STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LARRY WILLIAMS AND MONICA WILLIAMS,

Petitioners,

vs.

OCALA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 03-1627

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge Don W. Davis of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) held a final hearing in this matter on August 19, 2003, in Ocala, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Larry Williams, pro se

Monica Williams, pro se Post Office Box 01322 Miami, Florida 33101-3221

For Respondent: David E. Midgett, Esquire

Ocala Housing Authority

2800 East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 205

Ocala, Florida 34470 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners have been subjected to illegal discriminatory treatment by Respondent in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioners filed a complaint, dated October 19, 2002, with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The complaint alleged that Respondent has subjected Petitioners to an unfair housing practice. The complaint was subsequently referred to the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) by HUD.

The matter was investigated by FCHR and, on March 24, 2003, the result was filed with that agency's clerk: Determination of No Reasonable Cause.

On April 29, 2003, Petitioners filed a Petition for Relief with the FCHR. The case was forwarded to DOAH for the conduct of formal proceedings on May 5, 2003.

During the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of three witness and two exhibits. Respondent presented testimony of two witnesses and no exhibits. No transcript of the proceeding was provided.

Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order which has been reviewed and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Petitioners did not file any post-hearing submission.

All citations are to Florida Statutes (2002) unless otherwise indicated.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioners' complaint, which was dismissed by FCHR on March 24, 2003, resulted from a Housing Discrimination Complaint dual-filed with FCHR and HUD.

2. Petitioners seek to become landlords under the Federal government's Section 8 Program, administered in the Ocala area by Respondent. It is the responsibility of Respondent to receive applications from owners of properties, like Petitioners, who are willing to rent those properties to economically adversely-affected individuals. Respondent then inspects the properties and determines a rental allowance or the amount of supplemental Federal money to be paid the landowner for the rental of a specific property, thereby allowing the economically deprived person a place to live.

3. Petitioners claim that Respondent has discriminated against them by refusing to allow Petitioners to participate in the Section 8 program; specifically, by not making reasonable rent determinations and delaying inspections which are preliminary to a determination of a rental rate.

4. Petitioners did not offer evidence of any specific acts of race-based discrimination.

5. Nor did Petitioners cite any specific information concerning disparate treatment of landlords in the Section 8 program based on race. Further, Petitioners were unable to cite any statistical information that could reasonably lead to the

   inference that Respondent engaged in wide-spread discrimination. Petitioners’ race-based claims were not supported by any specific information about disparate treatment by Respondent.

6. Petitioners contested the amount of rent which Respondent determined to be applicable to the subject property. As long as the amount of rent was contested, Respondent could not make a rent determination for the Petitioners' properties.

7. A letter to Petitioners from Respondent, dated October 9, 2002, provided Petitioners with notice that Respondent had been advised by its attorney that it could not make a rent determination while the HUD complaint was pending.

   The letter further stated that should Petitioners withdraw their complaint, their application would be processed.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 120.57(1) and Chapter 760.

9. The standard of review in determining violations of the Florida Fair Housing Act is set forth in Section 760.35(3)(a)(2)(b), and provides in pertinent part that:

   If the administrative law judge finds that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, he or she shall issue a recommended order to the commission prohibiting the practice and recommending affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including quantifiable damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

10. Petitioners’ original complaint generally cites Chapter 760 as the basis for relief. Of particular application to the facts of this case are Section 760.23 (1), (2), (4) and

    (5) and Section 760.37 which read as follows:

    
    

    760.23 Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices. —

    
    

    1. It is unlawful to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion.

       
       

    2. It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion.

    
    

    ***

    
    

    1. It is unlawful to represent to any person because of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

       
       

    2. It is unlawful, for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by a representation regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion.

    
    

    760.37 Interference, coercion, or intimidation; enforcement by administrative or civil action. —

    It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise of, or on account of her or his having exercised, or on account of her or his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise of any right granted under ss. 760.20-760.37. This section may be enforced by appropriate administrative or civil action.

    
    

11. The Florida Fair Housing Act is modeled on the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968. Therefore, it is appropriate to follow the legal framework developed by the Federal courts in discrimination cases brought under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

    Under the Federal discrimination test:

    
    

    First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.

    
    

    Second, if the plaintiff sufficiently establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to ‘articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ for its action. Third, if the defendant satisfies this burden, the plaintiff has the opportunity to prove by a preponderance that the legitimate reasons asserted by the defendant are in fact mere pretext.--Pollitt

    v. Bramel, 669 F. Supp. 172, 175 (S.D. Ohio

    1987) (Fair Housing Act claim) (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 804, 93

    S.Ct. at 1824, 1825) (citations omitted).

    
    

12. Applying the foregoing standards to the facts of this case, it is apparent that Petitioners failed to meet the initial burden. While they showed they are African-American,

    Petitioners showed no violation of the relevant statutes by the Respondent. Petitioners showed no disparate treatment and no overt discrimination.

13. Even if Petitioners had met their initial burden, Respondent offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations for all of its actions, which were not shown by Petitioners to be merely pretextual. While Respondent's letter to Petitioners dated October 9, 2002, could have been better crafted and provided a more in-depth explanation for Respondent's refusal to proceed with processing of Petitioners' application, the letter does not rise to the level of coercion claimed by Petitioners. Respondent's position was simply that it was good business practice not to process the application of a landlord when the property in question was the subject of a HUD complaint over the amount of rent allowable. Petitioners have failed to meet the required standard of showing race-based discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DON W. DAVIS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

David E. Midgett, Esquire Ocala Housing Authority

2800 East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 205

Ocala, Florida 34470

Larry Williams Monica Williams

Post Office Box 01322 Miami, Florida 33101-3221

Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

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 filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 03-001627

Orders for Case No: 03-001627