The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her disabilities, in violation of Sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2004), by refusing to grant Petitioner access to the front of a designated parade viewing area.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a minor female and is an individual with disabilities. Petitioner has recognized impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Petitioner is diagnosed with cerebral palsy and is legally blind. Petitioner has a visual acuity of 20/200 in the right eye, 20/160 in the left eye, and 20/160 in both eyes. Petitioner visited Disney's Magic Kingdom (Kingdom) in Orlando, Florida, with her family on February 21, 2005. The visit occurred at a time identified in the record as President's Day Weekend. That weekend is one of the most heavily attended times of the year at the Kingdom. Petitioner and her family attended the SpectroMagical Parade (parade) at 9:00 p.m. The parade travels a route through the streets of the Kingdom. The parade route is approximately one mile in length, thereby providing two miles of front viewing area on both sides of the streets that form the parade route. The entire parade route is accessible and has comparable lines of sight over the entire route. From sometime in the 1970s, Respondent has voluntarily maintained three designated parade viewing areas along the parade route for use by guests with disabilities. The viewing areas are intended to enhance the ability of disabled individuals to view and enjoy the parade. Respondent has also maintained a full-time department known as the Services for Customers with Disabilities (services department). The services department is devoted exclusively to assisting guests with disabilities and training designated employees in how to properly assist guests with disabilities. The services department has voluntarily implemented a number of other services to ensure that guests with disabilities will enjoy their experience at the Kingdom. Among other things, the services department has produced a Guidebook for Guests with Disabilities (Guidebook), developed accessible rides and handheld captioning devices, implemented a Guest Assistance Card program, and printed Guidemaps for its theme parks. Respondent makes Guidebooks available in all of its theme parks and provides Guidebooks to guests free of charge. The Guidebook summarizes service offerings to provide assistance to guests with disabilities. The Guidebook also sets forth policies and procedures pertaining to a number of accessibility related issues. For example, the Guidebook covers policies and procedures for service animals, describes various types of access for disabled individuals, identifies rides that have wheelchair space, provides directions to accessible entrances, describes services for the hearing impaired, and describes the policy and procedure concerning access and use of designated parade viewing areas. The Guidebook expressly provides that parade viewing areas designated for guests with disabilities are filled on a "first come, first served" basis. This policy is consistent with policies and procedures concerning viewing areas for all guests, irrespective of whether they are disabled. The Guidebook expressly provides that employees permit disabled guests to occupy designated parade viewing areas with non-disabled companions and family members and will not separate disabled guests from their companions or family members. Up to five people may accompany guests with disabilities into the viewing areas. The policy does not limit access to parade viewing areas to disabled individuals who use wheelchairs. Employees will not displace any non-disabled family member or companion in order to add a disabled guest to the viewing area (non-displacement policy). Respondent uniformly implements the non-displacement policy for rides, theaters, attractions, and shows. Due to limited space in the designated parade viewing areas, the Respondent advises guests to arrive well in advance of the parade time. Respondent also posts policies and procedures relating to designated parade viewing areas on Respondent's internet web site. The information is also available from designated employees. Respondent trains these employees in the proper etiquette for assisting guests with disabilities in accordance with Respondent's policies and procedures. Respondent also disseminates Guidemaps of its theme parks to assist guests with disabilities. Guidemaps, among other things, identify the location of the designated parade viewing areas for guests with disabilities and show the parade route. Respondent has also developed and implemented a Guest Assistance Card program. Guest Assistance Cards contain certain types of assistance requested by guests with disabilities. The type of assistance requested is placed on the face of the Guest Assistance Card thereby avoiding the need for guests to explain the same request at every attraction, show, or ride. The assistance requested varies from guest to guest depending on their disability. The services department provides a Guest Assistance Card to any guest with a disability who requests a card. Respondent does not independently verify the disability of any guest who requests a Guest Assistance Card. Respondent does not limit the amount of Guest Assistance Cards issued and may issue hundreds or thousands of cards in a day. One form of assistance is available seating in the "front row of ride vehicles or theaters, where applicable." This assistance permits a guest with a hearing or visual disability to sit in the front of a theater or ride to enhance his or her experience. When requested, this form of assistance is placed on the Guest Assistance Card. A Guest Assistance Card does not guarantee that space will be available in a guest viewing area, that the guest will have immediate access to the area, or that front row seating will be available at every event. The Guest Assistance Card permits front row seating when available and only at those activities or facilities