The Issue Whether Petitioner, Francesca Thomas, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, SMA Behavioral Health, Inc., based on her alleged handicap/disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, section 760.01, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Family Intensive Therapeutic Team (FITT) counselor for Respondent. She provides substance abuse and mental health counseling with the goal of reuniting her clients with their children. Petitioner has worked for Respondent for 15 years, and was described by one of her supervisors as “professional.” During the course of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner has received multiple promotions, presumably indicative of the quality of her work for Respondent. FITT counselors are responsible for providing counseling services to 10 to 12 clients that are referred by child welfare. The program is designed for FITT counselors to see their clients at the clients’ homes or out in the community. Respondent provides a laptop and cell phone for each FITT counselor for use in the field. FITT counselors rely upon electronic medical records and use their laptops to communicate with clients and manage their caseloads. Occasionally there are some hard copy documents used by the FITT counselors, but Respondent has policies and procedures in place to manage the security of these documents. Hard copy documents are required to be secured in locked bags or in the trunks of the FITT counselor’s cars. All of the progress notes that FITT counselors prepare are paperless. Additionally, the discharge notes, communications, and child welfare records are paperless. Over the course of a case, the majority of the documents are paperless. FITT counselors only have to come into the office if they have meetings with their supervisor or have documents in hard copy format. If they so choose, they can work on their case notes and communicate with clients from the office. They can also connect to the internet, work on their case notes, and communicate with clients remotely. In all, 70 to 80 percent of Petitioner’s work is performed outside of the office. Some of the FITT counselors perform the majority of their work at home. This is accomplished via their company issued laptop and WiFi delivered through their phone. Respondent has a Virtual Private Network (VPN) system that allows FITT counselors to work remotely and securely from their homes. Petitioner’s position was designed so she would not be tethered to a desk. As noted, she has the ability to connect to WiFi through a WiFi hotspot that is available on the phones issued by Respondent, which essentially allows her to work from anywhere. Prior to February 2018, the FITT counselor’s offices were located in the Cantley Center, in Daytona Beach, Florida. The work stations provided to the counselors at this location were very small offices (approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft.) with doors, as opposed to work cubicles. Some FITT counselors shared offices with other counselors, while some counselors, including Petitioner, had their own offices. The workspace was described by one counselor as a “cave” since it was located in the lower level of the building, there were no windows, and the small offices had low ceilings. For reasons not reflected in this record, sometime in early 2018 the decision was made to relocate Respondent’s operations to a new location. On or around February 27, 2018, Petitioner went to Respondent’s new offices to examine where she would be working. Petitioner’s department was one of the first to move into the new building. At the new location, the FITT counselors were to be assigned to cubicles, rather than offices. Although Petitioner’s previous office was very small, when Petitioner saw her new work space she shouted loudly “I can’t do this. I can’t do this,” and began suffering a panic attack. When Petitioner then requested that she be assigned to a different cubicle, based upon her seniority, her supervisor informed her that all the work spaces were already assigned by the Program Management and Facilities departments. In November 2017, Petitioner informed Respondent that she occasionally suffers from panic attacks. However, it was not until March 1, 2018, that Petitioner told her supervisors that she was claustrophobic. Her supervisors told her that they were unaware of her being claustrophobic and did not recall her ever saying that she was claustrophobic. Petitioner received a Performance Notice due to her exchange with her supervisors on February 27, 2018. As a consequence of this Performance Notice, Petitioner was placed on 90 days probation. On March 14, 2018, Petitioner asked to schedule a meeting with her supervisor to discuss her Performance Notice. She did not ask about a reasonable accommodation in her March 14th email to her supervisor, BranShonda Levine. On March 19, 2018, Petitioner again exchanged emails with Ms. Levine regarding a meeting to discuss her Performance Notice. On that same date, Petitioner also exchanged emails with Jennifer Stephenson, senior director of Outpatient Services, that were related to her Performance Notice. Ms. Stephenson understood Petitioner’s email to only be focused on appealing the issuance of the Performance Notice that Petitioner received. In the e-mail exchange, Petitioner indicated she wanted to meet with Ms. Stephenson and Deborah Loyd, Respondent’s vice president of Human Resources, to discuss her Performance Notice. Ms. Stephenson scheduled a meeting with Ms. Loyd in response to Petitioner’s March 19th email regarding her Performance Notice. Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to her Performance Notice on March 20, 2018, stating that she did not feel that the issuance of the Performance Notice was warranted. At a meeting on March 20 or 21, 2018, Petitioner expressed for the first time that she may need a reasonable accommodation. At this meeting, Ms. Stephenson learned for the first time that Petitioner claimed she has claustrophobia. Likewise, Ms. Stephenson did not know Petitioner was seeking a reasonable accommodation until this meeting. In a follow-up email dated March 21, 2018, Ms. Stephenson recommended Petitioner work with Respondent’s Human Resources Department regarding her claustrophobia and panic attacks. Ms. Stephenson acknowledged that if they were documented conditions, Respondent would make a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner. As of March 30, 2018, Petitioner remained focused on the two disciplinary actions1/ she had received in early 2018, and her request to have those reviewed and removed from her personnel file. As of this date, Petitioner was working in her assigned cubicle, and made no mention of having any issue working in the cubicle. Respondent has adopted Policy HR102, titled “Accommodation of Individuals with Disabilities or with Communications Barriers.” Consistent with this policy, if an employee needs an accommodation, they must participate in the interactive process with Respondent, including filling out and submitting the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Questionnaire. The employee and their physician are required to document the disability and accommodation request. Respondent then reviews the completed interactive process paperwork and schedules a meeting to discuss the same with the employee. This is to determine the accommodation that is being requested and if Respondent is able to provide the requested accommodation, or whether other alternatives could be provided. Petitioner submitted her reasonable accommodation paperwork to Respondent on April 25, 2018. Petitioner’s reasonable accommodation paperwork stated that she did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. However, Petitioner did state that her impairment “limits patient breathing, talking, thinking.” During the interactive process, Petitioner requested a more open space to avoid panic attacks that might occur due to claustrophobia. On May 14, 2018, Petitioner submitted a letter solely focused on the Performance Notice relating to her exchange with her supervisors on February 27, 2018. No mention was made of Petitioner being unable to work successfully in her assigned cubicle. Respondent attempted to schedule a meeting with Petitioner on May 30, 2018, to discuss her request for a reasonable accommodation. However, on May 31, 2018, Petitioner rescheduled the meeting because she injured her eye. On June 1, 2018, Petitioner rescheduled the meeting again, this time to take place on June 4, 2018. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss Petitioner’s interactive process paperwork. Prior to the June 4, 2018 meeting, Ms. Loyd met with Ms. Stephenson to review what options would be available to meet Petitioner’s request for an accommodation. The June 4, 2018 meeting was held as scheduled and was attended by Petitioner, Ms. Stephenson, and Ms. Loyd. At the meeting, Ms. Loyd and Ms. Stephenson discussed the accommodation request with Petitioner and advised her of what accommodations Respondent would be able to offer her. Specifically, they informed Petitioner she could work from home or use the conference room in her immediate work area. As to Petitioner’s desire to be reassigned to a different cubicle or an office, Ms. Stephenson and Ms. Loyd explained that the other cubicles were already previously assigned, and that other departments were utilizing the offices in the building. Moreover, the physical offices in the building were not a part of Petitioner’s department. In an e-mail Petitioner sent to Ms. Loyd following their meeting, Petitioner inquired as to whether the wall on the right side, and the front wall of her assigned cubicle, could be taken down. This option was explored by Respondent and it was determined that the walls at issue could not be moved or reconfigured. Petitioner insisted that she should be permitted to use offices in the building instead of being permitted to work from home or in a conference room. Accordingly, Petitioner did not accept either of the accommodations offered by Respondent and ceased engaging in the