis, the complaint alleges that “Respondents refused to allow me onto the Board of Directors [of La Vita Condominium Association] because I am female.” Named as respondents in the complaint are the Board of Directors, La Vita Condominium Association, Inc., Richard Shorthouse, Ex-President of the board,
C. Roddenberry, President of the board and Tom Anderson, one of the board’s directors.
There are a number of other attachments to the transmittal.
First among the remainder is a “Determination of No Reasonable Cause by the Commission on Human Relations.” Dated July 16, 1996, it reflects the Commission’s determination “[b]ased on
evidence obtained during [an] investigation, . . . that reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred” in FCHR No. 95-D362H, HUD No. 04- 95-2309-8, that is, the case of Ms. Anzulis’ HUD complaint.
Attached to the transmittal next is a Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in the wake of the Commission’s determination of “no reasonable cause.” The petition appears to have been filled out in the handwriting of Ms. Andzulis on a form provided by the Human Relations Commission. Under what appears to be Ms. Andzulis’ signature, the petition names as respondents, Messrs. Shorthouse, Roddenberry and Anderson. The Association Board is not named as a respondent in the style of the petition, although the section of the petition entitled “ultimate facts alleged & entitlement to relief” is stated in terms of involvement of the board, that is: “This Board discriminated against me based on sex.”
In an attachment to the petition, Ms. Andzulis, writes, “I am see[k]ing $50,000 damages from each of the 3 Respondents listed in my complaint for their total lack of regard for the State and Federal Laws against discrimination.” The “3 Respondents” to whom Ms. Andzulis refers are Messrs. Shorthouse, Roddenberry and Anderson, and not the board as shown by a later statement in the attachment that
“On January 10, 1995, these 3 men broke the Florida State Condominium Law by
Discrimination against a woman volunteering for the Board[;]
Voting by secret ballot to prevent homeowners from knowing how they voted.
On March 6 a “retaliatory” meeting was held of which details are in my file.
Attachment to Petition for Relief, August 8, 1996, FCHR No. 95- D362H.
Immediately following receipt of the transmittal, the Division of Administrative Hearing assigned the case to Administrative Law Judge Daniel M. Kilbride. Pursuant to La Vita Condominium Association’s Motion to Dismiss, an Order to Show Cause and Ms. Andzulis’ response that she wished to proceed solely against the Condominium Association and its board and not against any named person individually, Judge Kilbride ordered dismissed any claim stated as a violation of Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes, and any claim stated against “H. C. Roddenberry, Richard Shorthouse and Tom Anderson, individually.” The motion to dismiss was otherwise denied.
The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned and proceeded to final hearing on the petition for relief as amended by the order entered January 6, 1997. Commencing on February 18, 1997, as noticed, but unable to be completed that day, the case was carried over to February 19, 1997, when it finished.
Both parties filed proposed recommended orders. Ms.
Andzulis’ was served March 11, 1997; the Association’s on March 10, 1997.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Linda C. Andzulis is a resident of the La Vita Condominium. As the owner of the condominium unit in which she resides with her husband, Ms. Andzulis is also a member of the La Vita Condominium Association. She has never served on the Association’s Board of Directors, but she has a keen interest in the business of the association. She frequently attends board meetings. Ms. Joan Di Gregorio, past President of the Board sums up Ms. Andzulis’ participation at board meetings: Ms. Andzulis is a “strong individual . . . who has her agenda and she will bring it forward.” Described by some who live at the condominium as an “aggressive woman of integrity,” energetic, very intelligent, even “brilliant,” Ms. Andzulis' views and methods of expressing her views finds opposition among other association members.
The La Vita Condominium Association is a Florida not- for-profit corporation. Organized pursuant to Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, the Association operates and administers the condominium officially known as “La Vita, a Condominium.” The condominium is located in Altamonte Springs, Florida.
There are five seats on the Association’s board.
In January of 1995, (the time at which the main act of discrimination on the basis of gender is claimed by Ms. Andzulis to have been committed by the board,) four of the five seats were filled, all by men: H. C. Roddenberry, then the president, Robert Shorthouse, Tom Anderson and a fourth man who had filled a vacancy on the board the month before but who did not attend the January, 1995 board meeting.
At least six women have served on the board over the years, four prior to January, 1995, and two since January of 1995: Rosemary Anderson, Sue Bridwell, Joan di Gregorio, Brenda Herndon, Shirley Turner, and Patricia Schmidt. Several women have served as president of the board, including the board’s current president, Rosemary Anderson. These women have been encouraged to serve on the board by both Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Shorthouse. In some cases they were not only nominated as candidates for the board by Mr. Roddenberry or Mr. Shorthouse, but were actually recruited to run for the board by either Mr. Roddenberry or Mr. Shorthouse, or both.
