Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Joseph Hatfield, owns and manages an rental complex at 1839 Portland Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, also known as Astoria Hills Town Houses. The complex consist of two (2) buildings, each of which contains four (4) town house apartments. The Respondent occupies one of these apartments. Astoria Hills Town Houses are located within the city limits of the City of Tallahassee in the area of the city commonly known as Astoria Hills. The Petitioner, Craig Fletcher, leased on June 29, 1991 from the Respondent one of the town house apartments located in the building opposite from the building occupied by the Respondent. The lease was until June 30, 1992. The rent was due on the fifth day of each month, and the Petitioner occupied the leasehold on July 5, 1991. The Petitioner lived in the leasehold until May, 1994, during which time he and his wife maintained a social relationship with the Respondent, as well as a landlord/tenant relationship. They were guests in his apartment, and he was a guest in their apartment. The Petitioner was in the Respondent's apartment when calls came in on the Respondent's telephone answering machine. The Respondent listened to the calls and stated to the Petitioner that he used the machine to screen calls, and he did not call Blacks back because he did not desire to rent to them. The Respondent is over 70 years old, suffers from physical/medical problems as the result of an automobile accident, to include chronic pain as a result of the accident. The Respondent is known by the tenants to be irascible and to hold views on racial matters which are repugnant to most people. The Respondent has declared to the Petitioner and others that his automobile was struck by an uninsured vehicle driven by "niggers." As a result of the accident, the Respondent's attitude towards Blacks is, at best, uncharitable. The Petitioner testified that the Respondent told him that he hated Blacks because of the injuries he suffered in the automobile accident. When angry, the Respondent made statements and comments about Blacks which were racially offensive. The Respondent stated that he did not want Blacks on his property and did not desire to rent to Blacks. The Respondent screened telephonic inquiries about his apartment rentals and would not contact callers who he identified as black. On December 5, 1991, the Petitioner anonymously contacted the City of Tallahassee Fair Housing Office and complained about the Respondent's alleged discrimination in refusing to rent to Blacks; however, he would not initiate a formal complaint. The Respondent inquired of the Petitioner on several occasions whether he had seen Blacks in the vicinity of the complex or entering apartments at the complex. The Respondent indicated, during these exchanges, that he did not like Blacks even visiting the complex. After the first such exchange, the Petitioner, who had previous entered his apartment through the back door with his black guest, entered with them through his front door. In January, 1992, upon learning from the Petitioner that he had had Blacks over, the Respondent commented, "I try to keep a nice, clean place around here and now you are doing this. I just don't know what I am going to do." The last such conversation between the Petitioner and the Respondent was in April, 1992. In January, 1992, the Petitioner again contacted the City of Tallahassee Fair Housing Office regarding allegations of racial discrimination by the Respondent. As with the previous contact, the Petitioner did not make a formal complaint. On May 8, 1992, the Respondent went to the Petitioner's apartment and demanded the rent that he had not received for May. The Petitioner explained that he was without funds; however, he expected a tax refund check which was over due and would soon be able to pay the rent. In the ensuing discussion, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he would not be renewing his lease at the end of the term because of the differences he had with the Respondent about Blacks. The Petitioner testified that the Respondent accepted the Petitioner's proposal to use his rental deposit as partial payment of the rent, plus a check for $25, and $10 in cash for the late fee. On May 18, 1992, the Respondent delivered to the Petitioner a letter which referenced the terms of the lease requiring payment by the fifth of each month, rejected the tender of the rental deposit as payment of the rent due, and made demand for payment of the rent then due. The Respondent was accompanied by his maintenance man, Mr. Frisbee, and requested access to the Petitioner's apartment for purposes of inspecting it. The Respondent wanted to know when the Petitioner would be leaving and threatened to take the Petitioner to court for the rent then due. The Petitioner pointed out that the Respondent had agreed to accept the deposit as partial payment of May's rent previously, and he denied this. Mr. Frisbee, who had been there on May 8th, reminded the Respondent that he had agreed to accept the deposit. At this point, the Respondent became angry; and the Petitioner angered him further by reminding him of their discussion of their differences regarding racial issues. The Respondent became livid and said that he wanted the Petitioner out. Mr. Frisbee had to encourage the Respondent to leave because he was so upset. Mr. Frisbee