The Issue Whether Petitioner received notice of the March 29, 2006, Notice of Hearing that complied with the legal requirements for being provided notice.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing which scheduled the hearing for March 29, 2006, was issued on February 14, 2006. There is nothing on the docket that indicates that the Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable.1/ Michelle Girard-Smith is employed as a receptionist at McLin & Burnsed, P.A., located at 1000 West Main Street, Leesburg, Florida. This is the address on the Notice of Hearing which set the hearing for March 29, 2006. According to Ms. Girard-Smith, Petitioner came to the hearing location on Wednesday, March 22, 2006, one week earlier than the scheduled date for the hearing. Petitioner had the Notice of Hearing in his hand and showed it to Ms. Girard-Smith. She pulled out the conference room calendar and noted that the calendar showed the conference room was scheduled for the hearing on Wednesday, March 29. She pointed out to Petitioner that he was there a week early. While Petitioner acknowledges that he arrived at the hearing location on a date earlier than the scheduled day, he asserts that he arrived on Friday, March 24, 2006. He also asserts that he went back to the hearing location one week later on Friday, March 31, 2006. The undersigned finds the testimony of Ms. Girard-Smith to be more persuasive. She was certain that Petitioner had the Notice of Hearing in his hand when he arrived on March 22, 2006, and that she showed him that he was one week early. Petitioner received actual notice of the March 29, 2006, hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Public Accommodation Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 18th day of September, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioners based on race regarding the renting of a house.
Findings Of Fact LM Rentals owns 80 houses, which it rents. Mr. Peeples manages LM Rentals. LM Rentals contracts with Vantage to provide management of the rental properties, and Ms. Mossow is employed by Vantage. LM Rentals rented a house to the Odoms for approximately eight years, beginning in 2003. Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mr. Odom is White and is not a Native American. No evidence was presented to establish that either anyone from LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow was aware that Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mrs. Odom's physical appearance, her speech, and her surname could reasonably lead one to think that she is not a Native American. Her appearance would lead one to believe that she is White. The application which the Odoms filled out to rent the house did not require the Odoms to state their race. Mrs. Odom never informed employees of LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow that she is a Native American. Mrs. Odom claims that her children have darker skin than she, and, therefore, Ms. Mossow and employees of LM Rentals should have known that she is a Native American by looking at her children. However, no testimony was presented that Ms. Mossow or anyone from LM Rentals ever met Mrs. Odom's children prior to the filing of the discrimination complaint. Ms. Mossow did not meet any of Mrs. Odom's children until a short time before the final hearing when she delivered copies of exhibits to the Odoms' home. Mr. Peeples, the representative of LM Rentals, did not meet the Odoms' children and never met the Odoms until a few days before the final hearing. The house which the Odoms rented from LM Rentals developed a mold problem. Instead of bringing the mold problem to the attention of Ms. Mossow or anyone at LM Rentals, the Odoms contacted the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), which sent an environmental specialist to investigate the mold situation in January 2010. LM Rentals received a letter from the Health Department concerning the mold. LM Rentals hired a third-party testing company to test the house for mold. The coils on the air conditioner were replaced. The Odoms were not satisfied and requested that Ms. Mossow find them another rental house in the same school district in which they currently resided. LM Rentals has an average vacancy rate of five percent, which equates to about four houses at any given time. At the time that the Odoms requested to be relocated, there was only one house vacant in the school district which the Odoms wanted. The Odoms did not like the house and refused to relocate. Mrs. Odom claims that there were other houses available, but could not point to any specific house. Her claim is based on sheer speculation. The Odoms requested that the carpet be replaced, but, based on the tests of the third-party testing company, LM Rentals refused to do so. About the time they were having the mold problems, the Odoms' daughter was suspended from school. Mrs. Odom attributes the suspension to discrimination by Respondents. Mrs. Odom called, as a witness, the teacher who made the referral which resulted in Mrs. Odom's daughter being suspended. The teacher did not know Ms. Mossow and did not know Mr. Peeples. The teacher, who is also an attorney, was not sure if she had ever represented LM Rentals in the past as an attorney. The suspension was totally unrelated to any mold problems and any alleged discrimination. Mrs. Odom also claims that her son was arrested for disorderly conduct about the time of the mold problem, and she lays the arrest at the door of Respondents. Her rationale for her claim is that