The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, religion, or disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Parklife is the owner of a mobile home community known as St. Lucie Mobile Village (the “Village”), which comprises approximately 220 homes. For the last 21 years, McGrath has leased a lot in the Village, upon which her double-wide mobile home sits. She is a white woman, approximately 60 years old, who claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and other unspecified anxiety disorders, and to be a practicing Jehovah’s Witness. This is a case of alleged housing discrimination brought under Florida’s Fair Housing Act (the “Act”). McGrath alleges that Parklife has discriminated against her in several ways, which can be classified as selective enforcement, disparate treatment, and retaliation. Specifically, McGrath alleges that Parklife required her to upgrade the skirting around, and also to re-level, her home, while excusing other (predominately Hispanic) residents, whose homes were in comparable condition, from making similar improvements. McGrath alleges that Parklife issued warnings to her for violating the “two vehicle” rule, while allowing other (predominately Hispanic) residents to keep three or more cars on their lots. She alleges that Parklife permitted Hispanic residents to shoot off fireworks and make noise in violation of park rules, depriving her of the peaceful enjoyment of her premises. Finally, McGrath alleges that Parklife commenced a retaliatory eviction proceeding against her for being a whistle blower. McGrath does not dispute that her home needed new skirting and to be leveled, and she admits having violated the two vehicle rule. She claims, nevertheless, that Parklife took action against her on the basis of her race (white), religion (Jehovah’s Witness), disability (PTSD), or some combination of these, as shown by its more lenient treatment of residents outside the protected categories. McGrath’s allegations are legally sufficient to state a claim of housing discrimination. That is, if McGrath were able to prove the facts she has alleged, she would be entitled to relief. She failed, however, to present sufficient, persuasive evidence in support of the charges. It is not that there is no evidence behind McGrath’s claims. She and her witness, Kassandra Rosa, testified that other residents have violated park rules regarding skirting, leveling, and allowable vehicles––seemingly without consequence. To determine whether the circumstances of these other residents were truly comparable to McGrath’s, however, so as to conclude that she was singled out for different treatment, requires more information than the evidence affords. Taken together, McGraths’s testimony and that of Ms. Rosa was simply too vague and lacking in relevant detail to support findings of disparate treatment or selective enforcement on the basis of race, religion, or handicap. Indeed, the persuasive evidence fails to establish that Parklife declined to take appropriate action with regard to similarly-situated violators, or that it otherwise condoned, or acquiesced to, the rulebreaking of such residents. At most, the evidence shows that other residents violated the same rules as McGrath––not that they got off scot-free, which is a different matter. As for the eviction proceeding, which was pending in county court at the time of the final hearing, there is insufficient evidence (if any) to support McGrath’s contention that Parklife is retaliating against her or using the legal process as a pretext for unlawfully depriving her of a dwelling in violation of the Act. In terms of timing, Parklife initiated the eviction proceeding before it became aware that McGrath had filed a complaint of housing discrimination, which tends to undermine the assertion that the eviction was brought to retaliate against McGrath for exercising her rights under the Act. More important is that Parklife has articulated and proved nondiscriminatory grounds for seeking to terminate McGrath’s lease. Residents have complained to the Village’s management that McGrath has harassed her neighbors at various times, in various ways. While there is insufficient nonhearsay evidence in the instant record for the undersigned to make findings as to whether McGrath did, in fact, harass other residents in violation of park rules, Parklife proved by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that it was on notice of such alleged misconduct on McGrath’s part. The fact that Parklife had such notice is sufficient to show that its bringing an action to evict McGrath was not merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination against her. Of course, the question of whether Parklife is entitled to terminate McGrath’s tenancy is one that need not, and cannot, be decided in this proceeding. It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that McGrath has failed to establish by the greater weight of the evidence that Parklife or any of the Respondents, jointly or severally, committed an unlawful housing practice.
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 Parklife not liable for housing discrimination and awarding McGrath no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 2nd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Laney H. McGrath 11500 Southwest Kanner Highway, Lot 317 Indiantown, Florida 34956 (eServed) Teresa Schenk St. Lucie Village Parklife, LLC 11500 Southwest Kanner Highway Indiantown, Florida 34956 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On September 17, 1987, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to two felonies: possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. The plea was entered in Case No. 86-342-CF, in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Florida, and the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offenses. In the Court's judgment of guilt, it was found to the Court's satisfaction that the Petitioner was not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that RICHARD EPPS should suffer the penalty authorized by law. As a result of the Court's findings, the Petitioner, RICHARD EPPS, was sentenced to three years probation. He was ordered to serve five months in the county jail as a condition of that probation. On January 25, 1988, the Petitioner completed an application for a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration. The purpose of the application was to obtain a new certificate as he was no longer eligible for a renewal of his prior certificate. On March 16, 1988, the Respondent notified the Petitioner of its intent to refuse to issue the certificate of registration. The reasons given were: 1) The U.S. Department of Labor recommended against it due to the felony convictions. 