The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on race regarding the renting of an apartment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns more than 25 residential rental properties in the State of Florida, including the duplex located at 8472 and 8474 Barrancas Street, Navarre, Florida, which he purchased approximately three years ago. In January 2011, Respondent placed an advertisement in the newspaper for the rental of both sides of the duplex, and put a "For Rent" sign in the front yard. On January 27, 2010, Respondent entered into a lease agreement for the rental of Unit 8472 with Jeffery White, who is Caucasian. Respondent had to evict Mr. White for non-payment of rent. Mr. White was cited for leaving garbage and other things stacked around the home. When he moved out around August 2010, Mr. White left Unit 8472 filthy on the inside and out. Petitioner, Karen Davis, was the next person to have a lease on this property, approximately five months later. On January 7, 2011, Ms. Davis, who is African-American, was looking to rent a home and saw Respondent's advertisement in the newspaper for the duplex on Barrancas Street. Ms. Davis called Respondent and set up an appointment to view the duplex the same day. Ms. Davis and her mother, Sylvienne Pearson, arrived at the property before Respondent, so they walked around the duplex and looked through the windows while they waited. Respondent showed Unit 8472 to Mses. Davis and Pearson. They learned that the hot water heater had insulation coming out of it, the front door knob did not have a lock, the refrigerator was pulled out from the wall, and the unit appeared not to have been cleaned or prepared for a new tenant since the last tenant had moved out. A storage room in the back of the duplex had to be pried open because it was filled with furniture that had been left by a previous tenant. There was garbage around the outside. Respondent indicated that the home was available "as is." Unit 8472 needed to be cleaned and a hole in the door repaired. Respondent told Ms. Davis that he would deduct the reasonable cost of having the carpet cleaned from the rent. Ms. Pearson asked if they could take a look at the adjoining unit, 8474, which she learned was also available to rent. Respondent told Ms. Pearson that the carpet was damaged, and he would not show it to them because he was not going to rent it until the repairs had been made. After viewing Unit 8472, Ms. Davis called her friend, Brigitte Brahms, who is Caucasian and works part-time as a real estate agent. Ms. Brahms did a search on the property and determined that there was not a lien or foreclosure on it. Ms. Davis described to Ms. Brahms that the front door lock was not working, a lot of belongings were left from a previous tenant, garbage was in the yard, the hot water heater had insulation coming out of it, and that Respondent was not willing to fix any of these items. Respondent's only qualification for a potential tenant in his rental properties is that the tenant has some money. Once Ms. Davis presented Respondent with $350, he determined that she was qualified, and agreed to sign the lease with her. He told Ms. Davis that she would save $80 if she moved into Unit 8272 right away. After Ms. Davis signed the lease and gave him $350, Respondent gave Ms. Davis the keys to the unit. Ms. Davis told Respondent that she did not have all the money required for the rent, and that she would have to get some of it from her family. The next morning, January 8, 2011, Ms. Davis called Respondent to ask to see Unit 8474. Respondent's wife answered the telephone and indicated that Unit 8474 had already been promised to someone else. A short time later, Ms. Brahms, posing as a potential tenant, called Respondent, and asked about the availability of Unit 8474. Respondent indicated that it was available, and Ms. Brahms told him that she would call back later. Ms. Davis went to Ms. Brahm's house and called Respondent again on speakerphone while Ms. Brahms listened. Respondent again told Ms. Davis that Unit 8474 was not available because it had already been rented, and he would not show it to her. An hour later, Ms. Brahms called Respondent to verify that Unit 8474 was available, and Respondent offered to show it to her the same day. Mses. Davis, Pearson, and Brahms went to the duplex before the appointment with Respondent and walked around Unit 8472 so Ms. Brahms would be able to compare it with Unit 8474. Ms. Brahms noted that Unit 8474 was in much better condition than Unit 8272; everything was cleaned up; the unit had been vacuumed; the kitchen was set up properly; the storage unit was empty; and there was no garbage left out in the yard. The carpet was stained and there was a small strip of carpet that was missing between the master bedroom and the living room, but Respondent did not indicate that he would change the carpet or make any repairs. The problems with Unit 8474 were minor in comparison with the problems with Unit 8472, and Unit 8474 was in much better condition than Unit 8472. Respondent did not tell Ms. Brahms that there was anything that had to be repaired before he would rent Unit 8474 to her, and he did not indicate that it was being held for someone else. Instead, when Ms. Brahms asked if Unit 8474 was available to rent, Respondent indicated that she could rent it that very day. January 8, 