the arrest happened at the time they were dealing with the mold issues and that LM Rentals knew people. There is not a scintilla of evidence to connect the arrest of the Odoms' son to any actions by Respondents. In April 2010, during the period in which the mold was an issue, a code enforcement inspector saw a small grill on the Odoms' driveway, which was apparently a code violation. The inspector told the Odoms that the grill needed to be removed. LM Rentals received a letter from the code enforcement department stating that LM Rentals would be fined if the violation was not corrected. Ms. Mossow contacted the Odoms in an attempt to get the grill removed in order to avoid being fined. Mrs. Odom claims that Ms. Mossow and LM Rentals caused the code enforcement inspector to come to the Odoms' home and ask that the grill be removed. Mrs. Odom's claim is without merit. It is unlikely that Ms. Mossow or LM Rentals would request a code enforcement inspector to find a code violation which would result in LM Rentals, as owner of the property, being fined. No evidence was presented to show that Respondents treated non-minorities any differently than the Odoms were treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Lawrence and Candace Odom's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to unlawful discrimination in a public accommodation by Respondent, as alleged in the Amended Public Accommodation Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on July 30, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rungvichit Yongmahapakorn, was hired by Respondent as an internal auditor in December 1998, then was promoted to vice president of accounting and finance in April 1999. While she worked for Respondent, Petitioner was provided room and board at the hotel. Her employment was terminated by Respondent on May 30, 2003. The circumstances of her termination are not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, Amtel Group of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Ramada at Amtel Marina, owns and operates a 24-story full service hotel in downtown Fort Myers, Florida, overlooking the Caloosahatchee River. The hotel offers over 400 rooms and suites to guests. Petitioner testified that in May 2003, she visited her native Thailand. She returned to Fort Myers on June 3, 2003, and proceeded to Respondent's hotel, where she learned of her termination. Petitioner testified that the notice of her termination was posted on the door of Room 411, a room dedicated to staff of the hotel in which she had lived for several months. The notice also informed her that she must vacate the hotel's premises immediately. Having nowhere else to go and wishing to have some time to assess her options, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to stay as a paying guest of the hotel. She also complained of mildew in Room 411 and asked for a different room. Hotel staff showed her Room 1621, a non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. The standard rate for this suite was $129.00 per night. During the month of June, the rate actually charged for this room ranged from $89.00 to $119.00, depending on demand. Petitioner rejected Room 1621 claiming that the furniture was dirty and scratched, and the carpet needed cleaning. Ginger Eodice, director of Housekeeping for the hotel, personally cleaned the room. Petitioner did not approve of Ms. Eodice's work. Hotel staff then showed Petitioner Room 1613, another non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. Petitioner claimed that the window screens in this room were dirty and demanded that hotel staff show her another room. Petitioner was told that she could have her choice of Rooms 411, 1621, and 1613. Ms. Eodice testified that all three of the rooms were up to Ramada standards of cleanliness and in good repair. Rooms 1621 and 1613 were provided without incident or complaint to hotel guests before and after Petitioner's stay in the hotel. Petitioner refused to select a room. She was upset and became increasingly loud in the hotel lobby. Hotel staff attempted to mollify her in order not to create a scene in front of other guests, but Petitioner would not calm down. Den Chinsomboon, who was then a manager at the hotel, told Petitioner that she had to choose a room or be escorted from the hotel property. Petitioner continued her tirade, and Mr. Chinsomboon ordered a front desk employee to call the Fort Myers Police Department. The police arrived and told Petitioner that she had to select a room or leave the premises. Petitioner then calmed down and chose to stay in Room 1613. Petitioner paid in advance for ten days' stay in the room totaling $646.10. Upon her checkout on June 12, 2003, Petitioner received a full refund of $646.10 from the hotel. No witness offered any first-hand explanation for the low rate charged or the reason for the full refund. Kevin Matney, the hotel manager who made these decisions, no longer works for Respondent and did not testify at the final hearing. Petitioner testified that, while she was a guest in Room 1613, the hotel's engineering staff used pass keys to enter the room without her permission. