STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
CARLOS SANJURJO,
Petitioner,
V.
HUD Case No. 04-20-9694-8 FCHR No. 202022662
DOAH No. 20-4531
ALHAMBRA, No. 1, ASSOCIATION INC.; ACCESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; SOARING MANAGEMENT LLC; YVONNE KAMARA; AND JOHANNA JONES,
FCHR Order No. 21-056
Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
Preliminary Matters
On November 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a housing discrimination complaint pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 - 760.37, Florida Statutes (2019), alleging that Respondents committed discriminatory housing practices against Petitioner due to disability.
The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on September 11, 2020, the Executive Director issued a determination finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred.
On October 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.
The hearing was originally scheduled for December 21, 2020, but was continued twice due to Petitioner's medical conditions.
A final evidentiary hearing took place on April 27 and 29, 2021, and May 10 and 11, 2021, before Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, via Zoom conference.
On June 9, 2021, Judge Newton issued a Recommended Order, which would result in a dismissal of the Petition for Relief.
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
A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. In the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Recommended Order is the only evidence for the Commission to consider. See National Industries. Inc. v. Commission on Human Relations, et al., 527 So. 2d 894, at 897, 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accord, Coleman v. Daytona Beach, Ocean Center Parking Garage, FCHR Order No. 14-034 (September 10, 2014), Gantz, et al. v. Zion's Hope, Inc., d/b/a Holy
Filed August 23, 2021 12:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings
Land Experience, FCHR Order No. 11-048 (June 6, 2011), and Hall v. Villages of West Oaks HOA, FCHR Order No. 08-007 (January 14, 2008).
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact.
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 adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions of law.
Exceptions
Petitioner submitted to the Commission his Written Exceptions to the Recommended Order via email along with many attachments on June 24, 2021. However, Petitioner's exceptions provide his explanation of the facts and essentially take issue with inferences drawn from the evidence presented by the Administrative Law Judge in the Recommended Order.
As indicated, above, no transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was filed with the Commission.
In the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission is bound by the facts found in the Recommended Order, since there is no way for the Commission to determine the extent to which the facts found are supported by the testimony presented. See, e.g., Gainey v. Winn Dixie Stores. Inc., FCHR Order No. 07-054 (October 12, 2007), Herring v. Department of Corrections, FCHR Order No. 12-004 (February 21, 2012) and Holloman v. Lee Wesley Restaurants, d/b/a Burger King, FCHR Order No. 14-041 (October 9, 2014).
With regard to findings of fact set out in Recommended Orders, the Administrative Procedure Act states, "The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with the essential requirements of law [emphasis added]." Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes (2019). As indicated, above, in the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Recommended Order is the only evidence for the Commission to consider. See, National Industries, Inc., supra. Accord, Hall, supra, Jones v. Suwannee County School Board, FCHR Order No. 06-088 (September 11, 2006), Johnson v. Tree of Life. Inc., FCHR Order No 05-087 (July 12, 2005), Coleman, supra, and Gantz, supra.
Further, the Commission has stated, "It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge's function 'to consider all of the evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge's role to decide between them.' Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services, 21 F.A.L.R. 1735, at 1736 (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986)." Barr v. Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center, 22 F.A.L.R. 1729, at 1730 (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation, FCHR Order No. 05-135 (December 6,
2005) and Eaves v. IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC, FCHR Order No. 11-029 (March 17, 2011).
In addition, it has been stated, "The ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact." Florida Department of Communi ty Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205, at 1209 (Fla. P1 DCA 1991). Accord, Coley v. Bay Coun ty Board of County Commissioners, FCHR Order No. 10-027 (March 17, 2010) and Eaves, supra.
Finally, the Administrative Procedure Act states that, "The final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record." Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2018); see, also Taylor v. Universal Studios, FCHR Order No 14-007 (March 26, 2014), McNeil v. HealthPort Technologies, FCHR Order No. 12-026 (June 27, 20120, and Bartolone v. Best Western Hotels, FCHR Order No. 07-045 (August 24, 2007).
Petitioner's document did not identify the disputed portion of the Recommended Order by page number or paragraph, and did not identify the legal basis for the exceptions with appropriate and specific citations to the record, because a transcript was never filed.
Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions are rejected.
Dismissal
The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint 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 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110.