2011, knowing that Respondent had shown Unit 8474 to Ms. Brahms after refusing to show it to her, Ms. Davis told Respondent that she was no longer interested in renting Unit 8472; tried to return the key to him; and requested a refund of the $350 deposit. Respondent refused, so Ms. Davis sent the key to him in a letter on January 13, 2011, again requesting the refund of the $350 deposit. Respondent has never returned Ms. Davis' $350 deposit. Ms. Davis never actually moved into the duplex. After she decided not to rent Unit 8472 from Respondent, he next rented the unit to a Caucasian on February 25, 2011, then later to another Caucasian followed by a Hispanic tenant. Towards the end of January 2011, Ms. Davis located another rental and moved in on February 1, 2011. Since she never moved into Respondent's duplex, she paid $80 to keep her furniture in storage for a month until she found a new place to live. She paid a $400 deposit and a $300 pet fee for two dogs. Respondent provided several reasons for not showing Unit 8474 to Ms. Davis. Respondent testified that Ms. Davis never asked to see Unit 8474. Instead, he alleges that she simply asked if it was empty, to which Respondent indicated that it was empty and available for rent, but that the unit needed several repairs, and it had not been cleaned. However, Respondent later testified that the previous tenants had left Unit 8474 in such a condition that it only required minor "TLC" from him and was ready to be rented. Additionally, Respondent admitted that he was willing to show Unit 8474 to Rita Davis (no relation to Petitioner), who is Caucasian, despite the fact that he had not repaired the carpet or cleaned Unit 8474. Respondent stated that he had agreed to hold Unit 8474 for an unidentified person until Monday, January 10, 2011, but admitted that he had not received a deposit to hold the unit. Respondent explained that many times he has allowed his tenants to transfer to another one of his properties, even months later, without penalty or charges of any kind. Respondent admitted he did tell Ms. Brahms that Unit 8474 was available for rent and showed it to her, but states that had she actually offered to rent it, he would have told her that it still needed work that she would have had to complete herself. Also, she would only have been allowed to rent that unit if the other person for whom he was holding it did not come up with a deposit. Respondent testified that if a prospective tenant is likely to get into one of his rental properties and tear it up, he will not rent to that person. No evidence was produced to prove that Ms. Davis had a prior record of not caring for apartments or places where she lived.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent discriminated against Karen Davis in violation of section 760.23(1) and (4), Florida Statutes; prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondent; and directing that Respondent submit a cashier's check to Karen Davis within 10 business days from the date of the final order in the amount of $430.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Tinsley 3014 Shearwater Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact In January 2008, Petitioner filed a “Housing Discrimination Complaint” with FCHR and/or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint alleged that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon her race (black) and religion (Christian) in its servicing of her home mortgage loan. On or about March 27, 2008, a “Determination” was issued finding no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner. On April 18, 2008, FCHR sent a “Notice of Determination of No Cause” to Petitioner by certified mail No. 7007 1490 0002 5958 0931. Petitioner received the Notice on April 22, 2008, according to the certified mail receipt included in the case file. The Notice advised Petitioner that “FCHR has determined reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.” The Notice further advised Petitioner that she could request an administrative hearing, and clearly stated that any such request “must be filed with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Notice.” A “Petition for Relief, in blank” was sent to Petitioner along with the Notice. On May 23, 2008, FCHR received a completed “Petition for Relief” form from Petitioner. The form was signed by Petitioner and dated May 20, 2008. Petitioner stated in her response to the Order to Show Cause that she “never received any paperwork on the above case” and that “the only paperwork that [she] received was on or a about June 9, 2008.”
Recommendation Based upon 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 18th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 18th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice by denying Petitioners the opportunity to rent or purchase and ordering them to vacate their unit immediately and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations provide Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Remberto Gomez Marta Gonzalez 15220 Southwest 300th Street, Lot 534 Miami, Florida 33033 Robert E. Paige, Esquire 9500 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 550 Miami, Florida 33156