Of these six female board members, Ms. Schmidt found it necessary to end her service on the board at one point because she was being bothered by a member of the association. There is nothing to indicate that the harassment was on the basis of gender. Furthermore, the harassment was from an individual and
not in any way the result of any action by the association or the board, itself. Ms. Schmidt’s experience is all too typical for condominium association board members in this state, particularly when the association is plagued with the intra-association conflict, internal dissension, and turmoil that afflicts La Vita.
None of the six women who have served as members of the board, including Ms. Schmidt, recount any trouble with any board member on account of their gender. In fact, all state that they have never been treated by male members of the board in any way other than with courtesy. They have been comfortable serving on the board with the board’s male members and relate that they have been treated “just the same as any other board member.” In short, they report that during their tenures on the board they have been accorded the respect due each and every member willing to be subjected to the rigor of running for the board and, if elected, to assume the demanding, often thankless, task of serving on the association’s board of directors.
As is typical of condominium associations in Florida, particularly those with retired residents on fixed incomes, the Board of Directors of the La Condominium Association has faced many tough issues over its lifetime.
One of the most difficult issues for the board has been the roofing system at the condominium. Not long after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida, Central Florida was hit with a
number of serious storms. During this time, La Vita Condominium suffered numerous roof leaks. It was difficult to obtain bids from licensed roofing contractors, let alone find a qualified roofing contractor to actually provide necessary repairs and roof replacements, because so many local roofing contractors were in South Florida in response to the tremendous demand for roofing services in the aftermath of Andrew. Roofers who remained in Central Florida were tied up with local business created by the demand for roofing services in the wake of the serious storms of 1992-93.
The board of directors did the best it could, including frequently seeking the consult of legal counsel, with a difficult roofing situation. Ms. Andzulis, however, among others, felt the board had not handled the situation properly. She was not shy about bringing her opinion on the matter to the attention of the board at its regularly scheduled meetings.
Another difficult problem with which the board has been and continues to be beset is the association’s relationship to the developer of La Vita and the developer’s refusal to pay assessments for “phantom” units, unbuilt units in phases of the condominium not yet constructed. The Board has struggled with the issue for many years. Again, it has sought the advice of counsel and gone to the length of bringing suit against the developer. None of the attempts to resolve the developer’s refusal to pay assessments have borne fruit. As one board member
stated, the developer has more attorneys, threatens or commences bankruptcy proceedings and always seems to be “one step ahead” of the board. Just as Ms. Andzulis has not been satisfied with the board’s attempts to address the association’s roofing problems, she has not been satisfied with the association’s attempts to deal effectively with the developer. Again, she has not been shy to make her feelings known at the board meetings. While there are certain members of the Association who support Ms. Andzulis’ views on these matters, her participation at board meetings has reached the point where a number of observers feel that she has monopolized time at the board meetings to the detriment of the board being able to accomplish the business of the association.
There are three ways to become a member of a board of directors of a condominium association in Florida. The first and most obvious is by election. The latter two are without election: (a) when time for nomination for candidates in an election closes and the number of nominated candidates do not exceed the number of seats up for election; and, (b) by filling a vacancy on the board that occurs before the expiration of the vacant seat’s term.
There is a critical difference between the two ways of taking a seat without election. As explained by Mr. Peter McGrath, who has served as legal counsel to the Board in the past, if there are only as many candidates for election to the
board as there are seats, by operation of law, those candidates automatically become members of the board. In other words, the election is dispensed with as unnecessary. The reason for dispensing with an election and seating the candidates automatically is the difficulty many condominium associations have experienced, particularly the longer they have existed and the more intractable the problems they have faced, in finding association members willing to serve on the association’s board. In such a case, any qualified and duly-nominated party willing to serve takes a seat on the board. No one has any power to refuse to seat the candidate.
In contrast, Mr. McGrath, as an expert in condominium law, explained that when there is a vacancy on the board mid- term, a person who offers his or her services does not automatically assume the position. The board may legitimately refuse to seat a qualified person who seeks the seat.
The reason for the difference in approach when an entirely new board is seated as opposed to when a vacancy mid- term occurs is timing. A board that has been in existence when a vacancy occurs may have embarked on a certain course of action. Or an individual member of the board may have hopes of convincing other members that a certain direction should be pursued.
