The Issue Whether Respondent, Ameron Homes, Inc., discriminated against Petitioner, Carolyn Henke, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 2015, Petitioner entered into a contract with Ameron to build a new home in Micco, Florida. Petitioner selected Ameron because of the reasonable price it offered to construct her house, as well as the fact that Ameron could immediately begin work. The total contract price for Petitioner’s new house was $198,052. This figure included a base price of $170,000, plus “extras” that Petitioner requested in the amount of $27,552. Ameron completed construction of Petitioner’s house in September 2015. Petitioner moved into her home on September 25, 2015. She paid her final bill to Ameron on September 29, 2015. Petitioner complains that Ameron failed to construct her home using the required standard of care. She also maintains that Ameron overcharged her for certain building materials. Petitioner specifically alleges that the house Ameron built for her did not include several of the details, features, or “extras” that she specifically requested. Petitioner further asserts that she paid approximately $8,500 for items that should have been covered in her “extra” charges. Petitioner claims that she found a number of deficiencies when she moved in. Petitioner’s issues include: Storm shutters: Ameron provided storm shutters for Petitioner’s exterior windows as part of its standard contract. Petitioner represented that the shutters delivered to her home were made of steel. Petitioner explained that steel shutters are much too heavy for her to hang over her windows. Petitioner insisted that she should have been given aluminum shutters instead of steel shutters. Petitioner complained that Mr. Brognano never discussed the different types of shutters that Ameron could have offered with her contract. Flooring: Petitioner disliked the laminate flooring Ameron installed in her home as part of its standard contract. Therefore, she purchased wood-like, tile flooring on her own. Petitioner was upset that she had to pay an additional cost (above the “extras”) for the tile she selected (approximately $2,000). Kitchen cabinets: Petitioner was upset at the poor quality of her cabinets. Petitioner asserts that under her contract, she was entitled to select the cabinets for her kitchen. Instead, Petitioner declared that Ameron installed cabinets with a very cheap exterior coating. Petitioner testified that the finish on her cabinets is beginning to peel. Front door: Petitioner complains that her front door does not fit tightly into the doorframe. In addition, the front door needs to be adjusted to eliminate a gap at the bottom of the doorway. Sod and soil: Petitioner is upset that she had to pay extra for part of the sod laid around her home (approximately $1,000). Furthermore, after rain eroded soil away from her home, Petitioner believes that Ameron should have corrected the situation. General construction complaints: Petitioner complained about the general quality of her home, as well as its condition upon completion. Petitioner asserted that she found dust, nails, and gobs of plaster scattered throughout her house. Petitioner claims that she has plumbing and sewer issues. In addition, a ceiling register is broken and some grout and cement is cracked and worn away. Finally, Petitioner complains that Ameron failed to make several modifications she requested as she moved into her home. Petitioner alleges that Ameron inadequately or failed to include handicap accessible features in her bathroom. These features most notably included grab bars in her shower. Petitioner also asserted that Ameron failed to account for her disability when it installed the soap dish and fixtures in her shower. They are positioned too high for her to safely reach or adjust. (As explained below, at Petitioner’s request, Ameron hired and paid a third party to install grab bars in Petitioner’s shower. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that, at this time, the grab bar is broken.) Petitioner believes that Ameron took advantage of her because she is a woman, elderly, alone, and handicapped. Petitioner asserts that when she expressed her frustration at the manner in which her house was built, Ameron never listened to her. Petitioner also believes that Ameron overcharged her for the inferior “extras” it added to her home. Petitioner asserts that Ameron would not have ignored her complaints if she was a man. Petitioner was 87 years old at the time of the final hearing. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner suffers from a physical disability.4/ Petitioner testified that she sent her initial complaint to the Commission alleging a discriminatory housing practice by Ameron on October 31, 2016.5/ Ameron is owned by William and Todd Brognano. At the final hearing, William Brognano testified on Ameron’s behalf. Mr. Brognano relayed that Ameron has been building homes since 1981. Mr. Brognano asserted that Ameron has a fine reputation for the quality of the homes it constructs. Mr. Brognano expressed that Ameron builds between 100 and 170 homes a year. Ameron has built many homes for women and handicapped persons. Mr. Brognano denied building Petitioner’s home in a faulty manner. He further denied that Ameron discriminated against Petitioner in any way. Mr. Brognano explained that Petitioner contracted with Ameron to construct a single-family home for the base price of $170,000. In addition, Petitioner requested “extras” to her home in the amount of $27,552. These “extras” included certain enhancements and modifications, such as a two-foot addition to her bedroom, different laminate and tile for certain floors, walls, and countertops, additional lighting, a tile roof, and the relocation of several palm trees in her yard. Mr. Brognano asserted that all the standard features of Petitioner’s home, as well as each “extra” that Petitioner requested, were clearly itemized in her contract. In response to Petitioner’s specific complaints, Mr. Brognano offered the following: Windows: Mr. Brognano commented that all standard homes are built with windows and shutters that meet Florida Building Code requirements. Ameron could have installed impact windows on Petitioner’s house for an additional charge. However, Petitioner specifically declined impact windows because of the cost. Storm shutters: Mr. Brognano explained that Petitioner’s contract did not specify the type of storm shutters to include with her home. In addition, Petitioner specifically declined upgraded shutters because of the cost. Therefore, Mr. Brognano believed that Ameron initially provided steel shutters, which are standard. (Steel shutters are heavier, but stronger, than aluminum shutters.) However, Mr. Brognano testified that after Petitioner notified Ameron of her desire for aluminum shutters, Ameron agreed to arrange for a third-party shutter company to deliver aluminum shutters to Petitioner’s home at no extra charge. (The bill from the company that supplied the shutters referenced “aluminum” shutters. However, Petitioner maintains that the storm shutters she received were steel.) Flooring: Ameron installed floor coverings, including carpeted bedrooms, vinyl kitchen flooring, and tile, as standard features in Petitioner’s home. Petitioner, however, wanted to use laminated wood flooring in parts of her home. Therefore, in June 2015, on her own, Petitioner bought wood tile flooring from a third-party tile company. The additional tile cost Petitioner $2,331.29. Ameron agreed to pay a subcontractor to install the tile Petitioner purchased. Kitchen cabinets: Mr. Brognano refuted Petitioner’s assertion that her cabinets were made of cheap material. Mr. Brognano relayed that, not only did Petitioner select the cabinets that Ameron installed, but they were of nice quality. Sod and soil: Per the specific terms of Petitioner’s contract, Ameron provided 8,000 square feet of Bahia sod for Petitioner’s property. However, Petitioner’s lawn required a total of 10,625 square feet of sod. Mr. Brognano asserted that Petitioner was obligated to pay the additional cost. Mr. Brognano further testified that Ameron fixed the parts of Petitioner’s lawn affected by erosion at no additional cost. General construction complaints: Mr. Brognano commented that Petitioner’s complaints reveal that she does not understand how home construction works. The presence of sawdust, nails, and construction materials is common in most homes during, or immediately after, construction. Just before Petitioner moved in, Ameron paid to have her house professionally cleaned (as is its common practice). Mr. Brognano further testified that everything in Petitioner’s home meets building code standards. Mr. Brognano also claimed that Ameron addressed a number of Petitioner’s complaints. Finally, upon completion, Petitioner’s home was inspected, and no construction issues were found. Regarding Petitioner’s shower, Mr. Brognano explained that Petitioner first notified Ameron about the issues in her shower just after Ameron had completed her home, but before she took occupancy on September 25, 2015. Mr. Brognano relayed that Petitioner’s contract did not contain any provisions regarding grab bars. Instead, Petitioner personally bought grab bars and requested Ameron install them. (Petitioner produced a purchase receipt from Lowe’s showing that two grab bars were purchased on September 10, 2015.) Mr. Brognano testified that Ameron agreed to pay for the installation of both the grab bars and the soap dish at no extra charge to Petitioner. (At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that she personally paid the individual Ameron hired to install the grab bars.) Ameron hired Chuck Velek, who has worked as a carpenter for over 30 years, to install the grab bars. At the final hearing, Mr. Velek testified that when he reported to Petitioner’s home, she provided him with a grab bar and instructed him to place it in her shower. Mr. Velek declared that he installed one grab bar in Petitioner’s shower. Mr. Velek stated that Petitioner’s friend directed him where to position the grab bar in the shower. Mr. Brognano testified that, when she moved into her home on September 25, 2015, Petitioner did not alert Ameron to any issues with her shower. On the contrary, Petitioner told Mr. Brognano that she loved her house. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, Petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ameron discriminated against her based on her age, sex, (aloneness) or handicap in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Carolyn Henke, for lack of jurisdiction based on Petitioner’s failure to timely file her petition under the Florida Fair Housing Act. Alternatively, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a file order concluding that Respondent, Ameron, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner and dismiss her Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 5th day of December, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondents retaliated against Petitioner Rita Lynar, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (FHA); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Westminster Communities, Inc., owns and operates several retirement communities across Florida. The Westminster property in this matter is Respondent Asbury Arms North, Inc., which is located in Cocoa, Florida. Respondent Joseph Downs is the administrator for Westminster’s Cocoa site, and manages its facilities. Ms. Lynar is a resident of Asbury Arms North, Inc. Ms. Lynar previously filed a housing discrimination complaint on August 17, 2017, against Respondents that claimed that Respondents violated the FHA, and contending that Respondents retaliated against her. After FCHR notified Ms. Lynar that no reasonable cause existed to believe that Respondents committed a discriminatory housing practice on February 9, 2018, she filed a Petition for Relief with FCHR. FCHR transmitted the Petition for Relief to the Division on March 6, 2018. The Division’s case number for this matter is 18-1314. ALJ J. Bruce Culpepper conducted a two-day final evidentiary hearing in DOAH Case No. 18-1314 on September 11, 2018, and January 9, 2019. On July 10, 2019, ALJ Culpepper issued a Recommended Order, which concluded that Ms. Lynar failed to meet her burden of proving that Respondents committed a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the FHA, and recommended that FCHR dismiss Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. On October 1, 2019, FCHR entered a Final Order that adopted ALJ Culpepper’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and dismissed Ms. Lynar’s Petition for Relief. See Lynar v. Westminster Retirement Communities Foundation, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1314 (Fla. DOAH July 10, 2019; FCHR Oct. 1, 2019)(Lynar II). As previously noted in the undersigned’s March 18, 2020, Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney Fees, and Extending Time to Respond to Initial Order, the undersigned specifically precluded any attempt by Ms. Lynar to relitigate any matter resolved (or that could have been resolved) in Lynar II in the instant matter. Thus, in the instant matter, the undersigned only considered any alleged acts that occurred after the final hearing in Lynar II commenced, i.e., after September 11, 2018, as possible evidence of FHA retaliation.1 November 7, 2018, Incident and Lease Termination On November 8, 2018—after the commencement of the final hearing in Lynar II, and while that matter remained pending—Ms. Lynar was involved in an incident at Asbury Arms North. Pastor Adkins, who was conducting a regular morning Bible study meeting on November 8, 2018, in the fellowship room, which is a common area in the Asbury Arms North building that has multiple entranceways, noticed Ms. Lynar walk through the fellowship room “at a very fast pace” on multiple occasions that morning. Upon her first pass through the fellowship room, he heard Ms. Lynar screaming in front of Mr. Downs’s office and pounding on his office door. Pastor Adkins did not see Ms. Lynar scream or pound, but heard it. Pastor Adkins next observed Ms. Lynar pass through the fellowship room again, and she went towards her apartment. Then, approximately a minute or two later, she rushed back through the fellowship room, went to the same area in front of Mr. Downs’s office, and began screaming and 1 Additionally, Ms. Lynar, in 2014, filed a charge of discrimination against Respondents, alleging an FHA violation. After receiving a No Cause Determination from FCHR, she filed a Petition with FCHR, alleging gender discrimination. FCHR transmitted that Petition to the Division, which assigned it DOAH Case No. 15-2796 (Lynar