could not confirm the Petitioner's testimony that the Respondent told the Petitioner that he would not rent to Blacks and that the Respondent would have to move out. Not even the Petitioner reported that the Respondent had told him he had to move out because of his black guests. On May 19, 1992, the Petitioner contacted the City of Tallahassee Fair Housing Office a third time and was advised how to write a letter to the Respondent advising him that the Petitioner was leaving. The Petitioner followed up his letter to the Respondent, dated May 21, 1992, filing a formal complaint on May 26, 1992 with the Fair Housing Office. On June 5, 1992, the Petitioner paid the Respondent one month's rent. The Petitioner asserts that this was payment for the month of June. On June 9, 1992, the Petitioner vacated the leasehold and returned the keys to the Respondent on June 17, 1992. A copy of the lease and lease application was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 11. No evidence was introduced that the Respondent confronting the Petitioner over his overdue rent was unusual. To the contrary, that conduct by the Respondent was consistent with the picture painted of him by the tenants. A statement of the Petitioner's expenses was submitted with his post- hearing filing. These are considered as part of the evidentiary record. The costs involved in this litigation are as follows: Photocopies (300x$.05) $ 15.00 Photocopies-FCHR 3.60 Notary costs (5x$5.00) 25.00 Subpoenas 123.20 Postage 13.22 Mileage 77.80 Paper, envelopes, etc. 2.00 $259.82
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered enjoining the Respondent from screening potential tenants; and That the Petitioner be awarded costs in the amount of $259.82. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 16th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-5540 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact, which were read and considered. The following states which facts were adopted and which were rejected, and why: Petitioner's Findings Recommended Order Paragraph 1,2 Paragraph 1,2 Paragraph 3-9 Irrelevant Paragraph 10 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 11 Subsumed in 6,7 Paragraph 12,13 Paragraph 6,7 Paragraph 14 Paragraph 8,10,16 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 6,7 Paragraph 16 Subsumed in 6,7 Paragraph 17 Irrelevant Paragraph 18,19 Paragraph 11,12 Paragraph 20 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 21 Rejected as argument Paragraph 22,23 Irrelevant Paragraph 24 Subsumed in 15 Paragraph 25,26 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 28,29,30 Irrelevant Respondent's Findings Recommended Order Paragraph 1,2 Paragraph 1,3 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 11 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7-12 Rejected as Argument Paragraph 13,14 Subsumed by Paragraph 5,6,7 Paragraph 15 Irrelevant Paragraph 16 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 17-19 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 20-24 Rejected as Argument Paragraph 25,26 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 27 Rejected as Argument Paragraph 28 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 29-32 Rejected as Argument COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Craig Fletcher HC2, Box 7281 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. Johnson & Associates P.O. Box 1308 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice by "lock[ing] [Petitioner] out of [his] apartment" at the Arena Hotel, as alleged in Petitioner's housing discrimination complaint, and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) provide Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a black male. Since 2000, he has maintained a residence at the Arena Hotel (Establishment), a rooming house (with 22 rooms) located in Miami, Florida. Respondent is the former owner of the Establishment. He purchased the Establishment approximately three years ago. At the time of the purchase, there were only a small handful of blacks residing in the Establishment (including Petitioner). The percentage of black residents increased significantly during his ownership. Respondent lived in Israel when he owned the Establishment (as he does now). Every several months he traveled to Miami and visited the Establishment. Respondent had an on-site manager to take care of the day-to-day affairs of the Establishment for him. Respondent also had a brother living in the area on whom he could call to check on the Establishment. The brother, Gil Terem, worked for Majestic Properties, Inc., a Miami-based real estate brokerage firm. Gil Terem assisted in Respondent's sale of the Establishment. From the time Respondent purchased the Establishment until the time he sold it, Petitioner regularly complained to management and various governmental agencies about the conditions in his room and the common areas. Petitioner's complaints were not the only ones management received during this time frame. There were also complaints from residents of the Establishment who claimed that Petitioner was acting aggressively and harassing them. On November 6, 2002, government inspectors conducted an inspection of the Establishment. Later that same day, November 6, 2002, City of Miami police were called to the Establishment by management to look into an allegation of harassment made against Petitioner. Gil Terem