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners have been subjected to illegal discriminatory treatment by Respondent in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' complaint, which was dismissed by FCHR on March 24, 2003, resulted from a Housing Discrimination Complaint dual-filed with FCHR and HUD. Petitioners seek to become landlords under the Federal government's Section 8 Program, administered in the Ocala area by Respondent. It is the responsibility of Respondent to receive applications from owners of properties, like Petitioners, who are willing to rent those properties to economically adversely-affected individuals. Respondent then inspects the properties and determines a rental allowance or the amount of supplemental Federal money to be paid the landowner for the rental of a specific property, thereby allowing the economically deprived person a place to live. Petitioners claim that Respondent has discriminated against them by refusing to allow Petitioners to participate in the Section 8 program; specifically, by not making reasonable rent determinations and delaying inspections which are preliminary to a determination of a rental rate. Petitioners did not offer evidence of any specific acts of race-based discrimination. Nor did Petitioners cite any specific information concerning disparate treatment of landlords in the Section 8 program based on race. Further, Petitioners were unable to cite any statistical information that could reasonably lead to the inference that Respondent engaged in wide-spread discrimination. Petitioners’ race-based claims were not supported by any specific information about disparate treatment by Respondent. Petitioners contested the amount of rent which Respondent determined to be applicable to the subject property. As long as the amount of rent was contested, Respondent could not make a rent determination for the Petitioners' properties. A letter to Petitioners from Respondent, dated October 9, 2002, provided Petitioners with notice that Respondent had been advised by its attorney that it could not make a rent determination while the HUD complaint was pending. The letter further stated that should Petitioners withdraw their complaint, their application would be processed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David E. Midgett, Esquire Ocala Housing Authority 2800 East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 205 Ocala, Florida 34470 Larry Williams Monica Williams Post Office Box 01322 Miami, Florida 33101-3221 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by failing to reasonably accommodate her handicap, in violation of Florida?s Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Unit No. 710 (“Unit”) in the Sixth Moorings Condominium, located in Miami, Florida. Petitioner lived there for approximately 11 years. She is not currently living in the Unit. Respondent is the condominium association responsible for the operation and management of the Sixth Moorings Condominium. In early 2010, Petitioner suffered a stroke and underwent heart surgery. It is undisputed that as a result of her illness, Petitioner is “handicapped” for purposes of the Fair Housing Act.4/ Petitioner spent several months in hospitals and nursing homes recovering from her stroke and surgeries. When she was released from these facilities, she did not resume living in the Unit. She testified that this was because she could not go up a curb or steps, and because the condominium?s elevator frequently was out of order.5/ She moved into a ground floor apartment a few blocks away from the Sixth Moorings Condominium. Petitioner is not able to perform many basic tasks, such as grocery shopping, driving, cleaning her apartment, taking out the garbage, or retrieving her mail. Consequently, she decided to invite her nephew, Charles Alsberg, to move into the Unit, where he would be only a few minutes away from the apartment in which she was residing, and thus could serve as her caretaker. Alsberg moved into the Unit in or around August 2010. Petitioner did not reside in the Unit with Alsberg. She testified that even though he is a family member, she would not live in the Unit with him because she is “an elderly woman from a different generation and [she] would not live with a young man unless he was [her] biological son.” In late 2010, Respondent?s President, John Koble, contacted Petitioner about Alsberg living in her Unit. Petitioner asked Koble to allow Alsberg to reside in the Unit so that he could serve as her caretaker, but Koble told her that because she was not residing there, Alsberg was considered an unauthorized guest in violation of the condominium?s restrictive covenants, and that he therefore must move out. Nonetheless, Alsberg continued to reside in the Unit for several more months, until he became ill and was hospitalized. Following his release in August 2011, Alsberg returned to live in the Unit. At this point, Respondent——this time, through counsel——sent Petitioner a letter stating that she was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting unauthorized guests, and demanding that Alsberg vacate the unit. On September 13, 2011, Petitioner?s attorney sent a response letter requesting that, due to restrictions on Alsberg?s activity as a result of his illness, he be allowed to remain in the Unit for approximately 60 days. By correspondence dated September 15, 2011, Respondent agreed to allow Alsberg to remain in the Unit through November 12, 2011. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent granted her request to allow Alsberg to stay there during his recuperation. Notwithstanding this agreement, Alsberg did not vacate the Unit until sometime in early 2012, several months after the November 12, 2011 deadline. During this time, Respondent sent numerous pieces of correspondence that Petitioner characterized as “harassing” and “threatening,” regarding enforcement of the condominium?s covenants and rules. Alsberg finally vacated the Unit after Respondent sent a “final notice” letter. Currently, Alsberg is residing in an apartment approximately four blocks from Petitioner?s apartment and is serving as her caretaker. Koble testified that he was sympathetic to Petitioner?s circumstances, but it was imperative that Respondent consistently enforce the restrictive covenants for the benefit of all unit owners. Koble noted that other unit owners also wanted to allow unauthorized guests to live in their units, and that if Respondent relaxed enforcement of the covenant for Petitioner, it would be forced to do so for others. The undersigned credits this testimony. Koble also testified, credibly, that if Petitioner were residing in her unit, Respondent would have granted an accommodation of the covenant to allow Alsberg to live there for the purpose of serving as her caretaker.6/ The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not request any accommodation from Respondent that was necessary for her equal opportunity to use and enjoy the Unit; rather, the purpose of Petitioner?s request that Respondent not enforce the restrictive covenant against her was to enable her nephew to live in the Unit.
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 no unlawful discrimination by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 May, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is an African-American adult male. He is a United States military veteran.2/ Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is a public housing authority within Miami-Dade County. Respondent's Housing Programs Respondent owns and operates between 9,000 and 10,000 public housing units. Through its Public Housing and Community Development Department, Respondent administers several public housing programs, including the Section 8 and non-Section 8 public housing programs, which receive federal funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").3/ To receive federal housing assistance funding from HUD, Respondent must maintain an occupancy rate of at least 95 percent at its individual public housing properties. HUD regulations govern the admission of persons into Respondent's Section 8 and non-Section 8 public housing programs. Respondent has adopted its own public housing policies in a document entitled the "Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy" ("ACOP").4/ This document sets forth Respondent's policies governing its public housing programs, including policies to ensure compliance with HUD housing regulations and the United States Housing Act of 1937. HUD reviews and approves the ACOP. On or about June 6, 1998, Respondent and HUD entered into a Consent Decree to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by past, present, and future black residents of Respondent's public housing, alleging that Respondent, in providing public housing, discriminated against them on the basis of race in violation of, among other things, the United States Fair Housing Act of 1937. Adker v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., Case No. 87-0874 CIV-PAINE (Consent Decree June 6, 1998). The Consent Decree went into effect on or about August 2, 1999, and expired on August 2, 2009.5/ The Consent Decree required Respondent to establish a tenant-based6/ waiting list and a project-based7/ waiting list for admission into Respondent's public housing programs. The Consent Decree also required Respondent to establish a neutral lottery system to rank the housing assistance applications it received. Through the lottery system, each applicant was assigned two ranking numbers, one for the tenant-based waiting list and one for the project-based waiting list. Even though the Consent Decree no longer is in effect, Respondent continues to maintain its project-based and tenant- based waiting lists and its lottery ranking system pursuant to the ACOP. Because the demand for public housing assistance greatly exceeds the availability of units, Respondent opens registration for housing assistance only when units become available. At that time, persons who wish to qualify for housing assistance complete an online web application to be placed on the waiting lists. Waiting list rankings are randomly assigned by computer, and each applicant is assigned separate ranking numbers for the project-based waiting list and for the tenant- based waiting list. Applicants move up the waiting lists sequentially based on ranking number; for the project-based waiting list, the type and size of unit requested also determines movement up the list. Housing assistance recipients are selected through the waiting lists. Once an applicant moves to the top of the waiting list, he or she is contacted to participate in a preliminary eligibility interview. Eligibility is determined based on annual gross income, qualification pursuant to an eligibility category,8/ citizen or eligible immigration status, and other factors.9/ To enable Respondent to determine whether an