I). ALJ Culpepper also conducted a partial hearing in that matter but, on December 15, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal. Consistent with the undersigned’s March 18, 2020, ruling, the undersigned did not consider any alleged acts that occurred prior to September 11, 2018, in the instant matter. pounding on the same office door. He also heard Ms. Lynar screaming at Ms. Brooks, who was located in close proximity to Mr. Downs’s office. He described Ms. Lynar’s behavior that morning as “unhinged.” Pastor Adkins testified that these incidents disrupted his Bible study meeting for approximately 10 minutes. Ms. Brooks, who is an administrative assistant at Asbury Arms North, works at a desk in that building’s front lobby. Her desk was around the corner from Mr. Downs’s office. She worked at the front desk on the morning of November 7, 2018, and recalled that she heard Ms. Lynar “pounding” on Mr. Downs’s office door; she described it as “[v]ery intentional and very loud.” Ms. Brooks walked around the corner to observe Ms. Lynar, and testified that Ms. Lynar began screaming at her. Ms. Brooks testified that she said nothing to Ms. Lynar, and that Ms. Lynar eventually left. Ms. Brooks then entered Mr. Downs’s office, where there were two other residents and a certified occupational specialist, and explained to Mr. Downs what had transpired outside of his office. Ms. Brooks was inside of Mr. Downs’s office when Ms. Lynar began screaming and pounding on his office door a second time. Ms. Brooks testified that Ms. Lynar’s conduct that morning frightened her. Mr. Downs, the administrator of Westminster’s property in Cocoa, including Asbury Arms North, testified that on the morning of November 7, 2018, he was on a telephone call, but heard a loud pounding on his door, and ended his call. He testified that Ms. Brooks came to his office to explain what had happened, and during this explanation, Ms. Lynar began pounding on the door and screaming again. After answering the door, he stated that Ms. Lynar stormed off. The undersigned observed a video recording of the first of the two “screaming and pounding” incidents that occurred the morning of November 7, 2018. Although the video recording did not also have an audio recording of this incident, it appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Lynar clearly approached an office door and, with her hand and fist, intentionally pounded on the office door. Additionally, Respondents introduced into evidence only one of the two “pounding and screaming” incidents, explaining that the video of the other/second incident was unavailable. On November 20, 2018, Asbury Arms North, Inc., hand-delivered to Ms. Lynar a “Notice of Termination of Tenancy,” which stated, in part: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that your tenancy … is terminated, effective at the end of the day on December 20, 2018. You must vacate the premises at or before that time. THIS TERMINATION is based on your material noncompliance with the Lease Agreement, including one or more substantial violations of the Lease Agreement. The specific reason for this termination is as follows: On the morning of November 7, 2018 you committed a substantial violation of the lease by causing a loud commotion by acting aggressive and erratic, banging repeatedly on the office door, and yelling at staff and other residents, including Receptionist Josephine Brooks and Administrator Joe Downs. Your actions were threatening, intimidating, harassing, and violent. Your actions interfered with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the other residents living in the apartment property by causing a commotion and disrupting a bible study being conducted by Chaplain Don Adkins and approximately 15 residents. Your actions also disrupted the management of Westminster Asbury by staff. Your actions scared staff and other residents, and have caused continuing fear among staff and other residents. The Lease Agreement contains the following requirement regarding resident conduct: Conduct Residents … will not engage in, or participate in, such conduct which interferes with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the other residents living in the apartment property. No act of a resident and/or guest which threatens, intimidates, is deemed as harassing others, is physically violent with or without injury to another person and/or property, or has unacceptable social conduct, will be tolerated. Any such act will be considered a violation of the Community Policies and the Lease. No act of intimidation, harassment, verbal abuse, physical threat or violence, or social misconduct of, or to, and [sic] employee of this apartment property by any person will be tolerated. Any such act is considered a noncompliance of the Lease Agreement and will result in termination of the Lease. Your above-described actions on November 7, 2018 violate the foregoing conduct