was on the premises of the Establishment when the police arrived. Respondent was not present. He was in Israel. Upon their arrival, the police confronted Petitioner and spoke with him. Although the police did not arrest Petitioner or take him into custody, Petitioner was under the impression, following his discussion with the police, that he was not free to reenter his room and that he had to vacate the premises. He therefore left the Establishment without returning to his room. Notwithstanding what Petitioner may have believed, there was no intention to evict him. Petitioner pursued legal action in Miami-Dade Circuit Court alleging that he was illegally removed from his room in the Establishment. On December 4, 2002, in the case of David Powell v. Majestic Properties, Inc., Case No. 02-27703CA30, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Levenson issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, which read as follows: This cause having come on to be heard on Dec. 4, 2002 on Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, its is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby, granted. A temporary restraining order is in effect pending the setting of a further hearing. [Plaintiff] is allowed to return to his residence. Following the entry of this Order, Petitioner returned to his room in the Establishment. Because there was a new lock on the door that had been installed during his absence, he was not able to enter the room until Gil Terem came by with a key to let him in. Subsequent to his return to the Establishment, Petitioner initiated various judicial and administrative actions, including the instant one,1 claiming that Respondent and others conspired to unlawfully discriminate against him by depriving him of the opportunity to enjoy the privileges of residing at the Establishment. The record evidence is insufficient to establish that Petitioner was in any way discriminated against on the basis of race or handicap or that any adverse action was taken against him in retaliation for his claiming that he was the victim of housing discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that no "discriminatory housing practice" has been committed and dismissing Petitioner's complaint based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 6th day of October, 2004.
The Issue Did Respondent, LGI Homes-Florida, LLC (LGI), discriminate in housing against Petitioners, Bridget and Tonny Walker, on account of their race in violation of section 760.23 Florida Statutes (2018)?1 1 All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2018 compilation unless noted otherwise.
Findings Of Fact Mr. and Ms. Walker are African-American. Their claim in this matter arises out of their inquiry into buying a house from LGI in its Hill 'N Dale community. LGI is a national homebuilder. It develops residential communities consisting of homes that it built. It offers financing for those homes. LGI follows a specific, multi-step process for home sales. The process includes maintaining a log of contacts with potential buyers. The log includes the name of the sales representative who spoke to the potential buyers, the date of the contact, and the outcome of the contact. The process also includes a loan pre-qualification step. Using a Pre-Qualification Worksheet, a sales representative gathers basic financial information from a prospective buyer including employment, compensation, and bank account balances. In addition, LGI obtains a credit report for the prospective buyer. A determination that a buyer is qualified is effective for 30 days at any LGI property. After 30 days, a buyer who wishes to tour a home must undergo the pre-qualification process again. LGI does not give home tours to individuals unless they pre-qualify for financing. It follows this policy to conserve sales representative time by avoiding wasting time showing homes to individuals who are unlikely to be able to purchase them. LGI also says the policy avoids raising unrealistic expectations in would-be buyers who will not be able to finance a home. LGI's policies require every sales representative to first take each pre- qualified prospective buyer to a target home, identified as the lowest price home available, before viewing any other available homes on the property. On March 17, 2018, Mr. and Ms. Walker visited LGI's Ballentrae community. There they completed the pre-qualification process. An LGI representative advised them that they were pre-approved for a home valued around $150,000. The Walkers did not tour a home in the Ballentrae community. On June 16, 2018, the Walkers visited LGI's Hill 'N Dale community. They had scheduled an appointment with Danine Stratton, an LGI sales representative. After the Walkers arrived and seated themselves in the waiting area, a Caucasian couple arrived and sat down. When Ms. Stratton entered the waiting area she spoke to the Caucasian couple before acknowledging the Walkers. Ms. Stratton consulted with the Walkers and obtained the information needed for pre-qualification from them. This was necessary because more than 30 days had passed since they had pre-qualified at the Ballentrae property. She also asked for some demographic information. The Walkers inquired about purchasing a four-bedroom house. Ms. Stratton expressed skepticism that they could afford a four-bedroom home. During the consultation Ms. Stratton learned that