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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pat McComb is the operator of a group home in Broward County, Florida. The home operated under a license issued to Happy People, Inc. Through some unspecified channel, a report of possible abuse was received and Gloria Taylor, a Human Services Counselor II with DHRS, investigated on May 18, 1984. The investigation consisted of interviews with both former and current clients of the group home. A summary of these interviews is found in Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9. The former clients and clients are all mentally retarded with secondary disabilities. The interviews were conducted in a group setting with Taylor addressing leading type questions to the group and the group responding in the negative or affirmative. Two clients were interviewed separately, with one being interviewed away from the group home. At least two of the clients changed their statements regarding whether any abuse had ever occurred. No client stated when or where or how often or how severe the alleged abuse was. Taylor saw no bruises or other physical signs of abuse at the time she interviewed the clients. There had never been any other reports or any medical treatment required for these clients. Taylor's testimony was based solely on what she was told by the clients and former clients. Based upon the written reports prepared by Taylor, Rhonda Miklic prepared and signed a letter revoking the licenses of Pat McComb and Happy People, Inc. The clients were moved from the home. The acts of Miklic in revoking the license are not discretionary. Instead, Miklic is required to revoke the license if a finding of abuse is made by the investigator. Pat McComb denied any knowledge that any client was ever hit with a belt at the facility. Instead, discipline consisted of such things as loss of privileges or having a client stand in the corner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent be DISMISSED and that the license of Respondent be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Braynon, Attorney 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark Perlman, Attorney 1820 E. Hallandale Beach Boulevard Hallandale, Florida 33009 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has engaged in an unlawful housing practice in violation of the Fair Housing Act (Act), Sections 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes, through discrimination against a former tenant, Petitioner, on the basis of Petitioner’s handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner moved to Respondent’s rental house trailer on August 27, 2004, where he and his wife resided until September 1, 2005. The house trailer was located in Respondent’s trailer park in Istachatta, Florida. Petitioner has suffered bouts of mental illness since his youth. He was hospitalized in the 1980’s for depression. Additionally, Petitioner entered into a rehabilitation program for alcohol and drug addiction during the period of 1989 to 1990. Petitioner served in the United States Naval forces during “Desert Storm” when military action was initiated against Iraq in the 1991. Upon his return, Petitioner was incarcerated and evaluated in 1992 for depression in Norfolk, Virginia, as a result of his striking a superior officer without reason. Petitioner was subsequently discharged from the United States military forces with an “OTH” (other than honorable) discharge. Petitioner is considered 100 percent disabled by the Social Security Administration and (as of January 26, 2004) receives approximately $897 per month from that agency. Additionally, all of his medications for seizures, depression and a back ailment are provided to him free in the form of Medicaid benefits. Respondent was informed by Petitioner of Petitioner’s health status and income at the time of Petitioner’s entry into Respondent’s trailer park in 2004. As a result of his special needs, Petitioner keeps and feeds five cats. Three of the cats are “outside cats” and basically come up to be fed. When Petitioner tried to cage the three cats, they dug their way out of the pen in which he placed them. Two of the cats are permitted into Petitioner’s living quarters; a solid black cat and a Siamese cat. The cats help sooth Petitioner’s “nerves.” Respondent refused to provide adequate maintenance of the trailer rented to Petitioner, although Petitioner requested such maintenance. Floors rotted to the point that Petitioner’s wife fell through the bathroom floor at one point, requiring that paramedics be summoned to rescue her. Photographs submitted into evidence at the final hearing also corroborate Petitioner’s testimony with regard to the sad state of the disrepair of the dwelling rented to Petitioner. It is Respondent’s practice to repair trailers only when they are vacant. Petitioner requested that Respondent provide him with information regarding Respondent’s insurer after Petitioner’s wife fell through the bathroom floor. Respondent refused to provide the requested information. Contrary to allegations of Petitioner’s Petition for Relief, dated February 22, 2006, in which Petitioner alleged he was forced to move out as a result of Respondent’s failure to make accommodations for Petitioner’s handicap, Petitioner failed to pay required rent on the premises and Respondent proceeded to file for eviction of Petitioner from the premises promptly after Petitioner’s inquiry seeking information regarding Respondent’s insurer. By Petitioner’s own admission, Respondent’s request for eviction of Petitioner was granted by the local courts. Petitioner and his wife vacated the premises on September 1, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 16th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George P. Rance Post Office Box 11 Istachatta, Florida 34636 James W. Travis Post Office Box 95 Istachatta, Florida 34636-0095