2) By rule, the Respondent is required to cooperate with any federal agency. 3) Once a certificate is obtained, each contractor must comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations for the protection or benefit of labor. The Petitioner has used marijuana in the past. He has never used it during working hours, and his work crew was unaware that he has ever used marijuana. He has never allowed drugs in the work place and he no longer uses marijuana. The Petitioner has never used cocaine or other illegal drugs, except for the marijuana. The Petitioner's arrest on November 6, 1986, for the possession of cocaine and marijuana was a result of his location in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he went to his marijuana supplier's home to purchase marijuana for his personal use, the house was raided by the Arcadia Police Department. Originally, all of the people within the house where individually charged with possession of all of the drugs stored there. The Petitioner's plea of nolo contendere was a result of a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner is aware that his former drug activity was criminal in nature, and he has stopped his marijuana use with the help of voluntary counseling, his family, the fact that he is on probation, and the fact that his habit got him into serious trouble. The Petitioner will not endanger the safety of a work crew as a result of his past use of marijuana. There is no evidence that the safety of the work crew was ever endangered as a result of the Petitioner's past habit or that his presence in the fields will be harmful to farm workers. The Petitioner has never engaged in transporting farm workers beyond state lines. His crew leader activities are confined to less than twenty workers and he works for one farmer, Mr. Bobby Williams in Arcadia, Florida.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Pecan Grove is an assisted living facility which is owned by North Florida Living Facilities. Pecan Grove has a licensed capacity of eight beds and is located in a home in Pensacola, Florida. Case No. 01-1209 Robert DuBose is the Director of Environmental Health for the Escambia County Health Department. His office is responsible for inspection of facilities, including assisted living facilities, regarding environmental health matters. His agency works in cooperation with AHCA in that AHCA handles licensure and related inspections and his agency handles the environmental health portion of the inspections. His agency is primarily interested in facility sanitation and issues that would be related to the health of the residents. In September of 2000, Mr. DuBose received a call from an AHCA nurse informing him of certain environmental health conditions at Pecan Grove. Also in September of 2000, AHCA responded by letter to a resident of Pecan Grove regarding a complaint made by the resident regarding the facility. The letter to the resident stated that an unannounced visit to the facility would take place. Mr. DuBose, the Deputy Director of Environmental Health, and a facility inspector from his agency went to Pecan Grove and conducted an inspection of the facility. During the inspection, Mr. DuBose and his colleagues found numerous environmental health problems: I was appalled at the condition of this facility. And as I indicated in my written statement, I couldn't believe that something like this had a license in the State of Florida. I just -- I have never seen anything like this that had any type of license from the State in all the years of being a health inspector. I've seen things like this in private residences where we had dilapidated homes, indigent folks living there, people that were mentally ill, living conditions like this, but I just can't -- I still don't understand how or why this place was licensed. And I'm sure, you know, AHCA may have some feelings in the same -- it's not that someone -- I'm not sure what happened but it's not any facility we want to have licensed, I guess is what I was trying to say. It was just -- there was roaches in the refrigerator. There was roaches in the building. There were no linens on the beds. People were sleeping on mattresses without covers, pillows without covers. There were evidence of rats in the heater closet. There was no hot water in one of the bathrooms. There was some improper storage of garbage. When we were outside, the mosquitos [sic] were just eating us up. I mean, we had bites all over us just waking [sic] around outside. And we found the storage containers with stagnant water in them sitting around in the yard. Thee [there] was sewage overflowing and they had a septic tank that a laundry or the laundry wastewater was overflowing, some type of sewage was overflowing in the middle of the back of the yard. There were rat burrows up under the house. It was -- it was just the carpets were filthy. You couldn't even tell what color they were. It's just housing that you would -- that I've -- I haven't seen anything like that since, I suppose, the times that we did the I-110 road control project when we put I-110 through Pensacola and the people -- there was some low income people in that area and the people moved out of the houses and we had to go in there or our inspectors had to go in to kill the