Mr. Walker's name was spelled "Tonny," with two "n"s. She noted that the spelling was unusual. She went on to say, "It's either three things, your mother could not spell, your mother was on drugs, or just unique." The Walkers were justly offended and understandably perceived the comment as invoking racial stereotypes. Ms. Stratton maintains that this was just good natured, light-hearted, teasing meant to build rapport with the Walkers. She testified that she was "completely shocked" that they were offended. Ms. Stratton is not credible. It is not plausible that a sales person would expect insulting a customer's mother to build rapport with the customer. Ms. Stratton's comments are inexplicable. Nonetheless, Ms. Stratton gave the Walkers a tour of the community.2 She offered to show the Walkers a three-bedroom home, consistent with LGI's "target home" strategy. They asked about a four-bedroom home. Ms. Stratton said that a four-bedroom home was not available for showing. There is no persuasive evidence that one was available at that time or that a four- bedroom home was shown during that time period to non-minority persons. Ms. Stratton was willing to sell a three-bedroom home to the Walkers. By then they had decided they would not purchase a home from LGI. In 2 The testimony of Ms. Walker and Ms. Stratton differed on this point and others. Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, consistency with other evidence, and the implausibility of some of Ms. Stratton's testimony, the undersigned finds Ms. Walker more credible and persuasive. Ms. Walker's words, "I declined her offer to purchase any home with LGI." (Tr. p. 39). Upset by Ms. Stratton's comments about the spelling of Mr. Walker's name, the Walkers decided that they just wanted to leave. In order to do this peacefully they said they needed to check with an uncle to obtain funds for the required earnest money. They also refused to sign the pre-qualification form. On June 17, 2018, Ms. Stratton texted the Walkers saying, "Hey there, just touching base. Were you able to talk with your uncle about helping out?" This text demonstrated that Ms. Stratton wanted to sell the Walkers a home. On June 18, 2018, Ms. Walker replied that because of the comment about the spelling of Mr. Walker's name, "We will not be purchasing with LGI." Ms. Stratton replied: Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry that I offended you. I certainly didn't mean to. I was just making a joke and in hindsight was in poor taste. Again, I'm so sorry and best of luck to you guys." Ms. Walker went to an LGI property in Ruskin and spoke to a supervisor there named Joe Boyd. He assured her that LGI would take care of the problem and someone would call her. Ms. Walker also called LGI's home office in Texas. She was connected to the area director for Florida. He emailed Ms. Walker and said that he would have someone named Todd Fitzgerald contact her. Mr. Fitzgerald did not contact the Walkers. On Friday, June 22, 2018, at 12:52 p.m., Ms. Walker sent Mr. Boyd an email. It stated, "Myself and my husband recently visited one of your properties and received poor customer service and rude racist remarks from one of your employees. I have spoken to one of you[r] managers locally but I do not [know] if anything was done. There was no follow up. Please contact me at [phone number]." On Friday, June 22, 2018, at 10:13 p.m., Mr. Boyd replied: It is my understanding that our division president Todd Fitzgerald called you to discuss this. Please let me know if he hasn't and I will be happy to call. Please be assured that in no way was the intent of our representative to offend in any way. We apologize for you feeling that you received comments that were rude and even racist, that is definitely not like us, so from the bottom of my heart I am sorry on behalf of our company. I'll be available to discuss tomorrow if Todd has not already spoke with you. Have a nice evening! The next day Ms. Walker replied: "Thank you for your quick response. But I have not spoken to Todd Fitzgerald." There is no evidence of further communications between LGI and the Walkers. The Walkers did not offer to purchase a home from LGI. They would not purchase a home from LGI. From March 2018 through March 2019, LGI closed on the sale of 15 homes at Hill 'N Dale for which Ms. Stratton was the responsible sales representative. African-Americans purchased seven of those houses. On May 20, 2018, Ms. Stratton sold a four-bedroom home Hill 'N Dale to Alfreeda Harrington, an African-American, for $175,000.00. This was before her June meeting with the Walkers. Ms. Stratton sold a three-bedroom home in Hill 'N Dale to Tawanda Boyd, for $160,000.00. Ms. Boyd is an African-American. On August 11, 2018, Beverly Easton, an African-American, purchased a four-bedroom home in Hill 'N Dale for $175,000.00. Ms. Stratton was the sales representative for the transaction. On June 9, 2018, Ms. Stratton sold a home in Hill 'N Dale to the Samuels family, who were African-Americans. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Stratton sold a home in Hill 'N Dale to an African-American buyer whose last name is Wheeler. On March 25, 2019, Ms. Stratton sold a home in Hill 'N Dale to an African-American buyer whose last name is Bacon. On January 28, 2019, Ms. Stratton sold a home in Hill 'N Dale to an African-American buyer whose last name is Swanson.