applicant has any special needs that must be accommodated in assigning a housing unit, each applicant must complete a Reasonable Accommodation Request Questionnaire ("RARQ").10/ If an applicant identifies a need for special accommodation on the RARQ, the applicant must then submit a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form ("RARF"), and a Reasonable Accommodation Request Verification form ("RARV") completed by a health care provider. Both of these forms must be submitted for an applicant to be assigned a unit based on need for special accommodation. The first qualified applicant in sequence on a waiting list is offered a unit of appropriate size and type. If more than one unit that meets the applicant's specified needs is available, the applicant is given a choice of units. Once an applicant accepts an offer, Respondent forwards the applicant's file to the specific housing site for which the offer was made. A final determination of the applicant's eligibility, including a review of the applicant's income, verification of other requirements, and rent calculation is made at the specific housing site. If determined eligible, the applicant signs the lease and moves into the unit. The ACOP states the circumstances under which an applicant's name will be removed from a waiting list, unless good cause is shown.11/ These circumstances are that the applicant receives and accepts an offer of housing, requests that his or her name be removed from the waiting list, or is determined ineligible for assisted housing; or that an application is deemed withdrawn under specified circumstances, including that the applicant failed to respond to the offer or failed to attend the leasing meeting. If an applicant is removed from the waiting list, Respondent provides written notice and informs the applicant that he or she has the right to request an informal review of the removal decision and to present information justifying reinstatement to the waiting list.12/ Respondent generates a current list of available housing units on a daily basis. Respondent does not maintain a historic list of the specific units that were available on a particular date.13/ Petitioner's Housing Assistance Application Respondent opened its public housing assistance registration in 2008 and received over 72,000 applications. On or about July 30, 2008, Petitioner submitted a 2008 Waiting List Web Application to Respondent, seeking public housing assistance. Petitioner specified in his application that he needed a three-bedroom unit to accommodate himself and his two children.14/ Pursuant to Respondent's lottery ranking system, Petitioner was assigned ranking numbers 6,352 for the project- based waiting list and 68,187 for the tenant-based waiting list. Based on Petitioner's project-based waiting list ranking number, Respondent contacted Petitioner to interview for eligibility for public housing. Respondent interviewed Petitioner on or about December 2, 2009. As part of the interview, Petitioner was required to complete various forms, including the RARQ form. Respondent's eligibility screener, Marie Santiague, completed the top portion of the RARQ. The RARQ listed a series of responses to the question "[d]o you (head of household or any member or your family require any of the following:" For response number 3, Ms. Santiague checked "yes" and circled the word "elevator." On the portion of the form entitled "Reason for Needing Feature," Ms. Santiague wrote the word "elevator." At hearing, Ms. Santiague testified that she was in training during this period and completed every applicant's RARQ in this manner, whether or not the applicant had requested a unit having an elevator. Petitioner credibly testified that he did not request a housing unit with an elevator because neither he nor his children needed such an accommodation. He emphatically denied that he signed the RARQ.15/ Respondent's Offer and Petitioner's Acceptance Based on Petitioner's request for a three-bedroom unit, on or about December 11, 2009, Respondent offered Petitioner Unit No. 077032 ("Unit" or "Perrine Unit") at the Perrine Gardens Public Housing Development ("Perrine Gardens"), 16800 Southwest 106th Avenue, Miami. The Unit is part of a 32- unit single family residential site that is physically separate from, but a part of, Perrine Gardens. The persuasive evidence establishes that the Perrine Unit was the only three-bedroom unit available, so was the only unit offered to Petitioner. The persuasive evidence also establishes that had other three-bedroom units been available, Petitioner would have been offered a choice of units. Respondent's offer letter directed Petitioner to contact the site manager or visit the site's management office if he wished to see the unit, and to respond to the offer by December 17, 2009, to avoid having his name removed from the project-based waiting list. The offer letter further stated: "[a]ccepting this offer requires that you contact the site manager within 5 working days to complete your eligibility process, failure to do so may result in your name being removed from the 2008 project based programs." Petitioner accepted Respondent's offer to rent the Perrine Unit on December 15, 2009. He later visited Perrine Gardens and site manager Alix Cedras showed him the Unit. The Unit was a three-bedroom single story home without an elevator. The persuasive evidence