This case came before Administrative Law Judge Eleanor M. Hunter as scheduled on January 19, 2010, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida.
For Petitioner: Rosa M. Cabrera, pro se
Whether Petitioner was subjected to housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
On September 17, 2009, Petitioner filed a complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging discrimination by Respondent. Petitioner alleged that she was treated differently by the manager of her apartment complex due to her national origin, Puerto Rican. The matter was referred to the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), which investigated the complaint and, on November 10, 2009, issued a Determination: No Cause, meaning it found no reason to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. Petitioner disagreed with the FCHR's determination and filed a Petition for Relief. On December 2, 2009, the case was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an administrative law judge to be assigned to conduct a de novo hearing.
At the hearing, which was scheduled for and held on January 19, 2010, Petitioner testified on her own behalf. Respondent was represented by and presented testimony of its property manager, Monica Londono. Petitioner filed a post- hearing Summary of Hearing with Exhibits on February 15, 2010. There was no transcript of the hearing.
Petitioner Rosa M. Cabrera is of Puerto Rican descent and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons protected from
discrimination based on national origin under the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, (2009). On September 17, 2009, she filed a complaint for housing discrimination against the management of Costa del Sol,
LLC.
Respondent, Monica Londono, is employed by Morgan
Whitney, Inc., the company that manages Costa del Sol, a sixteen-unit apartment complex at 7425 Byron Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141.
Ms. Cabrera lived at Costa del Sol for 4 years. In her complaint, she alleged discrimination in the conditions and services provided to her as a tenant based on her national origin.
The Housing Authority of Miami Beach inspected Ms.
Cabrera's unit annually as required for units subsidized under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, also known as Section 8. On March 23, 2009, a notice was mailed to Ms. Cabrera to inform her that her annual inspection was scheduled for April 10, 2009, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Cabrera was not there, on April 10, 2009, when the inspector arrived, so a door handle notice and a letter mailed the same day notified her that the inspection was rescheduled for April 13, 2009. About the same time, Ms. Cabrera said she had trouble with her hot water heater.
On April 13, 2009, the unit failed inspection. The inspector found that a bedroom air conditioner was not cooling properly, that a sink stopper was missing, and that a closet door mirror was cracked. A re-inspection was scheduled for May 11, 2009.
On April 22, 2009, Ms. Cabrera was offended and apparently turned away, what she said was, a group of six people who came to make repairs without giving her prior notice. On May 11, 2009, the same defects were noted and, on May 29, 2009, the Housing Authority abated the rent and terminated its contract for the unit with Costa Del Sol effective June 30, 2009.
Ms. Cabrera was scheduled to meet her Section 8 case worker, Housing Authority Specialist Felipe Roloff, to "start the moving process" at 4:00 p.m., on June 5, 2009. Ms. Cabrera did not keep the appointment and it was rescheduled for June 16, 2009. On June 9, 2009, however, an "abate-cure" inspection was conducted and the unit passed.
On July 21 and 23, 2009, Ms. Cabrera contacted
Mr. Roloff to tell him that her refrigerator was not working and the landlord was given 24 hours to repair or replace it. When a handyman came alone to make repairs, Ms. Cabrera was afraid to let him in her apartment fearing sexual battery. So Ms. Londono accompanied the handyman when they attempted to deliver a
refrigerator. They were unable to exchange the refrigerators because Ms. Cabrera had changed the locks without giving the manager a new key a violation of the terms of her lease, and she would not unlock the door. Ms. Cabrera's son arrived home at the same time and he also did not have a new key. At his suggestion, the refrigerator was left in the hallway for him to exchange it with the one in Ms. Cabrera's apartment later. Ms. Cabrera claimed, without any supporting evidence, that Ms.
Londono publicly embarrassed her by calling her a "fucking Puerto Rican bitch" and a "ridiculous old lady." Ms. Londono, who is also of Puerto Rican descent, denied the allegation.
Someone, Ms. Londono believes it was Ms. Cabrera, called the Miami Beach Code Compliance Division, to report that the refrigerator was left in the hallway and it was hauled away as household waste. Ms. Cabrera said the refrigerator left in the hallway was in poor condition. Ms. Londono, according to Ms. Cabrera, called the police and accused her of stealing the refrigerator. There is no supporting evidence of their accusations and suspicions about each other.
When she finally got a replacement refrigerator, Ms. Cabrera said it was missing one of the crisper drawers. Ms. Cabrera believed she was being discriminated against in receiving poor services and also when Ms. Londono required her
to move a plant from the hallway, but did not make another tenant move his motorcycle from the area where it was parked.
Ms. Londono notified Mr. Roloff of Ms. Cabrera's lack of cooperation, and that she intended to collect August rent and to withhold a portion of the security deposit to cover the cost of the missing refrigerator. On August 5, 2009, the Housing Authority issued to Ms. Cabrera a Notice of Termination of Housing Assistance effective September 30, 2009. The Notice cited her failure to allow the landlord to enter to make necessary repairs and her failure to report the income of her son who was living with her. When the rent was not paid on August 5, 2009, Ms. Londono delivered a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate to Ms. Cabrera's unit.
Ms. Cabrera did not vacate. Eviction proceedings were begun in September. Ms. Cabrera was evicted on November 22, 2009.
After Ms. Cabrera moved the report of the inspection of the unit indicated that, among other damage, it was infested with fleas, supporting Ms. Londono's previous claim that
Ms. Cabrera was leaving her window open to allow cats to come and feed in her unit, in violation of Section 8 rules.
Ms. Cabrera's claim of discrimination based on national origin is not supported by the evidence.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsections 120.57(1) and 760.35(3), Florida Statutes (2009).
Under the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, it is unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing. Section 760.23, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant 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.
In interpreting and applying the Florida Fair Housing Act, the FCHR and Florida courts regularly seek guidance from federal court decisions interpreting similar provisions of federal fair housing laws.
In cases involving a claim of housing discrimination, the complainant has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of evidence. See U.S. v.
California Mobile Home Park Mgmt., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1977); Schantz v, Village Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784m 791 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
The three-part "burden-of-proof" test developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), governs in this case. Under that test: first, the plaintiff [Petitioner] 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). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Blackwell, 908 F. 2d 864, 872 (11th Cir. 1990).
In this case, Petitioner's prima facie case must have demonstrated her status as a member of a protected minority group, and that Respondent discriminated against her based on that status.
Petitioner proved that her national origin, Puerto Rican, is a protected group.
Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against her in the terms, conditions or privileges
of her rental unit, or in the provision of services to her national origin.
Failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination ends the inquiry. See Ratliff v. State, 666 So. 2d 1008, 1013, n.7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) aff'd 679 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1996).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Face and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief be denied.
DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ELEANOR M. HUNTER
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2010.
Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Rosa M. Cabrera
7851 Northeast 10th Avenue, Apt. 26
Monica Londono Morgan Whitney, Inc. Costa del Sol, LLC
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.