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 denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 12th day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Brett Purcell Owens, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP Suite 2350 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Bridget Trinettea Walker Tonny Walker 1144 Barclay Woods Drive Ruskin, Florida 33570 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Steak-N-Shake ("Respondent"), is liable to Petitioner, Ayinde Crespo ("Petitioner"), for discrimination in a place of public accommodation, in violation of section 760.08, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African American male. On August 21, 2018, Petitioner visited Respondent’s restaurant located at 990 Federal Highway, in Hallandale Beach, Florida. At some point during his time in Respondent’s restaurant, Petitioner began arguing with the manager of the restaurant, Mr. Lebrun, who then called law enforcement to assist in removing Petitioner from the restaurant. Based on the credible testimony of Respondent’s employees, Mr. Lebrun and Ms. Nelson, Petitioner left Respondent’s restaurant without paying for his food on a previous occasion. Petitioner paid for his meal, on the previous occasion, only after Mr. Lebrun confronted him outside of the restaurant about his failure to pay. Petitioner testified that, on August 21, 2018, Mr. Lebrun insulted him with unprompted homophobic slurs and forced him to leave the restaurant without finishing his meal after Petitioner requested extra onions. Petitioner testified that he perceived the words and actions of Mr. Lebrun, who is also African American, to be based on intra-racial discriminatory animus. Petitioner further testified that Mr. Lebrun called law enforcement with the intent to intimidate Petitioner. Petitioner’s version of events lacks credibility, is not supported by the evidence, and is, therefore, rejected. Petitioner filmed part of his interaction with Mr. Lebrun. The footage, however, did not include racist or homophobic language, or any other indicator of discrimination. A Caucasian female patron, whom Petitioner offered as a comparator, was visible in the video. However, no further evidence was presented to make a comparison between that patron and Petitioner.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Andrew Williams, Esquire The Williams Law Group 6273 Sunset Drive, Suite D-3 Miami, Florida 33143-8815 Ina F. Young, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Barry Paige, Esquire Law Office of Ogletree and Deakins 111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 J. Robert McCormack, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue On April 27, 1995, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination alleging that Respondent discriminated against him on account of his race when it discharged him from employment. The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether that discrimination occurred and, if so, what remedy is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Center for Drug Free Living Center is a not-for- profit corporation which operates substance abuse and juvenile justice programs in central Florida. It works in four counties with approximately 500 employees. The Center receives state and federal grants and contracts and also receives funds from United Way and various local governments. Approximately 5 years ago the Center expanded from a substance abuse treatment program into a program that also targets young juvenile offenders. Its largest facility for juvenile offenders is a 100-bed residential facility in Intercession City, Florida. That facility is called the Adolescent Residential Campus (ARC). Youths at the ARC are involuntarily committed for a variety of offenses, from property crimes to violent crimes against persons. ARC provides educational treatment, skills training, health care, and a broad range of residential services with the goal of returning the youths to productive lives in their communities. The entire ARC staff is trained in crises intervention. Dana Monroe is an African-American male who was hired by the Center on October 21, 1993, to work as a night monitor at the ARC. On June 15, 1994, retroactive to April 16, 1994, he was promoted to counselor and received a raise from $15,000.00 to $18,000.00. The new hire and promotion were both approved by the Center president, Donald J. "Jerry" Feulner. Bill Ferguson was the ARC program director when Dana Monroe was hired. Mr. Ferguson was a cordial, low-key professional administrator. When Mr. Ferguson left he was replaced with Scurry Miller sometime in late 1994. Mr. Miller's management style was very different from his predecessor's. As described by both superiors and subordinates, Mr. Miller was bold, abrasive, unorthodox, and strict. He began disciplining employees for matters which Mr. Ferguson had evidently ignored. Some employees found him a charismatic leader; others found him disagreeable and offensive. In December 1994, Dana Monroe received his first verbal warning for inappropriate use of physical force. A written memorandum documenting the meeting between Dana Monroe and Scurry Miller is dated December 15, 1994. A copy was provided to Finn Kavanaugh, the assistant director of ARC. The incident confirmed Mr. Kavanaugh's own observations of Dana Monroe's growing tendencies to yell and use physical intervention with clients