interactive process with Respondent. Petitioner would not have been subject to increased duties if she chose to work from home. Respondent also examined whether the cubicle walls could be removed. However, it was not feasible to reconfigure or move the cubicle walls. After the meeting, Petitioner emailed Ms. Loyd but did not state that she believed the conference room accommodation, or working from home, would be inappropriate. At hearing, Ms. Stephenson could not recall Petitioner ever speaking with her again about additional accommodation requests. Respondent reasonably determined that the nearby conference room would be an open space for Petitioner to work, thereby reducing the likelihood that Petitioner would suffer from claustrophobia. Petitioner agreed the conference room Respondent offered to her is an open space. As noted previously, it is a common practice for counselors who work in the field to work from home, as well as from other locations. The FITT counselor’s hard copy files are in filing cabinets that are in a separate area away from the cubicles. Therefore, Petitioner would not need to store her files in the conference room. Petitioner worked in the original cubicle she was assigned for seven months. In November 2018, an employee who worked out of a different cubicle left the company and Respondent offered Petitioner a new cubicle. Petitioner accepted the same, and as of the date of the hearing Petitioner continues to be employed by Respondent.2/
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 finding that Petitioner, Francesca Thomas, did not prove that Respondent, SMA Behavioral Health, Inc., committed an unlawful employment practice against her and dismiss her Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 18th day of December, 2019.
The Issue Did the Respondent commit an act of discrimination in refusing the Petitioner public accommodations at its motel?
Findings Of Fact The Red Carpet Inn is a motel located at 5331 University Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida. Located adjacent to and in front of the property is a topless bar, which is unaffiliated with the motel. The proximity of this bar to the hotel created significant problems for the motel's management because many of the dancers and others working at the bar rented rooms at the hotel. Because of the coming and goings of dancers late into the night and early morning; entertainment of non- guests by dancers; and suspect drug use and sales on and about the premises, the hotel employed an active security detail. The Petitioner, a black female, resided at the hotel in Room 509 for several weeks immediately prior to May 6, 2004. She paid for her room on a nightly basis. Her room rent was frequently paid by persons other than herself. She was observed going from the bar to her room at late hours, and was thought to possibly be working at the bar as a dancer by motel security staff. She was observed visiting with other residents of the hotel at various times including late at night. The staff and manager received complaints from other residents about a person who was identified as the Petitioner. These complaints included, but were not limited to, noise, frequent visitors, and visiting with other guests late at night. As a result of these reports and his concerns about activities in the motel that disturbed other guests and were possibly illegal, the manager decided to refuse the Petitioner further accommodations at the hotel. Clarence Jones, a minister and friend of the Petitioner's family, testified about his visits to the premises. He visited the Petitioner, whom he had known since she was born, to bring her food and money because she was not working. He observed persons who he described as pimps and prostitutes in the vicinity of the motel and bar, together with persons he described as drug pushers. He paid for the Petitioner's room on occasion. Jones and members of the Petitioner's family visited her at the motel, but with the exception of Jones, these visits were during the day. Their testimony indicated that the Petitioner was a good person. The Petitioner testified. She was counseled by Kay Cannon, a black room clerk, to watch the number of calls she made and be careful of her activities because of management's concerns. According to the Petitioner, another desk clerk, Ursula Brooks, used a racial epithet when talking with the Petitioner. Brooks testified, and denied using any racial epithets to anyone, including the Petitioner. The manager and others testified about other residents of the motel who were described as Hispanic and African- American.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dione Riley 3875 South San Pablo Avenue, No. 1208 Jacksonville, Florida 32224 Subhash Gandhi Red Carpet Inn 5331 University Boulevard, West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 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
The Issue Whether Respondent, a "seller of travel," owes Petitioner $5,400.00 for failing to provide services to Petitioner pursuant to a contract between the parties.