rats and fleas before we tore the houses down and it was similar to that type of condition. And like I say, I've seen some elderly people that were mentally ill living in that type of condition, but never, never seen any kind of a facility like that. No question that this was a health hazard. The people needed to be moved. These environmental health problems described by Mr. DuBose constitute gross environmental health hazards. Rats carry fleas that can cause disease when they bite people. Additionally, rats urinate as they travel and carry a disease called leptospirosis in their urine and other diseases. Upon inspection, Mr. DuBose found mosquito larvae in several containers in all different stages of development indicating the containers had been standing for some time. Mosquitoes carry several diseases including dengue fever and West Nile virus. The sewage overflow in the backyard also constituted a health hazard even though it was from wash water, as that is still highly contaminated wastewater. The inside of the facility also contained many health hazards including inadequate air conditioning and a leak in the sink so severe that the bottom of the cabinet under the sink was saturated from water before a bucket had been placed there to catch the dripping water. The inside of the refrigerator was 70 degrees which was significantly above the temperature adequate to safely store food. Roaches were found inside the refrigerator. Roaches are a health hazard because they track contaminants onto food. A burner on the stove was not working causing concern that an electrical fire could result. The carpets and floors were filthy. There were no sheets on the beds and the mattresses and pillows were filthy. There were rat droppings and pecan shells in the water heater closet which was adjacent to the bedrooms and hallway. The bathrooms were in poor condition in that there was no hot water in the hand sink in one of the bathrooms and no faucet on another. Mr. DuBose and his colleagues called Adult Protective Services requesting they send an inspector there as the inspection team felt the residents needed to be removed immediately. The owner agreed to move the residents immediately and the residents were moved to another facility owned by Respondent, Willow Grove. Margot Robinson, administrator of Pecan Grove and wife of the owner of Pecan Grove, attempted to explain some of the health hazards found by Mr. DuBose. She and her husband had started to remodel the facility. They had removed some carpet and started painting one of the bedrooms. She also explained that on the day of Mr. DuBose's inspection, she had ordered a staff person to remove the bed linens for washing and to bleach the mattresses. Further, she explained that a house across the street from Pecan Grove had burned down several months prior to the inspection and that rats were coming to Pecan Grove from a pile of wood left from the burned house. She also accused a former resident of causing damage to the facility. AHCA placed a moratorium on admissions to Pecan Grove on September 26, 2000. By letter dated October 24, 2000, AHCA lifted the moratorium on admissions indicating that Tag A1006, which with Respondent had been cited in the Administrative Complaint, had been corrected. Case No. 01-2107 As the result of a complaint received by AHCA, Sandra Corcoran and Norma Endress, registered nurse specialists employed by AHCA, conducted a survey inspection of Pecan Grove in April 2001. The complaint was in regard to two issues: threat of harm to a resident and that a resident was not getting the type of food he could eat. During the survey inspection, Resident #1 informed the surveyors that he had been threatened by Resident #3 that if Resident #1 changed the thermostat, that Resident #3 would hit him. Resident #3 was present at the beginning of the survey inspection. He was a tall man whose demeanor was threatening to a point that even the AHCA nurses were intimidated by him. Resident #3 first lived at Willow Grove, but was moved to Pecan Grove. He had a history of psychological problems and would at times check himself into a local psychiatric care facility. At the time of the survey visit, Resident #3 had been given his discharge notice from Pecan Grove. The AHCA surveyors instructed the staff person to call the police if Resident #3 made threats to the other residents. Resident #1 was thin and pale and complained to the surveyors that he was not given appropriate food to eat. That is, Resident #1's teeth were in very poor condition and he requested soft foods such as Vienna sausage, potted meat and oatmeal. During the survey inspection, Ms. Corcoran did not observe these types of food to be available for Resident #1. However, Mrs. Robinson explained that Resident #1 had been given Promote, a nutritional drink, to supplement his diet. Ms. Corcoran asked a staff person to look at Resident #1's "1823" which is the document that contains any medical orders for the resident as well as diet requirements. However, none of the records for the resident were at the facility. All of the residents' records had been taken to Willow Grove by David Davis, area manager for Pecan Grove and Willow Grove. Mr. Davis' office was at Willow Grove and he had taken the records to his office to update them. Pecan Grove failed to have available the residents' medical records at the facility. AHCA placed a moratorium on admissions to Pecan Grove which was lifted on May 11, 2001, as the result of corrected deficiencies including the three deficiencies with which Respondent was charged in the Administrative Complaint, i.e., Tag A718, Tag A802, and Tag A300.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revoking Respondent's license for Pecan Grove Living Facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 15th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard P. Warfield, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may revoke the license of Respondent to operate three group home facilities for failing a background screening due to a conviction of a felony for the possession of Cannabis with an intent to sell or deliver and a failure to disclose this conviction on his license application.