or to inappropriately lose his temper. On March 3, 1995, Mr. Kavanaugh personally counseled Dana Monroe, by telephone, after Mr. Monroe failed to appear for work the preceeding day, March 2. Mr. Monroe's immediate supervisor, Vince Hennessy, an African-American male, had called Mr. Monroe at home when he did not appear for work and was told that Mr. Monroe was ill. The nature of the work and need for adequate staffing required that ARC employees give at least 2 hours prior notice for absenteeism due to illness. Also in the March 3 telephone conversation Finn Kavanaugh informed Mr. Monroe that Vince Hennessy had documented a written warning for Mr. Monroe's loss of professional composure with a client subsequent to the incident that was addressed by Mr. Miller in December. When asked what could be done to help him, Mr. Monroe denied that he had a problem. On March 31, 1995, Scurry Miller documented another verbal warning to Dana Monroe when two clients escaped while under his supervision. Mr. Monroe does not dispute the escape but claims that he was occupied with other clients at another location and was not responsible. On April 17, 1995, Finn Kavanaugh issued another written warning to Dana Monroe for two incidents of tardiness: April 2 and April 17. In a meeting that same date, among Mr. Kavanaugh, Mr. Miller, and Dana Monroe, Mr. Monroe became belligerent and abusive and refused to calm down. The meeting was terminated. On April 20, Scurry Miller and Finn Kavanaugh again met with Dana Monroe. Mr. Miller offered Mr. Monroe the opportunity to resign, based on his continued poor performance and lack of response to supervision. When Mr. Monroe refused to resign he was told that Mr. Miller would recommend his termination. As Center president, Jerry Feulner accepted the recommendation and Finn Kavanaugh notified Dana Monroe, by letter, that he was terminated effective April 21, 1995. There is no credible evidence that Dana Monroe's termination was based on racial discrimination. At the time of Dana Monroe's employment and continuing to the time of hearing, approximately half of the ARC employees were African-American; several of Mr. Monroe's immediate supervisors were African-Americans whom he conceded also disciplined him on occasion. Mr. Monroe heard Scurry Miller say "you guys" or "you people," but never any specific racial references. Those comments are not themselves evidence of racial animus and could be directed to any group, of any racial composition. Scurry Miller used profanity with staff and with clients and was counseled for that. White employees, including Mr. Monroe's witness, Ms. Parker, viewed him as disrespectful to all staff, not just the African-Americans or minorities. In June 1995, the Center hired Mr. Monroe's replacement, another African-American male.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dana L. Monroe's charge of discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana L. Monroe 5116 Hernandes Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Kimberly A. Wells, Esquire Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler, & Krupman 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 34303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 34303-4149
The Issue Whether Mr. Wareh's business qualifies for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Wareh was born Mohammad Faiz Wareh in Damascus, Syria. He is now a citizen and permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Wareh is the president and majority owner of Wareh Construction Company, which is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Wareh owns 51% of the stock of Wareh Construction Company and his wife owns the remaining 49%. Wareh Construction Company is located in Jacksonville, Florida. From September 20, 1983 to September 20, 1984, Wareh Construction Company was certified by the Department as a minority business enterprise under Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, as it existed at that time. Mr. Wareh was recognized as an Asian American for this classification. The certification of Wareh Construction Company as a minority business enterprise in September, 1983, was for 1 year. This certification expired in September, 1984, because Mr. Wareh did not reapply for certification in 1984. On or about May 28, 1987, Mr. Wareh mailed a Florida Department of Transportation D/WBE Certification and Recertification Schedule A to the Department seeking certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise. By letter dated June 16, 1987, the Department denied the application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise filed by Mr. Wareh. The Department based its denial upon its conclusion that the requirements of Rule 14-78.05(3)(b)1, Florida Administrative Code, had not been met. Mr. Wareh has not applied to the Small Business Administration for certification as a socially and disadvantaged individual.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Wareh Construction Company for certification by the Department as a disadvantaged business enterprise be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 4th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2878 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2. Hereby accepted. 3 4. 5 and 6. 7 and 8. Primarily conclusions of law. To the extent that facts are included in this proposed paragraph, they are hereby accepted. Conclusion of Law. 8-9 Irrelevant. 