Findings Of Fact WIN is a "seller of travel" as defined by section 559.927(11), Florida Statutes. On January 31, 2016, Petitioner and her sister, Julie Loftus, attended an Italian festival in St. Lucie County where they both entered a drawing to win a free "getaway" vacation. The sisters were contacted within a few days and told they had won, but to collect their prize, they had to attend a meeting at a Holiday Inn in Port St. Lucie. On February 13, 2016, the sisters attended the presentation that was put on by WIN. They were provided a brochure regarding the travel services offered by WIN and were impressed by the presentation. WIN offered a "lifetime of worry- free travel at your fingertips" with travel software to provide 24/7 access to booking, and significant discounts on travel services, such as hotel stays, cruises, excursions, dining, car rentals, and access to a "live personal travel concierge." The software does not provide on-line booking for airfare, private homes, yacht, or recreational vehicle rentals. Although neither sister is adept at using the Internet or computers, they were very interested in having a personal travel concierge, particularly because they intended to travel to Rome later in the year. After the presentation, they jointly purchased and executed a "Reservation Services Software Licensing Agreement" (Agreement) for a "lifetime License Fee" of $5,400.00. The price included a $1,000.00 discount in lieu of a certificate for a free "getaway" that the sisters had won. In pertinent part, the Agreement provides: This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: A The Licensee desires to license software from the Licensor to obtain access to vacation packages, nightly stays, bonus weeks, fantasy getaways, activities and excursions, cruises, car rentals, golf discounts, hotels and luxury condominium and villa rentals. The Licensee acknowledges that the network benefits may be changed from time to time. * * * 6 Annual Software Renewal Fee. In addition to the purchase price, the Licensee does hereby agree to pay an Annual Software Renewal Fee of $199 to SaveOn Resorts, LLC (whose phone number is 858-649- 1481), with the first payment to be paid twelve (12) months from the purchase date of this Licensing Agreement. . . . a. Freeze Option. The Licensee acknowledges that they have the option to freeze their license. By doing so, they understand that although their License is Lifetime, during the freeze period, they will not have access to the website or Reservations Hotline. The Licensee may freeze their license without penalty by contacting SaveOn Resorts at least 7 days prior to their Annual Renewal Fee due date. * * * Discount Variation. All benefits and discounts conferred through this Agreement vary greatly based on the characteristics of the vacation unit or type, the time of year, space availability, and/or the rates charged by those parties listing the accommodations for rent. The Licensee acknowledges that he/she has been advised that while some discounts may be significant, these same accommodations may not enjoy deep discounts at other times and that deep discounts are not available for some vacation units or types at any time. The Licensee acknowledges that the value in this License is expected to be realized over time and that the License Fee is not guaranteed to be recovered on a single vacation, the first year, if the Licensee does not take vacations, or if the vacation choices are not tailored to deep discount offerings, but rather are contingent on the frequency of the use of the software. Assistance of Personal Live Travel Concierge and Website Access. The Licensee shall be provided 24 hour access to the internet website www.planwithWIN.com and may book travel arrangements through this website 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the exception of those travel arrangements which require the coordination of booking assistance with travel vendors, such as cruise lines. The Licensee shall also be provided access to a Personal Live Travel Concierge Agent at 1-858-649-1481 during the hours of 9am through 9pm EST, Mondays through Fridays, and 10am through 4pm EST, Saturdays, at no additional charge. The hours of availability for the Live Travel Concierge Agent are subject to change without notice. * * * 11 Live Online Software Demonstration and Tutorial. The Licensee acknowledges that he/she has had direct access to, including a live demonstration online, and a complete tutorial covering usage of the software program operation prior to the execution of this Agreement and was able to review the benefits with a sales agent of the Licensor. The Licensee acknowledges that they are comfortable with the operation of online software program. The Licensee acknowledges that the licensor has informed him/her that at any time during normal business hours, the Licensee may also call SaveOn Resorts at (858)649-1481 to schedule an additional tutorial for assistance with the operation of the software at no additional cost. On February 18, 2016, Petitioner and her sister spoke by telephone to Dae Byun, WIN's Member Services Agent, who walked them through the online software tutorial. By the end of the call with Mr. Byun, the sisters were familiar with the software capabilities and how to use it. Mr. Byun asked the sisters if they knew where their first trip would be. They explained that they intended to travel to Rome in August or September 2016 to attend a ceremony at the Vatican for a friend who was celebrating his 50th anniversary as a priest. Mr. Byun told the sisters that when they call to make travel arrangements, they should dial his direct line in Orlando because he had been a