listed on the card. This policy is clearly printed on each Guest Assistance Card, along with the non-displacement policy. Assistance in the form of front row seating is limited to ride vehicles and theaters. Ride vehicles are moving conveyances that are boarded and ridden in, such as roller coasters. Theaters are facilities with fixed seating where a show is presented. Fixed seating is a designated area where seats or chairs are affixed to the ground and are therefore stationary and immobile. Parade viewing areas for individuals with disabilities are neither ride vehicles nor theaters. Parade viewing areas do not provide fixed seating but are designated areas on sidewalks along the parade route. Assistance in the form of front row seating does not apply to parade viewing areas along streets or sidewalks. Even if the viewing areas were theaters or rides, the non-displacement policy applies to rides and theaters. Respondent issued a Guest Assistance Card to Petitioner in an area identified in the record as EPCOT. Petitioner requested assistance in the form of front row seating, and the card authorized front row assistance. Petitioner arrived at a designated viewing area in an area of the Kingdom identified as Liberty Square approximately 20 minutes prior to the start of the parade. Petitioner requested access to the front of the viewing area. However, the front of the viewing space was already filled by guests in wheelchairs. The appropriate employee directed Petitioner and her family to a second designated parade viewing area located at an area of the Kingdom identified in the record as the hub. By the time Petitioner arrived at the second parade viewing area, the front of the viewing area was full with guests in wheelchairs and their companions and family members. Respondent did not displace other guests with disabilities and did not displace their family members or their companions so that Petitioner and her family would have access to the front of the viewing area. Although there was room in the second viewing area for Petitioner and her sister, there was not room for Petitioner's other family members. There was no room for Petitioner and her sister in the front of the parade viewing area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of a disability or handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carol Pacula Walt Disney World Company 1375 Buena Vista Drive Orlando, Florida 32830 Kimberly M. Chicvak c/o Michael Chicvak 23 Twin Oaks Drive Kings Park, New York 11754 Brian C. Blair, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 650 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Culmer Place Tenants Association and Allapattah Tenant Association are not-for-profit corporations chartered by the State of Florida (Exhibits 1 and 2). Allapattah has received IRS tax-exempt status as a publicly supported corporation. Culmer Place has applied for such status but has not as yet received the IRS designation. Both Culmer Place and Allapattah are tenant associations at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) projects in Miami, Florida. These HUD projects are low- income residences sponsored and managed by HUD. The principal source of funds for each Petitioner is HUD. The Associations submit a budget to HUD and receive funds semiannually. Culmer Place received $453 from HUD in 1980 and Allapattah received a slightly less amount. The Associations sponsor activities in their projects principally oriented towards children. These projects, which have been presented by both Petitioners, are the Easter project, family picnic on July 4, Christmas project, community movies, and trips to the circus or other attractions. In addition, one or both Associations have sponsored dances and held rummage sales. Allapattah is currently proposing the establishment of a softball team if funds can be obtained. The Easter project consists of purchasing candy and eggs, getting volunteers to dye the eggs and putting these treats in bags which are given to the children who participate. At Culmer they have an Easter egg hunt but lack of space for hiding the eggs requires the bag approach at Allapattah. The Christmas project is similar to the Easter project in that the Petitioners use the money provided by HUD to purchase candy, fruits and stockings which are taken around and given to the children who live in the project. At the family picnic on July 4, barbeque is provided, as is other food and drinks. It appears that the Associations primarily provide "refreshments" at the projects they sponsor. No picnic was held in 1981 because funds were not available. Other activities sponsored by the Associations include cleanup campaigns at which the young people are assembled to pick up trash and generally "clean up" around the projects. The Associations provide refreshments for the workers and HUD provides the funds to pay these youngsters for their cleanup work. The money for the refreshments is budgeted by the Associations and provided by HUD. The summer lunch program is carried out at these projects with the food for the participants provided by the City, County, or HUD. The volunteers who supervise the serving of the food and activities that accompany this project are members of the Associations and are paid by HUD for the three hours they are so engaged each day. Movies are occasionally shown at the projects. The film is usually rented and the residents are invited by "flyer" to attend. Sometimes cartoons are obtained to show to the children. Occasionally, free tickets to the circus or to some local attraction are obtained by the Associations who arrange the transportation for the children and supervisors to participate in these field trips. These-projects and activities are provided free to the participants and participation is not limited to children, or others, who live in the Petitioner organizations. "Flyers" advertising these projects are prepared and delivered to the residents, placed on the bulletin boards at the housing project office, and some flyers are distributed outside the housing projects by putting them on poles, in stores (that permit) and in washerettes.