10 9. Irrelevant. Conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Wares Wareh Construction Company 6048 Chester Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Judy Rice Senior Attorney Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.D. 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondents, Charleston Cay, Ltd., et al. (Charleston Cay), violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact Ms. Cardwell is an African-American woman who rented an apartment from Charleston Cay. Ms. Cardwell and Charleston Cay entered into a written lease beginning on December 23, 2009, and ending on November 30, 2010. The lease required Ms. Cardwell to pay her rent on the first of each month and that the rent would be delinquent by the third of each month. Furthermore, the lease provided that non-payment of rent shall result in a breach of the lease and eviction. The initial monthly rent for Ms. Cardwell's apartment was $663.00, a month and was subsequently increased to $669.00, a month. Ms. Cardwell credibly testified that she had not read the lease or the Housing Addendum which she signed when entering into the lease and that she had not subsequently read either document. On November 1, 2010, Ms. Cardwell failed to pay her rent. On November 4, 2010, Ms. Jaster, manager of Charleston Cay apartments, posted a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises. On November 9, 2010, Ms. Jaster posted another notice for Ms. Cardwell about non-payment and requesting that Ms. Cardwell call or come to the office. Ms. Cardwell paid $100.00, of the rent on November 17, 2010. Again, Ms. Jaster posted a three-day notice seeking payment of the remaining November 2010, rent in the amount of $569.00. On November 24, 2010, Ms. Cardwell paid an additional $200.00, of the $569.00, owed, leaving a balance of $369.00 for November 2010. Because Ms. Cardwell's written lease was to expire at the end of November, she requested that Charleston Cay enter into a month- to-month lease, but Ms. Jaster informed Ms. Cardwell that Charleston Cay was not interested in entering into a month-to- month tenancy. On December 1, 2010, Ms. Jaster posted another three- day notice requiring Ms. Cardwell to pay the $369.00, owed in November, or to vacate the premises. The facts also showed that Ms. Cardwell did not pay the $669.00, owed by December 1, 2010, or anytime thereafter. On December 8, 2010, Charleston Cay filed an eviction and damages complaint against Ms. Cardwell based on non-payment of the rent. Some time in December 2010, Ms. Cardwell contacted Ms. Tina Figliulo of the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition, seeking financial assistance to avoid being evicted. Ms. Figliulo credibly testified that the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition administers grant money to help prevent a person from being evicted and helps individuals find affordable housing. A provision of the grant, however, prevents the Charlotte County Homeless Coalition from paying money into a court registry if an eviction process has begun. Ms. Figliulo credibly testified that she contacted Ms. Jaster about making a payment on Ms. Cardwell's behalf. Ms. Jaster informed Ms. Figliulo that Charleston Cay had already begun eviction proceedings. Consequently, Ms. Figliulo was unable to use grant money to pay for Ms. Cardwell's back rent. Based on the eviction proceedings, Ms. Cardwell vacated the premises sometime in December 2010, and turned in her key for the apartment. The initial hearing on the eviction was set for January 5, 2011. On December 28, 2010, the hearing was cancelled based on Ms. Cardwell's vacating the premises. On January 13, 2011, Ms. Cardwell filed a Motion to Dismiss the case in county court indicating that she had given up possession of the premises. On January 31, 2011, the Charlotte County Court issued an Order dismissing the case effective March 1, 2011, unless Charleston Cay set a hearing on damages. The record credibly showed through the exhibits and Ms. Jaster's testimony that Ms. Cardwell was evicted from her apartment based on her non-payment of rent. There was no evidence that other individuals, who were not in Ms. Cardwell's protected class, were treated more favorably or differently, than she was in the proceedings. There was no evidence, either direct or indirect, supporting Ms. Cardwell's claim of racial discrimination. Ms. Cardwell testified that she felt that Ms. Jaster had acted based on race, because of Ms. Jaster's perceived attitude. Ms. Cardwell did not bring forward any evidence showing a specific example of any comment or action that was discriminatory. Ms. Jaster credibly testified that she did not base the eviction process on race, but only on non-payment. Ms. Cardwell specifically stated during the hearing that she was not addressing the retaliation claim or seeking to present evidence in support of the FCHR determination concerning the retaliation claim. Consequently, the undersigned does not make any finding concerning that issue. There was testimony concerning whether or not Ms. Cardwell had properly provided employment information required by the written lease in relation to a tax credit. The facts showed that Charleston Cay apartments participated in a Low Income Tax Credit Housing Program under section 42, of the Internal Revenue Code. On entering the lease, Ms. Cardwell had signed