travel agent for over 30 years, was very familiar with Italy, and could easily assist them. Mr. Byun told the sisters that when they called, they should speak exclusively with him and that he worked Monday through Friday, and was not available on weekends. Because both sisters are retired, these arrangements were fine with them. During this same call, the sisters asked Mr. Byun to begin working on their flight from Philadelphia to Rome on August 31, 2016. They advised that they did not need hotels in Rome because a friend had made arrangements for them to stay in a convent bed-and-breakfast. However, they sought hotels in Venice and Florence on September 9 and September 18 through 22, 2016, respectively. Mr. Byun spoke knowledgeably about hotels and travel in Italy, and the sisters were pleased. Petitioner used WIN's personal travel concierge to book a one-night hotel room stay at a Microtel in Leesburg, Florida, for $65.00 during the week of February 27, 2016. During the months of March and April 2016, the sisters made multiple calls to WIN's Orlando office in an attempt to speak with Mr. Byun to schedule their Rome trip. Most times they called, they were told he was out of the office or training new customers on the software. Because of Mr. Byun's initial instruction to speak only to Mr. Byun regarding the trip to Rome, they did not want to speak with another member services agent for this trip. On or about March 23, 2016, Petitioner also called to arrange a rental cabin in the North Carolina Mountains for a girlfriends' gathering. Petitioner was told that WIN did not have access to discounts and reservations for private cabins, but she was provided information on a condominium and hotel room options in the area. Because Petitioner found the choices provided by WIN unsuitable for her group, she chose to make her own arrangements. During March and April 2016, the sisters spoke to Mr. Byun regarding the Italy trip once or twice. WIN sent four e-mails to the sisters on April 15 with a tentative flight schedule, hotel options, and train information for Italy. The sisters were not pleased with the initial flight itinerary because it called for a layover on the way from Philadelphia to Italy. They were concerned that their luggage was more likely to be lost with a layover and asked for a direct flight. According to Petitioner, her sister had a follow-up conversation with Mr. Byun during which she selected a direct flight, provided credit card information, and asked him to book the flight. Mr. Byun testified that he was told at that time that they were not sure of their travel dates. This was a preliminary search only. He has no notes reflecting credit card or any additional information he would have needed to book the flight, such as dates of birth, passport numbers, frequent flyer account numbers, and seat preferences. Mr. Byun credibly testified that if he booked airline tickets, that would be done in one phone call with the client on the line because airfares change within minutes. Mr. Byun would not quote an airfare with the intention of booking a flight at a later time, even on the same date. Mr. Byun had no further conversation with the sisters regarding the Italy trip. According to Petitioner, on May 24, 2016, her sister received her credit card statement and realized there was no charge for airline tickets. The sisters were panicked because they had learned Mother Teresa was being canonized a saint in Rome at the same time as their trip and flights and hotels were filling up quickly. The sisters attempted to reach Mr. Byun by telephone to demand an explanation. Although they did not reach Mr. Byun, another WIN employee explained that there was no record of reservations of the proposed trip to Italy. Within a few days, the sisters opted to use the services of AAA to book the trip to Italy. The sisters sent a letter by e-mail on May 31, 2016, expressing their extreme disappointment and asked "What are we paying you for?" They received no response. They subsequently used the services of the Glanz law firm to send WIN a demand letter seeking a refund of the $5,400.00. They also filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and the Department. Petitioner and her sister traveled to Italy and Greece from August 31 through September 23, 2016, without the assistance of WIN. Beginning in February 2017, Petitioner's sister began receiving correspondence and frequent automated calls from WIN that their annual maintenance fee of $199.00 is due. Although Petitioner and her sister have made their intention clear that they do not wish to use the services of WIN going forward, they have not asked to "freeze" their account as is provided for in the Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Alice Kenyon's claim against WIN and the surety bond be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 8th day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 (eServed) Tina Robinson Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida (eServed) 32399-6500 Alice B. Kenyon 5668 Travelers Way Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-3989 (eServed) Kenneth Hamner, Esquire The Entrepreneur Law Center, P.L. 250 North Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Tom A. Steckler, Director Division of Consumer Services Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Stephen Donelan, Agency Clerk Division of Administration Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 509 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has a disability (handicap), and, if so, was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondents, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (FFHA), as amended.