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Raymond C. Riddles has been certified as a law enforcement officer since September 1, 1971. He holds certificate number 090171. November 3, 1976 On November 3, 1976, Joseph A. Vi11ar, at the time a policeman with the Pensacola Police Department, arrested respondent Riddles at the wayside park off Gregory Street, near the northern end of Pensacola Bay bridge. In November of 1976, travelers, fishermen and other members of the public regularly made use of the park and the public bathrooms there. The park featured a double picnic table and ten or twelve other picnic tables. The old bridge across Pensacola Bay had been halved, and the park was near the end of one of the halves used as a fishing pier. The park had also gained notoriety as a meeting place of homosexuals: on two nights in 1974 police arrested 18 persons on various charges. On the night of November 3, 1976, Mr. Villar, wearing blue jeans and a pullover to disguise the fact that he was a policeman, entered the men's room in the park, after respondent Riddles called him into the bathroom. In the bathroom, Mr. Riddles beckoned Mr. Villar to a stall and, from the adjoining stall, asked if he wanted to "fool around." The partition between the toilet stalls had been to some extent removed; Villar's view of Riddles was unimpeded. Riddles first addressed Villar with his back to him, then turned around, penis in hand, continuing to masturbate. At this point, Mr. Villar placed him under arrest. Eventually Mr. Riddles stood trial on charges arising out of the incident, and was found guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior in a public place. September 12, 1984 In September of 1964, complaints that men were romping through the woods in various states of undress at a place called the Old Chimney, an abandoned steam plant site near the Scenic Highway, reached the Pensacola Police Department. As a result, on September 12, 1984, Jim Leath, a supervisor with the Pensacola Police Department, in charge of the vice unit, visited the site. Numerous persons of various sexual persuasions had come to use the area as a park. Vehicles were parked along the road, including one in which Mr. Leath spotted a Florida Highway Patrolman Auxiliary cap. Walking down a footpath, Mr. Leath came to respondent Riddles at about one o'clock in the afternoon. He recognized Mr. Riddles as someone he had seen before and remembered the cap he had noticed through the window behind the back seat in a vehicle parked in the area in which he himself had parked. Mr. Riddles stood next to a tree. A conversation arose between the two men, during which Mr. Riddles rubbed his crotch. Mr. Riddles said that he came to the Old Chimney on a regular basis to meet people, then turned away, withdrew his penis from his trousers and turned back, displaying his semi-erect penis. Only seconds had elapsed when Mr. Riddles heard someone else approach, left off stroking his penis, tucked himself in, and zipped his trousers up. Mr. Leath returned to the parking lot and made a note of the license tag number of the vehicle with the cap. He later determined that the vehicle was registered to Mr. Riddles, and located a photograph of Mr. Riddles. Eventually he obtained a warrant and arrested Mr. Riddles. In due course, Riddles pleaded nolo contendere to lewd and lascivious behavior, and to exposure of sexual organs. He was adjudicated guilty of these offenses and placed on six months' probation, on conditions including that he pay $20 a month and stay out of the area of the Old Chimney.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the respondent Division of Beverage issue the type 11-C license to petitioner without further delay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles A. Nuzum Division of Beverage Johns Building. Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The Department adopts and incorporates in this Final Order the Statement of Issues contained in the Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has submitted two (2) exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. These two exceptions are rejected for the reasons set forth below. Respondent's First Exception-- Finding of Fact No. 5: The Hearing Officer's finding that Rebos Club does not control the hot-line is supported by substantial competent evidence. Testimony indicated that Rebos Club does not provide counseling training to the employees or volunteers that answer the phone. Volunteers or employees handle each call using their own discretion-- they do not follow procedures or guidelines established by Rebos Club. This exception is therefore rejected. Respondent's Second Exception-- Finding of Fact No. 5: The statement as to the nature of "12th step calls" is not relevant, and is therefore rejected. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent has submitted two (2) exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order. These two exceptions are rejected for the reasons set forth below. Respondent's First Exception-- Conclusion of Law No. 32: The Hearing Officer's findings that Rebos Club itself does not provide counseling services to alcoholics or their families, and that it does not offer active intervention has been revised in this Final Order's modification of the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law Number 32. This exception therefore, now is not relevant. Respondent's Second Exception- Conclusion of Law No. 34: The Hearing Officer's findings that Rebos Club does not provide the direct services required by statute and does not spend in excess of 50 percent of its expenditures directly towards a referenced charitable concern has been revised in this Final Order's modification of the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law Number 34. This exception is now, therefore, not relevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas Rebos Club's application for reissue of a sales tax exemption certificate be granted. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1800 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. First clause rejected. Balance accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact. More a statement of agency rule interpretation. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated but also a statement of the law. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of fact but more a comment on the nature of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not of major evidentiary import. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Francillon, Esquire Olivia P. Klein, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carl A. Schuh, Esquire 256 3rd Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact 1. On April 18, 2014, the Board issued an Invitation to Bid (‘2014 ITB”) for holding pond and related grounds maintenance work. The 2014 ITB specifically advised bidders that the Board reserved the right to contract “all or none, or by group to responsible and responsive bidder(s) determined to be the most advantageous to the District, taking into consideration price, product quality and other requirements as set forth in this ITB.” The language in the 2014 ITB gives the Board the discretion to award the contract to one bidder, several bidders or no bidders. 2. The 2014 ITB specifically advised bidders of their right to challenge the terms and conditions of the ITB. Petitioner, Mark's Lawn Maintenance, Inc., did not challenge the terms or conditions of the 2014 ITB. 3. The 2014 ITB specifically informed bidders that local and small business certification preferences were available to bidders, where applicable. Petitioner was given a 3% local preference for having a business in an adjoining county. Val’s Lawncare, Inc. ("Val's”) received a 5% small business certification preference. Applying the discount, Val's was the lowest bidder. 4. In 2007 and 2010, the Board issued ITBs for holding ponds and grounds maintenance services, and, each time, the contract was awarded to multiple bidders. 5. The 2014 ITB was awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein, and not any prior practice or any language from prior ITBs.
Conclusions This matter came upon before the Board for entry of a Final Order upon entry of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction by June McKinney, an Administrative Law Judge of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, and, having reviewed the same, and ail other matters of record, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Board finds and concludes as follows:
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Helen T. Cook, (formerly Griffin), started working for the Respondent, St. Petersburg Motor Club as Personnel Director on May 15, 1979. In that capacity, she reported to the Chief Executive Officer who was, at the time, Mr. James Hendry. Mrs. Cook remained as Personnel Director until August, 1984, when she was promoted to the position of Managing Director for Personnel, and made a part of senior management. As the Managing Director for Personnel, she was the senior personnel officer within the organization and was required, among other duties, to interview applicants for employment; counsel employees and conduct exit interviews; implement approved company policies; research employee benefits and administer them; serve on the pension committee responding to the Board of Directors; work out personnel solutions with supervisors and employees; maintain legal personnel files on all staff; and represent the Club on all compliance hearings regarding worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, and equal employment opportunity. She reported to the Executive Vice President of the Club. When Mrs. Cook first went to work for the Club, the organization had no rule regarding nepotism. However, in August, 1984, in order to correct a situation then existing involving numerous instances of nepotism among Club employees, the Board of Directors promulgated a rule which was implemented in January, 1985 and which prohibited employment of individuals related to Club employees. When the rule was enacted, incumbent employees related to other employees were grandfathered, but non-related incumbent employees who later married other Club employees were to be covered by the policy. At the time of it's implementation, Mrs. Cook opposed it. Mrs. Cook's husband, Richard, was already employed by the Club when she was hired. They were not married at the time. Mr. Cook was Director of the Club's service center and in her job as director of personnel, she presented potential future employees to him for hire. Mr. Cook was not in her direct line of authority. He worked for the Managing Director of Services, Mr. Schatzman. At the time the problem here came about, Mrs. Cook was the Managing Director of Personnel and on a parallel with her husband's boss. Mrs. Cook and Mr. Cook started dating in April, 1985, approximately one month after the death of his wife. Mrs. Cook immediately notified the Club management of this fact. In her opinion, management seemed delighted because of their affection for both parties. No one attempted to dissuade them from continuing the relationship, nor did anyone ever suggest that the relationship was detrimental to the Club. In her opinion, the matter was so well handled that no one could tell they were dating. Mr. and Mrs. Cook were married on July 14, 1985. At the time, both parties knew that the policy against nepotism was in effect. In June, 1985, before the marriage, Mrs. Cook informed Mr. White, then either Executive Vice President or President and Chief Executive, of their plans. He asked her to hold up on any action while the Board looked into the policy to see if it would be applied to her. Nonetheless, they married and after the marriage she again approached Mr. White, to determine if the anti-nepotism policy would apply to her. At this time, she hoped he could convince the Board to make an exception to the policy for the Cooks. He