a Housing Credit Lease Addendum which acknowledged her participation in the tax credit, and agreement to furnish information concerning her income and eligibility for compliance with the tax credit. Failure to provide information for the tax credit would result in a breach of the rental agreement. As early of August 2011, Ms. Jaster, manager for Charleston Cay Apartments, contacted Ms. Cardwell about providing information concerning her income and continued eligibility for the program. Ms. Cardwell provided information that was incomplete as to her income, because it failed to demonstrate commissions that she earned. Again, in November 2010, Ms. Jaster contacted Ms. Cardwell about providing information to recertification for the tax credit. Finally, on November 11, 2010, Ms. Jaster left a seven-day notice of non-compliance, with an opportunity to cure, seeking Ms. Cardwell to provide information concerning her income. Ms. Cardwell provided information concerning her salary, but did not have information concerning commissions that she earned from sales. This information was deemed by Ms. Jaster to be incomplete and not in compliance for the low income housing tax credit. The record shows, however, that Ms. Cardwell's failure to provide the required income information was not a basis for her eviction.
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 of dismissal of the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 28th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race, sex, or handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Vincent Hall ("Hall") is a middle-aged black man. Although he alleges that he is handicapped, Hall failed to produce any evidence during the final hearing concerning his alleged disability——or even to identify it.1 Respondent Miami-Dade Housing Agency ("Housing Agency") is a department within Miami-Dade County (the "County"), which is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.2 The County is the public housing authority ("PHA") within its territorial jurisdiction. As the PHA, the County, through its Housing Agency, administers several federally funded housing programs, including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ("Section 8"). The County is subject to, and must comply with, the Ann-Marie Adker Consent Decree ("Consent Decree"), which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered in 1998. The Consent Decree requires the County to give certain preferences in housing programs to eligible black public housing residents who qualify as "mobility pool members." Hall is a former resident of Smathers Plaza, one of the County's public housing developments. (Hall lived in Smathers Plaza for a period of time in 2000, leaving voluntarily in November of that year, at which time he relocated to Palm Beach County, where he continued to reside as of the final hearing.) As a former public housing resident, Hall is a mobility pool member. On December 3, 2007, Hall executed a form called an "Application for Assistance Under the Ann-Marie Adker, Et. Al. Vs. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Miami-Dade County Consent Decree," whose purpose is evident from its title. Hall submitted this application to the Housing Agency's Applicant and Leasing Center. By letter dated May 2, 2008, the Housing Agency instructed Hall to appear at the Applicant and Leasing Center on May 15, 2008, for an appointment intended to begin the process of verifying Hall's eligibility for assistance under the Consent Decree. Hall attended this meeting, during which he completed additional paperwork, including a form entitled "Change of Address/Family Size or Special Unit Requirements." One of the questions on this document asked: "Does the Head of Household or other member of the family have a disability?" Hall answered, "No." By signing the document, which Hall did on May 15, 2008, Hall declared "that the information presented [herein] is true and accurate." Despite having disclaimed the existence of any disability, Hall requested that he be provided a live-in aide. Hall was furnished the documents necessary to apply for "reasonable accommodations" such as an aide, which documents included a certificate to be signed by a physician attesting to the disability, but Hall never returned the completed forms. Accordingly, the Housing Agency could not provide Hall a reasonable accommodation and had not done so as of the final hearing. The Housing Agency did, however, authorize the issuance of a Section 8 voucher for Hall, which he picked up on August 21, 2008. The voucher gave Hall 60 days (extendible to a maximum of 120 days) within which to locate an owner willing to participate in Section 8. As of the final hearing, Hall had not found a unit. The County's fair housing center, operated by Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. ("HOPE, Inc.") stood ready to assist Hall if he sought help in returning to Miami-Dade County to live. Unfortunately for him, Hall had not taken advantage of the counseling available through HOPE, Inc. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that the County and, specifically, its Housing Agency, did not commit any prohibited act vis-à-vis Hall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Housing Agency not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Hall no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 8th day of January, 2009.