Findings Of Fact The record in this discrimination case is extremely brief and consists only of a few comments by Mr. Homer, cross- examination by Respondents' counsel, and Respondents' exhibits. Petitioner resides at Golfside Villas, a condominium complex located in Winter Park, Florida. At hearing, Petitioner asserted that he suffers from a disability, narcolepsy, but he offered no competent evidence to support this claim. Thus, he does not fall within the class of persons protected against discrimination under the FFHA. Golfside is the condominium association comprised of unit owners that is responsible for the operation of the common elements of the property. Hara is the corporate entity that administers the association, while Mr. Michaud, a Hara employee, is the community manager. In September 2016, Mr. Homer became involved in a dispute with Golfside over late fees being charged to his association account and issues concerning ongoing repairs for water damage to his unit that were caused by flooding several years earlier. Because some of his telephone calls were not answered by "Lorie" (presumably a member of management staff), on September 23, 2016, Mr. Homer sent an email to Mr. Michaud, the community manager, expressing his displeasure with how his complaints were being handled. He also pointed out that "I have a disability." The email did not identify the nature of the disability, and it did not identify or request an accommodation for his alleged disability. There is no evidence that Respondents knew or should have known that Mr. Homer had a disability or the nature of the disability. Also, there is no evidence that narcolepsy is a physical impairment "which substantially limits one or more major life activities" so as to fall within the definition of a handicap under the FFHA. See § 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, Petitioner only contends that at times it causes him to speak loudly or yell at other persons. As a follow-up to his email, on September 26, 2016, Mr. Homer spoke by telephone with Mr. Michaud and reminded him to look into the complaints identified in his email. If a request for an accommodation ("work with me") was ever made, it must have occurred at that time, but no proof to support this allegation was presented. Mr. Homer acknowledged that he was told by Mr. Michaud that in the future, he must communicate by email with staff and board members rather than personally confronting them in a loud and argumentative manner. On September 26, 2016, Mr. Michaud sent a follow-up email to Mr. Homer informing him that he must "work with my staff, without getting loud or upset, no matter how frustrated you may be at the time." The email also directed staff to answer Mr. Homer's questions regarding repairs for water damage to his unit, to "look into some late charges on his account," and to "work with Mr. Homer to help him get both his unit and his account in order." On November 15, 2016, Mr. Homer filed his Complaint with the FCHR alleging that on September 26, 2016, Golfside, Hara, and Mr. Michaud had violated the FFHA by "collectively" denying his reasonable accommodation request. Later, a Petition for Relief was filed, which alleges that Gulfside and Hara (but not Mr. Michaud) committed the alleged housing violation. However, the findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order apply to all Respondents.
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, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of December, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) John Homer Unit 609 1000 South Semoran Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32792-5503 Candace W. Padgett, Esquire Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, P.A. 4309 Salisbury Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216-6123 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