asked her to hold off on any resignation action to allow the Board to look into the policy in an effort to determine if it was legal and if it would be applied to her. There was never any question in Mrs. Cook's mind that if the rule were to be enforced against them, she, not her husband, would submit a resignation and she informed Mr. White of this prior to the final decision the Board to invoke the policy. A special meeting of the Board was held on November 14, 1985 at which the Board decided that the policy would be applied and enforced in this case. Mr. White was not present at this Board meeting but was informed of it either that day or the next morning by Mr. Harris, Vice Chairman of the Board. That same day, or the next day, Mr. White informed Mrs. Cook of the Board's decision. He appeared to be upset by it and so was she. However, she suggested to Mr. White that a memorandum be sent out by him to advise employes of her departure and the reason therefor. This memo was dated November 20, 1985. The minutes of the Board meeting of November 19, 1985 reflect Mrs. Cook had already elected to resign. Consequently, it is found she was advised of the Board's decision on or before November 19, 1985. Her complaint of discrimination was filed with the Commission on May 19 1986, no less than 181 days after she received notice of the action complained of. Her resignation was effective in January, 1986. From the time she and her husband started dating the relationship, Mrs. Cook believes, never created any problem for the Club. She would not have left her employment but for the Club's policy. In her opinion, problems could have been avoided by taking her out of the loop relating to actions regarding her husband. This would not, however, have avoided the appearance of impropriety, regardless that no actual impropriety existed. In her position as Managing Director of Personnel, Mrs. Cook had access to all personnel files for the more then 300 employees of the Club. She was a policy maker and a member of the top management team. She was aware of all employees' salaries and evaluations and attended evaluation meetings with the Chief Executive Officer and managing directors concerning the evaluations of all directors under them. Though she did not rate any personnel except those who were in her immediate division, nor did she have any say on salaries outside her division, she was aware of them and was a part of the management team which controlled the day to day operation of the Club. Managing directors got together at least twice a day in informal meetings to discuss Club business and at those meetings, such things as evaluations, assignments, and promotions were discussed. Therefore, though she did not rate or direct her husband, she could have had a substantial impact on his career by virtue of her relationship with other managing directors. This is not to say, however, and it must be recognized, that there was any evidence that at any time Mrs. Cook interfered in her husband's career. By her own admission, however, she was a valuable employee and her position was sensitive. On December 31, 1984, prior to her marriage, she executed an Employment at Will statement which acknowledged that her employment could be terminated by either herself or the employer at any time. When Mr. White first learned that the Cooks had developed a personal relationship, it presented no problem for him. He did not believe it would be detrimental to the Club and, in fact, he received no complaints about it from anyone. He was aware of the Club's policy regarding nepotism. When he first became aware of the policy, he requested that the Board reconsider its decision because he felt that it might be illegal. Nonetheless, at no time did he bring the matter up with the Cooks because, to his knowledge, Mrs. Cook was fully aware of it nor did he indicate to her that the Board would not apply it to her. He believed, however, that both Mr. and Mrs. Cook should be allowed to remain as employees even after their marriage and made that recommendation to the Board. Nonetheless, the Board chose to implement the policy. According to Mr. Gregory, a member of the Club's Board, because of a situation regarding the former president, Mr. Henry's hiring of several family members under circumstances incompatible with good morale and discipline within the Club staff, and because of the growing number of Club employees married to other Club employees, (approximately 45 employees were involved), the Board implemented the rule against nepotism. A committee had discussed several alternatives before recommending the anti-nepotism policy and the Board was unanimously in favor of its implementation except for Mr. Henry who, at the time, was still on the Board. When the Board was made aware that the Cooks intended to marry, members were concerned because of Mrs. Cook's position and the image that might be created in the eyes of other employees. As a result, the Board felt compelled, as a business necessity, to enforce the policy notwithstanding Mr. White's urging that Mrs. Cook be kept on because of her value to the Club. The decision to invoke the rule was made reluctantly. It was acknowledged she was a good and valuable employee. However, because of the circumstances, and because of Mrs. Cook's position as Managing Director of Personnel, the Board felt compelled to enforce it. Had it not been for the sensitivity of Mrs. Cook's position, and given Mr. White's desire to keep her, the Board might have been able to look at the situation differently. Under the circumstances, however, it could do nothing else. The decision in no way reflected Board dissatisfaction with Mrs. Cook's performance or any animosity toward her or her husband. The problem was that her position, when considered against the apparent potential for abuse, was the most sensitive of all jobs related to Club personnel. This factor differentiated her situation from other situations involving nepotism and necessitated her departure. This was an appropriate decision under the facts of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Florida Commission of Human Relations dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2095 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which has not been proven but is a matter of opinion. Accepted. Accepted as indicating a perception for possibility of abuse, not that Mrs. Cook was guilty of any breach of trust. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not controlling. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the testimony quoted which is not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact relative to the issues of fact herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire 1724 East 7th Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Michael K. Houtz, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1441 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1441 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, or provision of services in connection with the rental of a dwelling from Respondent, based on her race, in violation of section 804(b) or 804(f) of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and manages the Country Club Woods residential community in Starke, Florida. Country Club Woods is a racially-mixed community. The current residential mix includes 29 African-American families and 6 white families. County Club Woods receives low-income housing subsidies in the form of tax credits through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Some residents qualify for federal Section 8 housing subsidies. Petitioner is African-American. On February 4, 2011, Petitioner signed a lease agreement for a home in Country Club Woods. Rent was $698.00 per month. The home was vacant, and power and water had been turned off. Respondent asked Petitioner to activate power and water so that repairs and unit preparation could be performed, and she did so. Petitioner?s rent for February was partially prorated to account for the period during which she did not occupy the unit. The lease agreement required that all occupants of the house be listed, and provided that “[n]o other occupants are permitted.” Guests were limited to stays of no more than 14 consecutive days. Due to the status of Country Club Woods as an affordable housing community, it is subject to restrictions on the income and criminal history of its residents. Therefore, all permanent occupants are required to undergo income and background screening to ensure that the low income housing tax credit rules are being met. The failure to do so could jeopardize the tax credits. When she signed the lease, Petitioner knew what the lease required regarding the occupancy of the house. Petitioner listed Aulettia Russ and Aarian Russ, her daughter and son, as occupants with her in the home. After the lease contract was signed, Respondent performed a few repairs and updates to prepare the unit for Petitioner. Mr. Sam Baker, who performed maintenance services for County Club Woods, fumigated the house and painted some of the interior walls. He performed a minor repair to the roof, which consisted of applying tar around the cracked rubber boot of the roof drain vent. Mr. Baker moved a stove into the house from another unit because there was no stove when the lease was signed. He also replaced the toilet with a new one. Petitioner moved into the unit on February 16, 2010. She was joined by her fiancé, Kevin Sampson, and her older son, Kelsy Roulhac, neither of whom were listed as occupants. Mr. Sampson was on probation for several felony offenses. Both Mr. Sampson and Mr. Roulhac were residents for the entirety of Petitioner?s tenancy. At no time during the tenancy did Petitioner seek to add Mr. Sampson or Mr. Roulhac to the lease. Petitioner testified that Rebekkah Baker, the property manager, knew that Mr. Sampson was a permanent occupant, but had no objection. Ms. Baker denied that she consented to his occupancy, given that it would have been a violation of Country Club Woods policy against leasing to persons with a criminal history in the past seven years. Given the consequences of failing to meet the occupancy and background screening requirements, Ms. Baker?s testimony is credited. When Petitioner moved in, there were still problems with the unit. Problems noted by Petitioner included a broken dishwasher, mildew on a number of surfaces, dead insects -- likely from the fumigation -- in the cabinets, a hole in the foyer wall caused by the adjacent door?s doorknob, a ceiling stain from the roof leak, a missing shower head, a broken light fixture, and a missing smoke alarm. In addition, the carpet was stained and in generally very poor condition. Petitioner resolved the mildew problem by cleaning the affected surfaces with Tilex. Petitioner?s son, Mr. Roulhac, got rid of the dead insects and cleaned the cabinets. Petitioner replaced the showerhead on her own. Shortly after she moved in, Petitioner notified Respondent that her roof was leaking. Mr. Baker went to the house, advised Petitioner?s daughter that he was there to fix the roof, and went onto the roof. He determined that the leak was occurring at the location of his previous repair. He completed the repair by re-tarring the roof drain vent boot. Petitioner testified that the roof continued to leak after heavy rains. She indicated that she made a subsequent complaint via a message left on Ms. Baker?s telephone answering machine. Ms. Baker testified that she received no subsequent complaints, and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent received any subsequent complaints regarding the roof. Mr. Baker performed no further repairs. Petitioner complained that the dishwasher was holding water. She testified that Respondent never came to fix the dishwasher. Both Mr. Baker and Ms. Baker testified that Mr. Baker was tasked to repair the dishwasher, but upon arriving at the house was denied entry, with the explanation that the dishwasher had been fixed by a friend, and the problem resolved by removing a plastic fork that had clogged the drain. From the time Petitioner