Members of the board are allowed to consider whether a volunteer for board service will support that course or direction. In undertaking consideration of the volunteer’s offer it is
legitimate to examine the volunteer’s statements and opinions as to the board’s direction. It is completely legitimate for a board member to vote against a volunteer on the basis that he or she would be an impediment to the board’s adopted course or to the direction the director chooses to pursue and hopes the board will pursue.
On July 12, 1994, Ms. Andzulis had a conversation with Mr. Shorthouse, then a member of the board of directors. Ms. Andzulis told Mr. Shorthouse that she hoped to serve on the board since the board had asked for volunteers the previous June 7, following the occurrence of one or more vacancies. Ms. Andzulis left the discussion thinking that Mr. Shorthouse would place her name in nomination at the next board meeting on August 9, 1994.
Neither Mr. Shorthouse nor anyone else nominated Ms. Andzulis to fill a vacancy on the board at the August 9, 1994 meeting. Ms. Andzulis did not step up at the meeting to volunteer.
The next morning, August 10, 1994, Ms. Andzulis confronted Mr. Shorthouse. At hearing, Ms. Andzulis attempted to prove that Mr. Shorthouse said to her on the morning of August 10, 1994, that the board did not want women on the board. Other than the association’s presentation of Mr. Shorthouse’s testimony, neither party presented any witnesses to this conversation. Ms. Andzulis attempted to prove her version of the
conversation through witnesses to a second conversation she had with Mr. Shorthouse following a board meeting months later. She asked these witnesses whether she had stated to Mr. Shorthouse that he had told her during the August 10, 1994 meeting that the board did not want women on the board and Mr. Shorthouse, in the presence of these witnesses, did not deny the accusation. Each of the three witnesses answered in the affirmative. In his testimony, however, Mr. Shorthouse, adamantly denied that he ever made any such statement. Ms. Andzulis, the only person other than Mr. Shorthouse who heard the August 10, 1994 conversation, did not testify at the hearing.
This second conversation in the presence of witnesses took place following a board meeting on January 10, 1997. At this meeting, Ms. Andzulis again had hopes that she would be accepted to fill a vacant seat on the board.
Prior to the January 10, 1997 board meeting, Ms. Andzulis asked Mr. Roddenberry, then president of the board, if he would meet with her. He agreed. Their meeting took place on January 5, 1996. They discussed Ms. Andzulis’ interest in filling a vacancy on the board. During the discussion Mr. Roddenberry pointed out the many difficulties of serving on the board. He asked Ms. Andzulis, in light of those difficulties, if she was sure she wanted to be on the board. Mr. Roddenberry left the meeting with the expectation that if Ms. Andzulis continued
to be interested in being on the board, she would raise her hand during the meeting to indicate her interest.
Mr. Roddenberry was hoping against hope that Ms. Andzulis would not volunteer at the meeting. He could not support her candidacy and he did not want her to know that he would vote against her. He did not want her to know because he feared repercussions both to himself and any other board member, repercussions that he believed would be brought by Ms. Andzulis. Ultimately, Mr. Roddenberry was concerned about what might happen to the association and the business of the condominium should Ms. Andzulis’ offer be turned down by the board.
Normally at La Vita, when an association member offers to fill a vacancy on the board, the wish is made known at the opening of the meeting and a vote is immediately taken so that if the volunteer is approved by vote of the board then the new director will be able to participate in the business conducted at the meeting.
At the January 10, 1995, board meeting this procedure was not followed. It was not followed because Ms. Andzulis did not make her wish to be on the board known at the opening of the meeting and because Mr. Roddenberry was not then certain whether Ms. Andzulis wanted to fill the vacancy or not. As the meeting came to a close, however, Ms. Andzulis raised her hand. For the first time in the meeting, Mr. Roddenberry realized Ms. Andzulis had made up her mind; she wanted to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Roddenberry, as president of the board, called for a secret ballot on whether the Board should seat Ms. Andzulis. Unbeknown to Mr. Roddenberry at the time, and apparently to everyone else present (including Ms. Andzulis since she did not make an issue of it at the meeting,) secret votes by a condominium association are in violation of the Condominium Act.
Mr. Roddenberry called for the secret ballot, not because he had any intention of violating the condominium law, but because Mr. Roddenberry, for the reasons stated earlier, did not want Ms. Andzulis to know how he would vote. As it turned out, all three board members present voted against seating Ms. Andzulis on the board.
The secret nature of the ballot was short-lived. Soon after the result of the vote was announced, it was also announced that all three members of the board present had voted against seating Ms. Andzulis.