requirements, in that you engaged in conduct that interfered with the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the other residents, you intimidated other residents, and you intimidated, harassed, and verbally abused employees of the property. Your actions, pursuant to the Lease, are a noncompliance and have resulted in termination of the Lease. BE ADVISED that if you remain in the leased unit after the date specified for termination, the Landlord may seek to enforce the termination only by bringing a judicial action at which time you may present any defenses. Thereafter, on December 22, 2018, Asbury Arms North, Inc., filed a Complaint for possession of real property, and damages, in county court in Brevard County, Florida. Ms. Lynar testified that she has been the subject of previous eviction actions with Asbury Arms North, Inc., and had never previously received a Notice of Termination. She stated that Asbury Arms North, Inc., delivered this while she was with friends in the fellowship room, and believed this was inappropriate and retaliation for participation in Lynar II. Ms. Lynar testified that she did knock on Mr. Downs’s door, to (again) complain about a group of residents she contends engage in bullying and harassment. She contends that instead of doing something about the bullying and harassment, Asbury Arms North, Inc., instituted the eviction action in Brevard County Court, again, in retaliation for her participation in Lynar II.2 Other Alleged Bases for FHA Retaliation Ms. Lynar testified that she believed Respondents’ decision to issue the Notice of Termination and commence eviction proceedings against her was also in retaliation for her assisting another Asbury Arms North, Inc., resident, Sudhir Kotecha, in bringing an FHA discrimination claim against Respondents. Respondents had also commenced an eviction action against Mr. Kotecha during this time period. Mr. Kotecha’s attorney, Nicholas Vidoni, testified at the final hearing concerning the deposition of Mr. Downs in that eviction proceeding, in which Ms. Lynar (who was not a party to that eviction matter, but was a party to the December 22, 2018, pending eviction matter involving Asbury Arms North, Inc.) attempted to attend. Mr. Downs’s attorney objected, and filed a Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination, requesting that Ms. Lynar not be present for the deposition because of the pending eviction matter and the pending Lynar II matter (in both of which, Mr. Vidoni represented Ms. Lynar), and other reasons. Mr. Vidoni testified that the county judge granted the Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination, in part, and barred Ms. Lynar from attending Mr. Downs’s deposition. Additionally, during this time period, Ms. Lynar testified that Respondents sought to have the county judge assigned to the eviction case 2 The issue of bullying and harassment at the hands of certain residents of Asbury Arms North, Inc., was fully considered and rejected as grounds for a violation of the FHA in Lynar II. removed, because Ms. Lynar allegedly had contact with the county judge at a restaurant. Mr. Vidoni confirmed that Respondents indeed filed such a motion, but did not testify as to its resolution, and Ms. Lynar presented no further evidence about it. Ms. Lynar testified that the actions of Respondents in paragraphs 20 and 21 above are further evidence of Respondents retaliating against her for participation in Lynar II. Ms. Lynar also contends that Mr. Downs reached out to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which subsidizes her apartment at Asbury Arms North, Inc., to discuss the non-renewal of Ms. Lynar’s lease in 2014, as an additional form of retaliation. Mr. Downs testified that Respondents had initiated an eviction proceeding in 2014, and that he recalled discussing with a HUD official whether Asbury Arms North, Inc., should renew Ms. Lynar’s lease; Mr. Downs testified that the HUD official questioned why Ms. Lynar’s lease would be renewed if Asbury Arms North, Inc., was in the process of evicting her. This conversation occurred well before the actions that resulted in Lynar II occurred, and are irrelevant. Ms. Lynar failed to provide any credible evidence that Respondents’ decision to issue the Notice of Termination, and subsequently commence eviction proceedings in county court, was retaliation for her participation in Lynar II, in violation of the FHA. The undersigned further finds that the actions that occurred during the Kotecha eviction proceeding, and Mr. Downs’s conversation with a HUD official, are not credible evidence of FHA retaliation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Rita Lynar’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 4th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Stephen G. Henderson, Esquire Henderson Legal Group 5419 Village Drive Viera, Florida 32955 (eServed) Rita Lynar 1200 Clearlake Road #2114 Cocoa, Florida 32922 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