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that the engineering staff came to the room at her request to change a light bulb, but she still maintained that they entered without knocking. Several staff members testified that Ramada's firm policy was for staff to knock twice on a guest's door before using the pass key to enter. Petitioner offered no evidence that hotel staff discriminated against her because she was Asian, Thai, or because she was female. The evidence established that the hotel's owners are Thai, as were several other employees at the time. She contended that Mr. Chinsomboon's actions were motivated by the "normal" Thai male's tendency to discriminate against Thai females, but offered no firm evidence to support this bare assertion. Petitioner attempted to show that two white male employees were treated differently after their employment was terminated. At most, Petitioner was able to show that one of these terminated employees was later allowed to hire out the hotel's banquet facilities for a wedding reception. This can hardly be termed disparate treatment, given that Petitioner was allowed to stay at the hotel without charge for ten days after she was terminated. Petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment in the fact that the hotel summoned the police to evict her because she complained about the condition of the rooms she was offered. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent's employees called the police because Petitioner was causing a disturbance and was refusing to select a room. Once Petitioner selected a room, she stayed at the hotel for nine nights without further incident and was not charged for her stay. The evidence established that Petitioner had lived at the hotel since 1998 without complaining about the cleanliness or general repair of her rooms. The evidence established that Petitioner was irate over her termination and that her anger caused her to make unreasonable demands regarding the conditions of the rooms. Hotel staff attempted to satisfy Petitioner's demands, if only to prevent a loud confrontation in the hotel's lobby. There was no credible evidence that any employee of the hotel behaved in a manner that could be termed discriminatory against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by revoking an accommodation which allowed Petitioner to have a support dog in his condominium on the alleged ground that the support dog presents a health hazard for Petitioner’s neighboring condominium resident.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a resident owner of a condominium in Embassy House Condominiums (Embassy House). Embassy House is a covered, multifamily dwelling unit within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(2). Petitioner’s condominium is a dwelling defined in Subsection 760.22(4). Respondent is the entity responsible for implementing the rules and regulations of the condominium association. Relevant rules and regulations prohibit residents from keeping dogs in their condominiums. Sometime after July 17, 2008, Respondent granted Petitioner’s written request to keep a support dog in his condominium as an accommodation based on Petitioner’s handicap. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner is a handicapped person within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(7). Petitioner’s handicap includes cancer and depression. After Respondent granted permission for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium, Petitioner purchased a small dog that weighs less than 15 pounds. Respondent now proposes to revoke permission for Petitioner to keep the support dog. The sole grounds for the proposed revocation is that the female resident of the condominium adjacent to Petitioner’s, identified in the record as Ms. Madeline O’Connell, allegedly is allergic to pet dander. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the support dog presents a health hazard to Ms. O’Connell. Neither Ms. O’Connell nor her physician, who is not identified in the record, testified. The admitted “sole basis” of Respondent’s position is a note from an unidentified, alleged physician that Respondent did not submit for admission into evidence. Respondent identified the note through the testimony of a lay witness, but never submitted the note for admission into evidence. The lay witness for Respondent identified the note as the note provided to him by Ms. O’Connell. The remainder of the testimony of the lay witness consists of statements by Ms. O’Connell to the lay witness concerning the alleged allergy of Ms. O’Connell. If the evidence were to show that Ms. O’Connell is allergic to pet dander, the support dog is a breed that does not have dander. The support dog is hypoallergenic. If the evidence were to show that the support dog were not hypoallergenic, adequate measures have been implemented to protect Ms. O’Connell from any threat to her health. The air conditioning vents that feed cool air from Petitioner’s condominium into the common lobby for the two condominium units have been sealed. The interior of the condominium units are cooled by separate air conditioning units. The trier of fact finds the paucity of testimony concerning the alleged health hazard to Ms. O’Connell to be less than credible and persuasive. Ms. O’Connell makes no effort to protect herself from exposure to the support dog. On at least three occasions, Ms. O’Connell voluntarily exposed herself to the support dog to make confrontational comments to Petitioner about the support dog.