establishes that in assigning the Unit to Petitioner, Respondent did not consider the RARQ form that Ms. Santiague filled in during Petitioner's initial eligibility interview. Specifically, Respondent assigned Petitioner to a single story, non-elevator unit, notwithstanding that Ms. Santiague circled and wrote the word "elevator" on the form. Moreover, Petitioner never completed and submitted the RARF and RARV forms, both of which would have been required for Petitioner to have been assigned a unit based on an accommodation request. Refusal to Move Into the Perrine Unit During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding, the racial composition of Perrine Gardens predominantly was African- American, with a smaller number of Caucasian Hispanic tenants also residing in the development. After being shown the Unit, Petitioner walked around the neighborhood and became concerned that the Unit was not located in a desegregated area. At hearing, he testified that he was particularly concerned about the quality of schools and potential for crime in the area. He acknowledged that these concerns were based on his own assumptions rather than on any specific evidence. On or about January 20, 2010, Mr. Cedras sent Petitioner a letter setting forth two rental payment options for the Unit, a flat rent option and an income-based option. In a February 1, 2010, letter to Mr. Cedras, Petitioner disputed the rental options presented and asserted the he should have been presented a zero-income option, which he claimed was appropriate since at the time he accepted the offer for the Unit, he was unemployed and had no income. He was concerned that he could not afford the calculated rent because he was in the process of transitioning from one unemployment compensation tier to another and did not know the specific amount of unemployment he would receive.16/ By letter dated February 2, 2010, Mr. Cedras notified Petitioner that Respondent was not able to further delay his move into the Unit, and requested that Petitioner be present at the Perrine Gardens management office on February 11, 2010, to sign the lease and complete all other documents necessary to move into the Unit. The letter stated: "[f]ailure to respond and comply with this invitation will result in our returning your file to the Application and Leasing Office for further action." Petitioner did not complete the leasing process as directed by Respondent and did not move into the Unit. By letter dated March 24, 2012, Respondent notified Petitioner that his name had been removed from the 2008 project- based waiting list for failure to move into the Unit.17/ Petitioner requested and received informal review of the decision to remove his name from the project-based waiting list; the informal review affirmed the decision. Respondent subsequently offered the Perrine Unit to a Caucasian Hispanic female, who accepted the offer and resides in the Unit. Petitioner claims that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of race by steering him to a unit in a public housing project having a predominantly black resident population.18/ In making this claim, Petitioner asserts that by only offering him a unit in a project having a predominantly black resident population, Respondent effectively rejected him as a tenant, or refused to rent him a unit, in a predominantly non-black project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Respondent Miami-Dade County did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner Ricardo Lockett in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 31st day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Ms. Ndimbie is handicapped for purposes of the Fair Housing Act. She has more than one mental illness diagnosis, including Schizoid Personality Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, with two of her symptoms being that she “relates poorly with others” and that she “lacks insight into the feelings of others and when she feels accosted, she becomes angry and reacts, often inappropriately.” BCCD was a Florida not-for-profit organization. Its mission was to provide affordable housing for individuals with mental illnesses. BCCD acts as a landlord for its tenants, who have difficulty finding affordable housing due to having a mental illness. A prerequisite to being a tenant at BCCD was to have a mental illness, and, therefore, all of BCCD’s tenants had a mental illness. On an annual basis, BCCD contracted with and received funds from the Florida Department of Children and Families, hereinafter DCF. The funding from DCF supplements rent received from the tenants. On June 29, 2001, the Executive Director of BCCD, Nancy Merolla, entered into an annual contract with DCF for the period of July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, hereinafter Annual Contract. Exhibit A of the Annual Contract provided in pertinent part: The [BCCD] will provide housing stipends to ensure safe, accessible and affordable housing opportunities to low income individuals of Broward County, who are disabled with a mental illness and/or co- occurring disorders. . . . Each tenant, who resided in housing provided by BCCD, was required to receive case management. However, BCCD did not provide case management services for its tenants. The tenants received case management services from sources outside of BCCD. DCF assigned case managers