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, Monroe County Housing Authority, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner, Diane Scott, on the basis of her race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Diane Scott is a black women. Her husband, Kenneth Scott, who lives with her, is a black man. Respondent Monroe County Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Authority") is responsible for providing low income and affordable rental apartments in Monroe County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “County”), a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Housing Authority is responsible for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Ms. Scott and her husband (hereinafter referred jointly as the “Scotts”), are former residents of apartment number 23 (hereinafter referred to as the “Apartment”), Tropical Isle Apartments, one of the Housing Authority’s housing developments, located at 260 41st Street, Marathon, Florida. The Scotts rented the Apartment pursuant to an Affordable Housing Residential Lease Agreement entered into on March 1, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”). The Lease provided for a one-year rental period. As the Scotts readily admitted at hearing, Ms. Scott has raised numerous complaints with the Housing Authority concerning matters ranging from drug sales and use at Tropical Isle Apartments, which door maintenance personnel should utilize to enter the Apartment, and, most recently, the employment of an individual with a criminal record at Tropical Isle Apartments. Ms. Scott’s complaints, which were made in person, by telephone, and by email, were numerous and extremely time-consuming to deal with by personnel of the Housing Authority. Efforts to respond to Ms. Scott’s complaints more often than not did not satisfy her. By letter dated January 23, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice of Violation”), the Scotts were informed that Ms. Scott’s conduct constituted a violation of the Lease and that if it continued, could result in termination of the Lease (why the letter was signed by Charla Rodriguez, Director of Operations, The Housing Authority of the City of Key West, Florida, was not explained at hearing). Jesus Manuel Castillo, Sr., Executive Director of the Housing Authority, met with the Scotts on February 28, 2008, to discuss the Notice of Violation and determined that the Notice had been properly issued. Ms. Scott’s behavior did not improve. Consequently, by letter dated October 30, 2008, Susan E. Vogt, Housing Manager for Tropical Isle Apartments, informed the Scotts that their Lease would not be renewed and that, therefore, their Lease would expire effective January 12, 2009. Ms. Vogt’s more than four-page letter described in some detail the events which had led to the decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease. The decision to not renew the Scotts’ Lease was made by Mr. Castillo, Sr. Mr. Castillo had met with Ms. Scott on more than one occasion and had been the recipient of her emails and telephone calls and was well aware of the time and effort staff had to expend dealing with Ms. Scott’s complaints. Mr. Castillo, on behalf of the Housing Authority, decided to not renew the Scotts’ lease, rather than evicting them so that the Scotts would be able to continue to receive a Section 8 voucher. 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. Even the Scotts admitted at hearing that their lease was not renewed primarily because of Ms. Scott’s continuous complaints, adding that they “believed it was also because of their race.” Even Ms. Scott’s Proposed Recommended Order fails to mention how her race played any part in her treatment by the Housing Authority. Ultimately it is determined that the Housing Authority did not commit any prohibited act vis-à-vis Ms. Scott.
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 finding the Monroe County Housing Authority not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Ms. Scott no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Manuel Castillo, Sr. Monroe County Housing Authority 1400 Kennedy Drive Key West, Florida 33040 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050 Franklin D. Greenman, Esquire Greenman, Manz & Ables Gulfside Village, Suite 40 5800 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint alleging handicap discrimination against Respondents in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2020), was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”); and (2) whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was timely filed with FCHR.