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order upholding the Petition for Relief and dismissing the proposed revocation of the accommodation for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents, Liang Jian and Doinghui Lee (Owners), discriminated against Petitioner, Gabriel Sauers (Sauers), through actions of the Owners’ representative, Joseph Palmer (Palmer), on the basis of Sauers' purported handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Sauers is a young Caucasian male with purported disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, Oppositional Defiance Disorder, and others. He is a high school graduate, having received his education in an exceptional student education class. Sauers did not testify as to whether he is currently employed. He receives food stamps and Supplemental Security Income from the Social Security Administration. That income appears to be his sole means of support. The Owners (who did not appear at the final hearing) are Asians. The property at issue (referred to herein as the Apartments) is a multi-family residential building located at 419 North Wild Olive Avenue. At all times relevant hereto, Sauers was residing in Apartment #7, an efficiency apartment. In October 2012, Sauers rented a one-bedroom apartment from the Owners. Palmer was the manager of the Apartments and handled the negotiations with Sauers for the apartment. After a short time living in the apartment, Sauers asked to rent the efficiency apartment instead of the apartment he had originally leased. There was a difference of about $100 per month in rent between the two apartments. On or about November 1, 2012, Sauers moved into the efficiency apartment, i.e., Apartment #7. Sauers had inspected the apartment and did not list any concerns on his written lease agreement. After living for a short time in the efficiency, Sauers asked for a different refrigerator because the one in the efficiency was too small. He asked that the refrigerator from his prior apartment be moved down to the efficiency or that one be purchased for the efficiency as a replacement. Palmer told Sauers that he (Sauers) could purchase a refrigerator and Palmer would give him a $100 credit on his rent. Sauers never purchased a refrigerator and Palmer did not take any further action on Sauers’ request. While living in the efficiency, Sauers heard loud music being played in one of the other apartments on a regular basis. Sauers’ efficiency was in a building other than where the other apartments were located, but it was in close proximity. Sauers also reported seeing drug transactions taking place around the Apartments. He reported his findings to Palmer, but Palmer just told him to call the police. Sauers called the police on multiple occasions. Sauers had arguments and disagreements with other residents residing in the apartment complex. He admitted that his psychological conditions caused him to argue with other residents from time to time, but said he was singled out by some residents. Sauers raised complaints about the presence of palmetto bugs and roaches in his efficiency. However, the entire complex was under an extermination contract and Ryan’s Pest Control came out regularly to spray for insects. Some invoices and statements from Ryan’s were offered into evidence, but Sauers maintains they only address a few days of his residence at the Apartments. It is likely there were bugs in the efficiency; it is also true that Palmer and the Owners attempted to minimize the problem by having regular pest control service. The stove/oven in the efficiency was improperly grounded when Sauers moved in. He received several electrical shocks when touching the stove. Palmer was made aware of the problem and contracted with Parks Electric Company to remedy the situation. On April 25, 2013, the stove was rewired to alleviate the electrical problem. The Owners had a policy in place that tenants would pay their rent by way of a certified check or money order. Sauers often requested and was allowed to pay in cash. Sauers complained frequently to Palmer about the condition of the efficiency, the dangerous environment around the apartment complex, and other real or imagined problems. Sauers’ father, who helped Sauers move into the apartment complex and notified Palmer about some of Sauers’ disabilities, agreed that the area around the Apartments seemed unsafe. The father, a large man, was accosted on one of his visits to the Apartment, by some unknown person. Sometimes Sauers’ mother would call Palmer to ask questions or raise concerns. She was never able to reach him via telephone, but Palmer returned her calls--to Sauers’ father’s phone--on many occasions. It is abundantly clear that Sauers and Palmer do not get along well. When Sauers was absent from his apartment for several weeks in the summer of 2013, Palmer assumed that the efficiency had been abandoned. He placed a three-day notice on the door of the efficiency, telling Sauers he had to pay the rent which was due or that eviction proceedings would be commenced. When notified that Sauers did not plan to return to the apartment, Palmer went in--only to find that the efficiency was filthy and required significant cleaning. Sauers claims discrimination on the part of the Owners because Palmer had asked him to vacate the apartment at one point in time. The suggestion, made by Palmer, was based on Palmer’s perception that Sauers was extremely unhappy living at the apartment complex. Sauers failed to show that any other residents at the complex were treated differently or that Sauers was denied any reasonable accommodations for his needs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Gabriel Sauers in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Paul Kelton, Esquire Paul, Elkind and Branz 142 East New York Avenue Deland, Florida 32724 Gabriel P. Sauers Unit 1 1111 Ocean Shore Boulevard Ormond Beach, Florida 32176 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