On March 6, 1996, a duly-noticed emergency meeting of the board was convened. Mr. Roddenberry read a statement to all assembled. The statement reviewed Mr. Roddenberry’s tenure as President of the association and his accomplishments. After relating that he had enjoyed the challenges confronting the association and did not regret the time spent participating in the business of the condominium, the statement concluded as follows:
Since the January board meeting, the association has had to deal with a homeowner’s onslaught of insurance claims, a complaint filed with the State of Florida, a complaint filed with the board of directors, all of which has significantly increased the amount of time that I must devote to association business . . .
The final act of this homeowner was to file a housing discrimination complaint based on sex discrimination against the three board members who voted against her being on the board.
I feel that this claim is a malicious attack on my integrity. If this is what a board member must be subjected to, then I respectfully submit my resignation to the Board of Directors effective immediately and I also am withdrawing my name from nomination at the annual meeting.
Petitioner’s Ex. No. 8, page 1 of 3.
The homeowner to whom Mr. Roddenberry referred in this statement is Ms. Andzulis.
Mr. Roddenberry’s resignation was greeted generally by the members of the association with dismay. As a person of considerable business, financial and accounting experience, he had been instrumental while serving on the board in setting up a new accounting system and had been invaluable in many ways to the association in the conduct of its business. He was well- respected and his resignation was a great loss to La Vita.
In her Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice, which serves as the foundation of this proceeding, Ms. Andzulis refers to the March 6 emergency meeting as “retaliatory.” The meeting was not retaliatory. It was for
Mr. Roddenberry to resign effective immediately, nothing more, nothing less. His resignation, as is evident from the statement read at the meeting, was because of the numerous issues he had had to deal with subsequent to the board’s vote to turn down Ms. Andzulis' offer to fill a vacancy.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearing has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Fair Housing Act is found in Part II of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Practices prohibited under the act are found in Section 760.23, Florida Statutes. Subsection (2) of that section makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale . . . of a dwelling, . . . because of . . . sex ”
Ms. Andzulis, as the petitioner in this case, has the burden of establishing that a violation of the Fair Housing Act has occurred.
Ms. Andzulis' petition alleges that various portions of the condominium act were violated in ways that constituted discrimination because of sex. Presumably, Ms. Andzulis means to allege further that the condominium act is a part of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale” of her dwelling. Ms. Andzulis did not, however, offer into evidence the declaration of condominium or any of the other documents relevant to La Vita.
Whatever the status of whether her petition stated a cause of action, this case proceeded through hearing and that hearing revealed a fundamental problem with the case on the merits: it was not proven that La Vita Condominium Association, through the action of its board or otherwise, discriminated against Ms.
Andzulis on the basis of gender.
First, the procedural irregularities surrounding the vote on Ms. Andzulis’ offer on January 10, 1995, were explained by Mr. Roddenberry. The vote was not taken at the outset of the meeting because no one other than Ms. Andzulis knew for sure that she had decided to volunteer for the board and she did not make her decision known at the beginning of the meeting. The vote was taken by secret ballot, without knowledge of the condominium law’s expression on the subject, and only so that Ms. Andzulis would not know Mr. Roddenberry had voted against her. The “secret” nature of the ballot was cured by the subsequent, nearly immediate, announcement that all three of the board members present had voted against Ms. Andzulis.
Ms. Andzulis’ main point in support of her case is the allegation that Mr. Shorthouse on August 10, 1994, told her the board did not want a woman as a director. The proof Ms. Andzulis offered was that Mr. Shorthouse did not deny making such a statement when Ms. Andzulis, months later, confronted him and questioned him about it in the presence of others. Ms. Andzulis, herself, the only witness to the August 10 conversation, other
than Mr. Shorthouse, did not testify. In contrast, Mr. Shorthouse adamantly denied under oath having made the statement. The proof offered by Ms. Andzulis fails when weighed against the competent evidence presented by the association: Mr.
Shorthouse’s testimony.
But even had Ms. Andzulis proved that Mr. Shorthouse did make the statement, the evidence would not be substantial enough to support a finding of discrimination when weighed against the other evidence in this case. First, there is no evidence that any prejudice that might have been held by Mr. Shorthouse affected the board. The board has had six women who have served as directors, two of whom have joined the board after January, 1995, when the board disapproved Ms. Andzulis’ offer.
At least two women have served as president of the board. The current president of the board is a woman. There is no evidence at all that either Mr. Roddenberry or Mr. Anderson, the two board members who voted against Ms. Andzulis in addition to Mr.