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 2020, Petitioner filed a fair housing discrimination complaint with FCHR, alleging that Respondents, Brennan Realty, Inc., Joseph P. Brennan, Kathleen Brennan, and Thomas Brennan, discriminated against her based on a handicap. According to her housing discrimination complaint, Petitioner rents an apartment at 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4, Coral Gables, Florida, 33134, “which is subject to rules and regulations of Respondent[,] Brennan Realty, Inc., owned by Respondent[,] Thomas Brennan, and Respondent Registered Agent Joseph P. Brennan, and landlord Respondent[,] Kathleen Brennan.” Petitioner alleged that Respondent Brennan Realty, Inc., sent notices for her to vacate the premises after she made a maintenance request to property owners Kathleen and Joseph Brennan for repairs and a reasonable modification to install grab bars inside of her shower to assist her and prevent falls. Petitioner further alleged “she provided medical documentation to the Respondents which also stated that it is medically necessary for [her] to have the grab bars installed as well.” Petitioner further alleged Respondents Kathleen Brennan and Joseph Brennan “still [have] not installed the grab bars and [are] requesting for her to vacate the premises.” As such, “[Petitioner] believes that Respondents subjected her to discriminatory terms and conditions based on her physical disability.” In May 2019, July 2019, and August 2019, Petitioner received notices informing her that her lease would expire on September 1, 2019; that the lease would not be renewed; and that she needed to vacate and surrender the premises by no later than September 1, 2019. On September 9, 2019, an eviction complaint was filed against Petitioner in Miami-Dade County Court. On September 12, 2019, Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred, at the latest, on September 12, 2019, when Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner had one year from September 12, 2019, in which to file her housing discrimination complaint with FCHR. However, Petitioner did not file her complaint with FCHR until October 29, 2020. Therefore, Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was untimely. Even if Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was timely filed with FCHR, her Petition for Relief was not timely filed. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged she received FCHR’s no cause determination on January 13, 2021. The no cause determination expressly provides that if Petitioner “does not agree with this determination, [she] may request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of service of this Notice.” However, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was not filed with FCHR until February 26, 2021. Therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was untimely.
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 7th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 7th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 April Denise Dukes 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4 Miami, Florida 33130 Vanessa Marie Bertran, Esquire Vanessa M. Bertran, P.A. 55 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact In August 2011, Petitioner filed a "Housing Discrimination Complaint" ("Complaint") with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or FCHR. In the Complaint, Petitioner alleged that Respondent was "discriminating against her because of her disability" by refusing to accept her service animal and by locking her out of the condominium lobby on multiple occasions. On September 21, 2011, FCHR issued a "Notice of Determination of No Cause," which it served on Petitioner by U.S. Mail on the same date. The Notice advised Petitioner, in relevant part, as follows: The Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administer the Fair Housing Act (the Act). The FCHR completed its investigation of the subject complaint, which was filed under the Act. Informal efforts to resolve the case during the investigation were unsuccessful. Based on the evidence obtained during the Investigation, the FCHR has determined that reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. Accordingly, the above-referenced complaint is hereby dismissed. * * * The parties are further advised that the Complainant may request that a formal administrative proceeding be conducted. The request (i.e., Petition for Relief) must be filed with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of service of this Notice and should be in compliance with the provisions of rule 60Y-8.001 and Chapter 60Y-4, Florida Administrative Code, entitled General Procedures. A Petition for Relief form is enclosed Failure of Complainant to timely file a Petition will result in dismissal of the complaint within the purview of Rule 60Y-2.004(2)(g). (Emphasis added). Subsequently, on Monday, October 24, 2011——after the 30-day deadline, which fell on Friday, October 21, 2011——FCHR received a completed "Petition for Relief" form from Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 29th day of November, 2011.
