STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAULA ADAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09-1838

) LEAFORD AND DANETT GREEN, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

A formal hearing was scheduled to be held in this cause on August 4, 2009, before J. D. Parrish, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were to appear in Fort Pierce, Florida, at 1:00 p.m. A Notice of Hearing was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. Because the notices were not returned by the postal service as undelivered, it is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: No Appearance For Respondent: No Appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondents committed a housing discriminatory practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On April 13, 2009, the Florida Commission on Human Relations transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings a Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner, Paula Adams (Petitioner). The petition alleged that the Respondents, Leaford and Danett Green (Respondents), as owners of a rental property had violated provisions of Florida law related to unlawful housing practices.

The case was scheduled for formal hearing for August 4, 2009, and notice of the hearing was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. At the noticed time and place for the hearing, no party appeared. After waiting approximately thirty minutes for a party to appear or to contact the Division of Administrative Hearings to explain the delay in appearing, the hearing record was closed.

A transcript will not be filed in this cause. No documentary evidence was offered into evidence and no witnesses appeared to testify in this cause.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about January 20, 2009, the Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).

2. Pursuant to the Commission's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed that resulted in a

   Notice of Determination of No Cause. Essentially, the Commission found that based upon the allegations raised by the Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found the Respondents had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against the Respondents for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings.

4. The Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Notice of Hearing that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. The postal service did not return the notices as undelivered. It is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. No party appeared at the hearing.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

6. Under the Florida Fair Housing Act (the act) it is unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing. More specifically, Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2008), provides in part:

   (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.

   
   

7. In this matter, Petitioner bears the initial burden of proof to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Generally, once a complainant establishes membership in a protected class and proof that he or she was treated differently than others not in the class, the burden of proof then shifts requiring the offending party to articulate a nondiscriminatory motive or objective for the alleged discriminatory conduct. If, however, the complainant (in this case the Petitioner) fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the matter ends. See, e.g., National Industries, Inc. v. Commission on Human Relations, 527 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

8. Here neither party presented any evidence. In light of the Petitioner's failure to present evidence, she has failed to meet her initial burden of proof.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's claim of discrimination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of August, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Leaford Green Danett Green

3758 Southwest Findlay Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953

Paula Adams

Post Office Box 1665

Fort Pierce, Florida 34950

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Larry Kranert, 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: 09-001838

Orders for Case No: 09-001838