STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS

SHARON L. GARRATT,

Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 2014-00050

v. No. 14-2815

BEST WESTERN PLUS, OAKLAND PARK INN,

FCHR Order No. 15-020

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITIO N FOR

RELIE F AN UNLAWFUL PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS PRACTIC E

Preliminary Matters

Petitioner Sharon L. Garratt filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 509.092 and 760.01 - Florida Statutes

alleging that Respondent Best Western Plus, Oakland Park Inn, committed an unlawful public accommodations practice on the basis of Petitioner's handicap / disability by denying Petitioner an accessible room.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on May 20, 2014, the Executive Director issued a determination finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful public accommodations practice had occurred.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida, and by telephone from Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, on October 3, before Administrative Law Judge James H. Peterson, III.

Judge Peterson issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated January 6,

The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.

Findings of Fact

We find the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact to be supported by competent substantial evidence.

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact.

Filed March 26, 2015 4:28 PM Division of Administrative Hearings

Conclusions of Law

We find the Administrative Law Judge's application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter.

We find this case very troublesome.

We note that the Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent had closed all its wheelchair accessible "handicap" rooms for renovation. Recommended Order, 5. In our view, this action could be viewed as an unlawful public accommodations practice, since "[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this chapter, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion". See, Section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2014).

However we also note that the Administrative Law Judge found that Petitioner's spouse did not reserve a wheelchair-accessible room, but rather reserved only "standard" rooms on a website "not affiliated with" Respondent, requesting that one of the rooms be wheelchair-accessible. Recommended Order, 3 and 4. The Administrative Law Judge found, "There is no evidence presented, however, that Petitioner was ever guaranteed or promised that a wheelchair-accessible room would be available at the Hotel on the date of their reservations."

It has been concluded that a male complainant could not be discriminated against by accessibility defects in the women's restroom at a hotel. v. Inc., 2012 WL 750756 (M.D. 2012). Under this reasoning, it is difficult to see how a person who reserved a "standard" room could be discriminated against by the nonexistence of wheelchair-accessible "handicap" rooms. In addition, since such a room was not guaranteed Petitioner, even i f wheelchair-accessible "handicap" rooms existed, it is still possible that such a room would not have been available i f the rooms were filled by the time Petitioner had arrived at the hotel.

We recognize that even i f we found that an unlawful public accommodations practice occurred in this matter there is no evidence in the record to support a monetary award to Petitioner that the Commission would have jurisdiction to order. On the facts of this case, and taking into account the position set out by Petitioner in Petitioner's exceptions document described in the "Exceptions" section of this Order, below, we will not disturb the disposition reached by the Administrative Law Judge.

To the extent they are consistent with our above comments, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions of law.

Exceptions

Petitioner filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order in a document received by the Commission on or about January 20,

The content of the document does not really except to the Recommended Order.

Petitioner's exceptions document states, "The Petitioner believed that the Respondent Hotel had deceived the wheelchair public by closing its accessability (sic) rooms pending a much later planned renovation. The Petitioner had fair opportunity to present evidence at an impartial hearing and failed to prove the case in law. The ADA upgrade has now been completed, therefore with due respect to all concerned the Petitioner accepts the judges (sic) decision as written based on findings of fact and his conclusions of law."

In addition, the document states, "The purpose of this filing is not to dispute [the Administrative Law Judge's] findings in law, but to offer an account of Petitioner's experience and more importantly - refute Respondent's allegations that the Petitioner's complaint was frivilous (sic), unreasonable or without foundation."

As indicated above, to us this is a troublesome case. Based on our comments in the Conclusions of Law section of this order, we conclude that Petitioner's complaint is not frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.

Dismissal

The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right to appeal is found in Section Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:

Commissioner Michael Keller, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Rebecca Steele; and

Commissioner Billy Whitefox Stall

in Tallahassee, Florida.

Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room Tallahassee, FL 32399

Copies furnished to:

Sharon L. Garratt

Highway 97 South, Unit 72

Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada 2Z1

Best Western Plus, Oakland Park Inn c/o John S. Andrews, Esq.

Law Offices of John S. Andrews, A. Northeast Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL

James H. Peterson, III, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copvof the foregoing has been mailed to the above

Clerk of the

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Docket for Case No: 14-002815

Orders for Case No: 14-002815