moved in, until the time she vacated the home, Mr. Baker fixed the hole in the foyer wall and the broken light fixture. In addition, Mr. Baker came to the house to fix the refrigerator, which was a problem that was not on the original list. From the beginning of her tenancy, Petitioner complained of the carpet. The carpet was badly stained and worn. In addition, the carpet contained a dye or some other substance that aggravated Aarian Russ?s asthma. It was Petitioner?s desire to have the carpet replaced before the time of her daughter?s graduation. Respondent agreed to replace the carpet, and had employees of a flooring company go to Petitioner?s house to measure for new carpet. The flooring company employees were allowed entry to the house by Petitioner?s daughter. They measured the rooms, except for Petitioner?s bedroom, which was locked. Respondent advised Petitioner that the measurements of the bedroom of an identical unit could be provided to the carpet company. It is not known if that was done. Due to difficulties on the part of the flooring company, the new carpet was not installed before Petitioner vacated the unit. There was no evidence offered to suggest any relationship between the failure to install new carpet and Petitioner?s race. Petitioner complained that she had not been given notice that the flooring company employees were coming, and complained that Respondent had not performed a background check on the workers. She argued that she was entitled to have a background check done on anyone providing services before she would have to allow them into her home. There is no relationship between Petitioner?s complaints regarding the lack of a background check on the workers and Petitioner?s race. The lease agreement provides that “[m]anagement will make repairs . . . after receipt of written notice.” Respondent occasionally prepared work orders describing the nature of the problem at a unit, and the work done to resolve the problem. However, the evidence demonstrates that written work orders were likely the exception rather than the rule. It appears that most problems were reported by verbal requests, and resolved by Mr. Baker?s maintenance and repairs. Most of Petitioner?s requests for repairs and maintenance were made verbally. At some point, due to the number of items, Petitioner provided Respondent with a list of items for repair. There is no evidence that any repairs at Petitioner?s home were documented with a work order. In any event, there was no evidence that the failure to document the work, which was common, was the result of Petitioner?s race. Petitioner did submit seven work orders in evidence. Six of the work orders reflected repairs made by Respondent to the homes of African-American families upon verbal requests. One of the work orders reflected repairs made by Respondent to the home of a white family upon a verbal request. Petitioner questioned why none of her repairs were memorialized in work orders. The work orders do not substantiate that Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her race, and in fact serve to indicate that Respondent provided maintenance services equally, without any consideration to the race of the person requesting such services. Petitioner complained that Mr. Baker did not have “credentials,” and questioned him regarding any education or licenses that qualified him to perform maintenance, including electrical work. Whether qualified to do so or not, Mr. Baker performed maintenance for all of the residents of Country Club Woods, regardless of their race. There is no relationship between Petitioner?s complaints regarding Mr. Baker?s credentials and Petitioner?s race. Beginning in April, 2011, Petitioner began to fall behind on her rent. Petitioner was paid bi-weekly, though how that affected her ability to plan for monthly rental payments was not clearly explained. On April 21, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the $279.60 balance of the April rent payment be made. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. However, the copy of the notice put in evidence includes the notation from Ms. Baker that “[p]romised to pay balance w/ May 2011?s rent.” On May 9, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the rent payment be made. The amount in arrears was calculated to be $1,077.60, which included a late fee. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. However, the copy of the notice put in evidence includes the notation from Ms. Baker that “pd. $698 on 5/11/11.” On June 1, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the rent payment be made. The amount in arrears remained at $1,077.60. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. On July 27, 2011, Respondent provided a notice to Petitioner indicating that due to unauthorized occupants and $1,975 in unpaid rent, Petitioner had until August 1, 2011, to vacate the premises, or Respondent would commence eviction proceedings. Petitioner admitted to having received that notice. Respondent?s resident history report indicates that by the time Petitioner vacated the home on August 31, 2011, her rent was $2,075.60 in arrears. Some of that was due to assessed late charges, but the majority reflected unpaid rent. When Petitioner vacated the unit, Petitioner?s security deposit was applied, the remaining arrearage was assigned to a collection company, and Respondent?s books were cleared. Ms. Sheila Palmer and Ms. Tynesha Epps testified at the hearing. They have been residents of Country Club Woods for 16 years and for 1 year and 3 months, respectively. Both are African-American. Both testified that they had never been refused maintenance at their homes, and that Respondent was responsive to their requests for maintenance which were generally verbal. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Epps was aware of any instance in which management of Country Club Woods had discriminated against any tenant due to their race, though neither personally knew Petitioner. Ms. Headrick, Ms. Baker, and Mr. Baker each testified that they never denied or limited repair and maintenance services to any resident of Country Club Woods account of their race. They each testified convincingly that race played no factor in their duties to their tenants. Ultimate Findings of Fact There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that Respondent failed or refused to provide services to Petitioner under the same terms and conditions that were applicable to all persons residing in the Country Club Woods community. There was not a scintilla of evidence that, in providing services to Petitioner, Respondent deviated from its standard practice of providing maintenance services to all residents of Country Club Woods regardless of their race, income, or any other reason. The evidence does support a finding that Petitioner materially breached the terms of the lease agreement, both by allowing undisclosed persons to reside at the house, and by failing to timely pay rent. Petitioner?s race had nothing to do with the timing or manner in which maintenance and repair services were provided to her by Respondent, and it is expressly so found. The evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012H0004. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of February, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Eulinda M. Russ Post Office Box 902 Starke, Florida 32091 Sean Michael Murrell, Esquire Murrell Law, LLC 4651 Salisbury Road South, Suite 503 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 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
The Issue Whether the Map of Reservation filed by Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority in July, 1988 is unreasonable or arbitrary, and has the effect of denying General Homes of Florida, Inc. a substantial portion of the beneficial use of the property owned by General Homes within the limits of the Map of Reservation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was consolidated back to its parent corporation, and now operates as General Homes Corporation which is a large builder of single family homes in the Tampa area. The property affected by the Map of Reservation filed by Respondent was acquired by Petitioner in 1985 and comprises some 24 acres which have been platted into 96 lots known as Eastbrook Subdivision. Eastbrook Subdivision is the third housing development commenced by Petitioner in unincorporated northwest Hillsborough County. The first such subdivision started in 1980 was called Carrollwood Springs. That project was successful and when that development was nearly completed additional property in the vicinity was purchased and the Eaglebrook Subdivision was started. That project was of a similar size to the Carrollwood Springs Subdivision and, it too, was successfully developed and sold. The success of these developments led Petitioner to the purchase, in August of 1985, of the 24 acres to be developed as the Eastbrook Subdivision which is similar in size to the two former developments. At the time this purchase was made there were two proposed alignments of the northwest expressway, the Lake Le Clare Alignment and the Railroad Alignment. The Lake Le Clare Alignment, if adopted, would cross the Eastbrook property but the Railroad Alignment would not. Petitioner had closely monitored the selection process throughout 1985 and was under the impression that the Railroad Alignment would be selected for the Expressway. In 1986, the Expressway Authority selected the Lake Le Clare Alignment. However, the Map of Reservation was not filed until July, 1988. Petitioner proceeded apace with the development of the Eastbrook Subdivision by opening a sales center and five fully furnished model homes with the intention of selling single family homes in the subdivision. Weekly newspaper ads were run, billboard locations were rented and local realtor parties were hosted to draw more attention, and buyers, to the subdivision. In fiscal year 1986, General Homes spent some $300,000 in marketing efforts and sold some 56 homes in Eaglebrook closing out that subdivision. Eastbrook was opened and 16 lots were sold there. In 1987 General Homes spent over $400,000 in sales and marketing but sold and closed only 27 homes in Eastbrook. In fiscal year 1988 General Homes sold and closed 21 homes but incurred a loss of approximately $250,000. The expressway alignment was well known at this time and the public was aware the alignment would affect portions of the Eastbrook Subdivision. The Map of Reservation runs through the southern part of the Eastbrook Subdivision and Petitioner devoted most of its attention to developing the northern portion of the subdivision. However, the impending expressway and its impact on the Eastbrook Subdivision had a dampening effect on sales in this subdivision and in 1987 General Homes lost $231,000 in the Eastbrook Subdivision. In 1988, General Homes suspended all construction activities, discontinued speculative building and attempted to sell the unsold lots in the subdivision. In early 1988, General Homes sold ten lots in Eastbrock to Atlantic Homes who built homes on those lots. An option by Atlantic Homes to purchase additional lots was not exercised. Since the cessation of building activities, General Homes has held the land not sold as unproductive assets in which development costs have accrued, taxes and interest payments continue, but the lots cannot be sold for the erection of a single family home.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of General Homes of Florida, Inc. for a determination that the Map of Reservation filed by the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority is unreasonable or arbitrary and that it denies Petitioner a substantial portion of the beneficial use of its property be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter J. Winders, Esquire One Harbor Place Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 William C. McLean, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 21 Tampa, Florida 33601 =================================================================