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds licenses issued by Petitioner for the operation of three group home facilities, known as Shibor Group Home No. 1, Shibor Group Home No. 3, and Shibor Group Home No. 4. Each license is for a term of one year. Mr. Orukotan is the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Respondent. In his capacity as an officer and employee of Respondent, Mr. Orukotan has completed and filed several applications for annual licensure of the three group homes identified in the preceding paragraph. In the affidavit portion of each application, Mr. Orukotan has answered, under oath, "no" to the question: "Have you or anyone identified as a board member or party to ownership, been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony?" By information dated October 11, 2001, the state of Florida alleged that, on September 12, 2001, Mr. Orukotan knowingly possessed MDMA, in an amount of at least 10 grams of MDMA, but less than 200 grams, and Cannabis, in excess of 20 grams. Both counts alleged violations of various provisions of chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Over three years later, Mr. Orukotan was tried in Broward Circuit Court, Case No. 01-15907CF10A, on three charges: a felony charge of trafficking in MDMA, a felony charge of possession of Cannabis, and a misdemeanor charge of an inoperative headlamp on a motor vehicle that he was operating at the time of his arrest. For 522 days of the interval between his arrest and trial, Mr. Orukotan was incarcerated. By a Circuit Court Disposition Order dated April 6, 2005, and presumably entered contemporaneously with the jury trial, the judge documented that the headlamp charge had been dismissed, Mr. Orukotan had been acquitted of the MDMA charge, and Mr. Orukotan had been convicted of a Cannabis charge-- specifically, Mr. Orukotan had been convicted of the "LIO"-- presumably meaning "lesser included offense"--of "poss cannabis"--obviously meaning possession of Cannabis. Adjudicating Mr. Orukotan guilty of the Cannabis charge, the court imposed a sentence of 364 days, so that, with credit for 522 days' incarceration, Mr. Orukotan was released from custody. The court appears not to have imposed a fine, but imposed court costs of about $200. The disposition order does not cite the statute on which Mr. Orukotan was adjudicated guilty, nor does it designate the lesser included offense as a felony or a misdemeanor. The disposition order does not describe any of the three charges as a felony or misdemeanor. Based on the length of the sentence, which is the maximum for a misdemeanor, and the notation, "lesser included offense," the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding of a conviction of a misdemeanor, not a felony, relating to the possession of Cannabis. Significantly, Petitioner has not contended in its proposed recommended order that Respondent was convicted of a felony Cannabis charge. Mr. Orukotan testified that, when he completed the above-described affidavits, he believed that he had been found not guilty of all charges. From Mr. Orukotan's perspective, after spending about one and one-half years in jail, it is entirely plausible that he went to trial, won, and was released with a small charge. Mr. Orukotan displayed no obvious cognitive difficulties during the hearing, but he spoke heavily accented English, and English may not be his native language. Regardless, if the actual trial and post-trial processes bore any of the ambiguity that characterizes the disposition order, Mr. Orukotan was understandably confused about what had transpired and may reasonably have concluded that he had been found not guilty of all charges, so that his failure to disclose the actual misdemeanor conviction on the applications was entirely inadvertent and excusable. The background screening report was not introduced into evidence. Petitioner's sole witness testified that she does not review the background screening; she reviews the work of the employee who reviews the background screening and does not read the background screening report itself. Petitioner's witness understood that Respondent's offense did not appear in the FBI screening, but only in the local screening.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Abimbola Orukotan, Manager Shibor Group, Inc. 5717 Mayo Street Hollywood, Florida 33023 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 315C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Gypsy Bailey, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents committed a housing discriminatory practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On or about January 20, 2009, the Petitioner filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). Pursuant to the Commission's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed that resulted in a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Essentially, the Commission found that based upon the allegations raised by the Petitioner there was no cause from which it could be found the Respondents had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination and to seek relief against the Respondents for the alleged violation. The Commission then forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. The Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Notice of Hearing that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. The postal service did not return the notices as undelivered. It is presumed the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. No party appeared at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leaford Green Danett Green 3758 Southwest Findlay Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Paula Adams Post Office Box 1665 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 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