and, therefore, assigned case managers for Ms. Ndimbie. Case management services were provided to Ms. Ndimbie by Henderson Mental Health Clinic Even though Ms. Ndimbie maintains that BCCD was required to provide case management services, the evidence demonstrates that BCCD was not required to provide such services. DCF was having difficulty finding housing for Ms. Ndimbie due to her mental challenges and requested the assistance of BCCD. On October 30, 2001, Ms. Ndimbie and Ms. Merolla, on behalf of BCCD, executed a month-to-month lease agreement, hereinafter Lease, for an apartment unit at 334 Northwest 43rd Street, Oakland Park, Florida. The Lease provided, among other things, that the total rent payable was $570 per month; that Ms. Ndimbie’s portion of the rent was $115 per month; and that the portion paid by the Public Housing Agency, under the Shelter Plus Care Program of HUD was $455. The Lease, which identified Ms. Ndimbie as the Tenant and BCCD as the Landlord, was effective November 28, 2001. An addendum to the Lease was a Tenant Agreement. Ms. Ndimbie was under the Shelter Plus Program, which provided for a single occupant to be entitled to a one-bedroom unit. However, BCCD only had a two-bedroom unit available. The Tenant Agreement provided, among other things, that Ms. Ndimbie was “being temporarily allowed to stay in [a two-bedroom unit] until a one bedroom unit [became] available with [BCCD].” On or about November 28, 2001, Ms. Ndimbie moved into the two-bedroom unit. At some point in time after Ms. Ndimbie moved into the two-bedroom unit, BCCD and the other tenants, who were Ms. Ndimbie’s neighbors, began to have problems with her behavior. The other tenants filed complaints with BCCD regarding her behavior. In March 2002, after input from Ms. Ndimbie, her case manager, and DCF, BCCD conducted a meeting with Ms. Ndimbie and the complaining tenants in an effort to reconcile the differences. An agreement was reached regarding resolution of the differences. However, the problems, regarding Ms. Ndimbie’s behavior, continued. The tenants were filing petitions for injunctions for protection against her, and she was filing the same petitions against the tenants. In particular, the continuous problems resulted in one neighbor, Luis Colon, obtaining an injunction for protection against Ms. Ndimbie on May 2, 2002.3 A circuit court ordered, among other things, that she was not to have any contact with Mr. Colon and not to go within 15 feet of Mr. Colon’s unit (apartment). Ms. Ndimbie contends that BCCD represented Mr. Colon at the injunction hearing as his case manager. However, the evidence demonstrates that BCCD was not his case manager at the injunction hearing, but only responded to the presiding judge’s inquiries. Subsequently, on May 23, 2002, the injunction for protection was amended. The circuit court ordered, among other things, that the Ms. Ndimbie was not to go within 500 feet of Mr. Colon’s unit. The amended injunction for protection was effective on midnight, May 31, 2002. Ms. Ndimbie’s unit was less than 500 feet from Mr. Colon’s unit, and, therefore, the effect of the amended injunction for protection was to prevent Ms. Ndimbie from residing in her unit after midnight, May 31, 2002. BCCD offered Ms. Ndimbie an alternative unit at another location. Ms. Ndimbie viewed the apartment building where the alternative unit would be located and found that it was being renovated. She did not believe that it would be timely completed. Further, Ms. Ndimbie inquired of law enforcement regarding criminal activity within the surrounding geographical area of the alternative unit. It was reasonable for her to gather such information. She was informed by law enforcement that there was drug activity in the surrounding area. Based upon the construction activity at the alternative unit, coupled with her belief that the alternative unit would not be timely completed, and upon the history of drug activity in the surrounding area, Ms. Ndimbie decided that she would not accept the alternative unit. Even though the alternative unit was being renovated, the evidence demonstrates that it was to be completed before the effective date of the amended injunction for protection, i.e., midnight, May 31, 2002. Consequently, Ms. Ndimbie’s belief that the alternative unit was not going to be timely completed was not reasonable. Additionally, even though the surrounding area of the alternative unit had a history of drug activity, no evidence was presented that the alternative unit had been determined to be not suitable for leasing under the Annual Contract between DCF and BCCD. As a result, the alternative unit remained an available unit under the Annual Contract. Ms. Ndimbie refused to accept and move into the alternative unit. No other housing was found for Ms. Ndimbie by midnight, May 31, 2002. Her belongings were placed in a storage unit. Another tenant with mental illness moved into the alternative unit. Subsequently, Ms. Ndimbie moved into a hotel. With DCF’s approval, BCCD provided her with $1,000 to assist her with the cost of the hotel room.
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 that Broward County Community Development Corporation, Inc. did not commit a discriminating housing practice against Joyce Ndimbie in violation of the Fair Housing Act. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of January, 2010.