The Issue Whether or not the penalty of $1,000 for operating a commercial vehicle in excess of the length allowed by permit assessed Dan Ingram Mobile Home Transport, Inc. by the Department of Transportation was correct pursuant to Section 316.550 F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) issued permit 066715 to Respondent Dan Ingram Mobile Home Transport on April 4, 1990, to cover the period May 1, 1990 through April 30, 1991, to allow Respondent to travel over state highways with loads of an overall length of 85 feet. "Length" as specified on such on permits means the overall length of the power unit and trailer as defined in the "Guide for Issuance of Oversize and Overweight Hauling Permits," which has been adopted by reference in Rule 14-26.012(1) F.A.C. On March 26, 1991, Respondent was transporting a mobile home and stopped at the Ellaville weight station on Interstate Highway 10. The DOT inspector checked the permit and measured the Respondent's power unit and trailer, which measured 96 feet on a tape measure laid bumper to bumper. Safety violation 022741 was issued against Respondent for operating its equipment 11 feet over length in violation of permit 066715. Accordingly, the DOT assessed a penalty of $200 for each foot over the 85 feet permitted, up to a maximum fine of $1,000 against Respondent. Issuance of the safety violation/fine assessment was in accord with Section 316.550 F.S. as amended effective October 1, 1990. The law as amended authorized inspectors at weight stations to issue violations for permit infractions. It was put into effect by the DOT during February 1991 to allow time for training of departmental personnel and education of the public. Previously, only certified law enforcement officers were authorized to issue such violations. The DOT set the fine by reference to its Secretary's "Directive Establishing Fines for Operation of a Vehicle Without a Permit or in Violation of a Permit 775-070-001-A," issued for employees' use from October 1, 1990 to April 1, 1991, inclusive. Reference to that directive would have allowed a penalty of $200 a foot up to $1,000. Although there is no evidence that this written directive or policy was ever codified in a formal rule pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S., there is evidence that it was uniformly applied by DOT personnel during the time frame when the instant violation/fine occurred, and it is also clear that in its application thereof in the instant case, the agency did not invoke a fine in excess of the permissible statutory $1,000 cap.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the penalty/fine of $1,000 was correctly assessed Dan Ingram Mobile Home Transport, Inc. under the provisions of Section 316.550 F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of September 1991 at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 18th day of September 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Except for mere legal argument, accepted. Respondent's PFOF: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ms. Shirley Ingram Dan Ingram Mobile Home Transport, Inc. Post Office box 1721 Jena, LA 71342 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attention: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Harlen Brown, was called and testified that he is a member of a corporation which owns the property which is the subject of this hearing and is located at 477 Northwest Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. He testified that the licensee rented the space from the corporation on a month to month basis and that he was aware of the charges pending against the licensee. 1/ Brown stated that he was experiencing problems with licensee Washington and that residents of the community had also expressed their problems which were in the nature of a nuisance to the community but that the residents are not criminally inclined. Brown indicated that he would file an application to operate the premises as a beer and wine disco arrangement and that it was his intent to renovate the premises and cater to adults and not minors. He expressed the opinion that the problems stemmed from the prior lessees. Brown urged that if the licensee's license was revoked, that it be done without prejudice. Michael Somberg, a beverage officer for approximately 18 months testified that he visited the Spot Bar on November 2, 1975, along with public safety officers Swain, Davis and others at approximately 12 o'clock, based on complaints that minors were consuming alcohol. Police officers that were also on the scene made an I.D. check of all the occupants on the premises and detained a juvenile, Larry Melvin, whose age as subsequently established revealed that he was 15 years old. He at the time of his detainment was carrying a sealed can of Miller's Beer. Somberg tasted and smelled the beer and determined that it was an alcoholic beverage. He placed Melvin under arrest and the beer was given to Officer E. W. Pfitzenmaier, who in turn submitted it to the crime laboratory bureau of the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department for a laboratory analysis report. The examination conducted on the beer submitted that it contained ethyl alcohol 2.01 percent by volume or 1.61 percent by weight. Somberg testified that there was a flurry of activity on the premises when they announced themselves as beverage agents and/or policemen and that there was an attempt by the patrons to rid themselves of several packets and other items which turned out to be contraband. Somberg found one aluminum packet which contained 8 small packets of what appeared to him to resemble cocaine. He also gathered small amounts of marijuana and other paraphernalia from the floor of the premises. He retained the paraphernalia and had a field reagent test conducted on the narcotics. Present with Somberg was Officer Pfitzenmaier who also assisted in gathering the large wrapper which contained the 8 small packets of the white substance which according to him resembled cocaine also. Pfitzenmaier testified that he, at all times, maintained the confiscated items under his care, custody and control until turned over to the Dade County Laboratory Department. The various reports and items were received in evidence and marked for identification as Board's Exhibits 3 through 10. Also introduced was the notice of hearing which was issued to Licensee Washington and as Exhibit Number 12 the notice to show cause why his license should not be revoked. An examination of the items revealed that the licensee and/or his agents sold to a minor a liquid containing ethyl alcohol; that among the items confiscated was heroin and marijuana i.e., 13.6 grams of marijuana and heroin and 8 small packets containing cocaine. Also introduced was a carton containing 100 packages of non Florida tax paid cigarettes which were found on the licensed premises on January 8, 1976. This possession violates Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(B).