DONE AND ORDERED this J.iday of A , 2021. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUl'-TTlELATIONS:
Filed this J.i day of
Commissioner Darrick McGhee, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Libby Farmer; and
4,,.,;;r- ,
Commissioner Angela Primiano
2021, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Commissi on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 488-7082
Copies furnished to:
Carlos Sanjurjo
4539 Tower Pine Road Orlando, Florida 32839
Alhambra, No. 1, Association, Inc., et. al. c/o Ms. Cynthia M. Dennen, Esquire
c/o Ms. Kimberly A. Hendee, Esquire Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1210
Tampa, Florida 33602
John D. C. Newton, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH Sarah Stewart, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel
I HEREBY; § RTIFY that a opy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed
addressees this day of+ t,14 ::::_ , 2021.
Florida Commission on Human Relations
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 19, 2021 | Agency Final Order | FCHROrderNo. 21-056 Page2 
Land Experience, FCHR Order No. 11-048 (June 6, 2011), and Hall v. Villages of West Oaks HOA, FCHR Order No. 08-007 (January 14, 2008). 
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact. 
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 adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions of law. 
Exceptions 
Petitioner submitted to the Commission his Written Exceptions to the Recommended Order via email along with many attachments on June 24, 2021. However, Petitioner's exceptions provide his explanation of the facts and essentially take issue with inferences drawn from the evidence presented by the Administrative Law Judge in the Recommended Order. 
As indicated, above, no transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was filed with the Commission. 
In the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Commission is bound by the facts found in the Recommended Order, since there is no way for the Commission to determine the extent to which the facts found are supported by the testimony presented. See, e.g., Gainey v. Winn Dixie Stores. Inc., FCHR Order No. 07-054 (October 12, 2007), Herring v. Department of Corrections, FCHR Order No. 12-004 (February 21, 2012) and Holloman v. Lee Wesley Restaurants, d/b/a Burger King, FCHR Order No. 14-041 (October 9, 2014). 
With regard to findings of fact set out in Recommended Orders, the Administrative Procedure Act states, "The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with the essential requirements of law [emphasis added]." Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes (2019). As indicated, above, in the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Recommended Order is the only evidence for the Commission to consider. See, National Industries, Inc., supra. Accord, Hall, supra, Jones v. Suwannee County School Board, FCHR Order No. 06-088 (September 11, 2006), Johnson v. Tree of Life, Inc., FCHR Order No 05-087 (July 12, 2005), Coleman, supra, and Gantz, supra. 
Further, the Commission has stated, "It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge's function 'to consider all ofthe evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge's role to decide between them.' Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services, 21 F.A.L.R. 1735, at 1736 (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986)." Barr v. Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center, 22 F.A.L.R. 1729, at 1730 (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation, FCHR Order No. 05-135 (December 6, FCHR Order No. 21-056 Page 3 
2005) and Eaves v. IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC, FCHR Order No. 11-029 (March 17, 2011). In addition, it has been stated, "The ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact." Florida Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205, at 
P1
1209 (Fla. DCA 1991). Accord, Coley v. Bay County Board of County Commissioners, FCHR Order No. 10-027 (March 17, 2010) and Eaves, supra. 
Finally, the Administrative Procedure Act states that, "The final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record." Section 120.57(1 )(k), Florida Statutes (2018); see, also Taylor 
v. Universal Studios, FCHR Order No 14-007 (March 26, 2014), McNeil v. HealthPort Technologies, FCHR Order No. 12-026 (June 27, 20120, and Bartolone v. Best Western Hotels, FCHR Order No. 07-045 (August 24, 2007). 
Petitioner's document did not identify the disputed portion of the Recommended Order by page number or paragraph, and did not identify the legal basis for the exceptions with appropriate and specific citations to the record, because a transcript was never filed. 
Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions are rejected. 
Dismissal 
The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint 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 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110. 
DONEANDORDEREDthisl.idayof A~ ,2021. 
FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUl"iRELATIONS: 
Commissioner Darrick McGhee, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Libby Farmer; and Commissioner Angela Primiano 
Filed this J.iday of 4~ ,2021, in Tallahassee, Florida. 
Commissi on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850) 488-7082 FCHROrderNo. 21-056 Page4 
Copies furnished to: 
Carlos Sanjmjo 4539 Tower Pine Road Orlando, Florida 32839 
Alhambra, No. 1, Association, Inc., et. al. c/o Ms. Cynthia M. Dennen, Esquire c/o Ms. Kimberly A. Hendee, Esquire Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1210 Tampa, Florida 33602 
John D. C. Newton, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH 
Sarah Stewart, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel 
I HEREBY !§RTIFY that a opy ofthe foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this day of -+-~~~::::.___, 2021. 
~krk49J;.~ 
Florida Commission on Human Relations |
| Jun. 09, 2021 | Recommended Order | Petitioner proved disability from stroke. Petitioner proved home owner association generally slow to address problems. Petitioner did not prove that delay in repairs was because of his disability. |