Shorthouse, did so on the basis of gender.
Moreover, it is unlikely that Mr. Shorthouse, even had he made the statement Ms. Andzulis alleges he made in August of 1994, voted against Ms. Andzulis because she is a woman. Mr. Shorthouse served without difficulty with other women on the board, recruited women for the board, nominated women for the board, voted for women to serve as president of the association and supported women both as directors and in the office of
president. Mr. Shorthouse voted against Ms. Andzulis, not because he did not want a woman on the board, but because he, just as Mr. Roddenberry, did not want Ms. Andzulis on the board.
The sentiments held by Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Shorthouse were because they felt that Ms. Andzulis would not follow the directions that the board was pursuing on various issues such as the roofing system and the association’s relationship with the developer. It may be that Ms. Andzulis' approach on these issues is the better one. But refusing to seat a volunteer on the board after a vacancy because of a difference of opinion with the volunteer, no matter how valid or worthy the volunteer's opinion, is not sex discrimination. There was a valid, non-discriminatory basis for voting against Ms. Andzulis: she would approach issues facing the association differently from the voting board members. It was this valid non-discriminatory basis upon which the board voted not to accept Ms. Andzulis’ offer to fill the vacancy on the board in January of 1995. In short, Ms. Andzulis was not turned down by the board because of her gender.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby,
That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order concluding that the La Vita Condominium Association, through the action of its board or otherwise, did not commit a
discriminatory housing practice by refusing to allow Linda C. Andzulis to fill a vacancy on the association’s board of directors.
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1997.
Linda M. Skipper, Esquire Paul L. Wean, P.A.
1305 East Robinson Street, Suite C Orlando, Florida 32801
Linda C. Anzulis, pro se 546-202 Via Fontana Drive
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on
Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filled with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 10, 1998 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From a Discriminatory Housing Practice filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/18 & 19/97. |
| Mar. 14, 1997 | Letter to DMM from P. Mayer Re: Hearing for L. Andzulis` filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1997 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Feb. 27, 1997 | Letter to Ruth from Linda Andzulis (RE: enclosing documents for the Division files) filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1997 | (Plaintiff) Notice of Filing; (Linda Skipper) Affidavit of Service of Documents filed. |
| Feb. 18, 1997 | Case Status: Hearing Held 2/18/97. |
| Feb. 18, 1997 | (9) Subpoena Ad Testificandum (from L. Skipper); (9) Affidavit of Service filed. |
| Feb. 13, 1997 | Order sent out. (Petitioner`s motion to continue is denied) |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Letter to DMK from Linda Andzulis (RE: request for continuance) (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Respondent`s Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Response to Petitioner`s Letter Dated February 6, 1997 filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | (From L. Skipper) Response to Petitioner`s Request for Witness List filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | (Linda Skipper) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | CC: Letter to Linda Skipper from Linda Andzulis (RE: request for Respondent witness list); Letter to DMK from Linda Andzulis (RE: enclosing copies of documents not filed with the Division) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 10, 1997 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from L. Skipper); Affidavit of Service filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1997 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Quash filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1997 | Order sent out. (Petitioner`s motion to quash subpoena & request for protective order is denied) |
| Jan. 03, 1997 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Quash (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 30, 1996 | Letter to DMK from Linda Skipper (RE: response to subpoena) (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 23, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/18/97; 11:00 a.m.; Orlando) |
| Dec. 23, 1996 | Order sent out. (motion to dismiss denied) |
| Dec. 23, 1996 | (From L. Skipper) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1996 | Letter to DMK from Linda Andzulis (RE: request for information on telephone hearing) (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 15, 1996 | Letter to DOAH from Linda Anzulis (RE: unable to attend telephone hearing) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 31, 1996 | Letter to DOAH from Linda Andulis (RE: response to order to show cause) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 21, 1996 | Order to Show Cause sent out. (Petitioner to respond to Respondent`s motion to dismiss in 7 days) |
| Oct. 15, 1996 | (From L. Skipper) Notice of Appearance and Request for Documents filed. |
| Sep. 24, 1996 | (Respondent) Answer to Petition and Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1996 | (Respondent) Answer to Petition and Motion to Dismiss (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 11, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Transmittal of Petition; Housing Discrimination Complaint; Determination of No Reasonable Cause; Petition for Relief; Notice to Respondent of Filing of Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 04, 1998 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 01, 1997 | Recommended Order | Condominium board turned down association member's offer to serve as director because of her views, not because of her gender. |
