The Issue The issue is this case is whether the Respondent, Beacon Hill, Ltd., discriminated against Yvonne Malone (Petitioner) based on her religion in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a resident at an apartment complex owned and operated by the Respondent. At the hearing, the Petitioner recited a litany of complaints related to her apartment unit and to the services she has received from the Respondent's staff. Although the Petitioner has previously asserted that the Respondent has discriminated against her based on her religion, the Petitioner testified at the hearing that she had been "harassed" and "abused" by the Respondent's employees and that she did not know the basis for her treatment. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has discriminated against the Petitioner based on her religion. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has treated the Petitioner any differently than any other resident of the apartment complex has been treated. The evidence failed to establish that the Respondent, or any person employed by the Respondent, has "harassed" or "abused" the Petitioner in any manner.
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 filed by Yvonne Malone. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of January, 2014.
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 Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Section 760.20, et seq., Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Wergeles is a 61-year-old man who, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, resided in Unit 223 of the Tregate East Condominium development. The Tregate East Condominium development contains 62 units and two elevators and is governed by the Association. The unit in which Mr. Wergeles resided at the times pertinent to this proceeding was located on the second floor of one of the two apartment buildings comprising the Tregate East Condominium development. At one time, Mr. Wergeles was the co-owner of Unit 223 of the Tregate East Condominium with Janice Scudder. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, however, he lived in the apartment pursuant to an agreement with Ms. Scudder that he would pay her one-half of expenses, including one-half of the mortgage, one-half of the condominium fees, and one-half of the utilities. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, a group of ladies played cards in the condominium clubhouse on Friday nights. The easiest route to the clubhouse bathrooms, which were accessed by doors on the outside of the clubhouse wall, was through a side door of the clubhouse, which was adjacent to the bathrooms. The side door locked automatically, and, once outside, a person could re-enter the clubhouse by the side door only by entering a code on a key pad that was old and worn. Although there was a light attached to the corner of the clubhouse, the light did not illuminate the area around the side door or the bathrooms. Because it was very difficult to see the numbers on the key pad, the ladies left the side door open whenever someone needed to use the restroom, which caused concern because of the lack of security. To remedy this situation, Lingo Electric, Inc. ("Lingo Electric"), installed a light above the side door of the condominium clubhouse on August 26, 2009, at the request of the Association. The purpose of the light was to provide illumination in the area of the side door and the clubhouse bathrooms. The light installed by Lingo Electric was a 70 watt high pressure sodium photo cell light with a clear plastic lens, and it had a sensor that caused the light to come on only at night. The light was not, and could not be, shielded because a cover would cause the plastic lens to melt. The light was located about 50 feet from Mr. Wergeles' apartment. Although the light did not shine directly into Mr. Wergeles' bedroom window, the amount of illumination coming through the bedroom window increased after the light was installed, even when the vertical blinds on the bedroom window were closed. The amount of illumination coming into the apartment's lanai, which was essentially a balcony that extended a few feet out from his apartment, also increased after the light was installed. This increased illumination disrupted Mr. Wergeles' sleep. Early on the morning of August 27, 2009, Mr. Wergeles left a voice mail message at the offices of the Association's attorneys, Kevin T. Wells, P.A., requesting that the Association remove the light. In a letter dated August 28, 2009, David C. Meyer, Esquire, of the Kevin T. Wells, P.A. law firm, wrote to Mr. Wergeles on behalf of the Association and notified him that his verbal request that the light be removed was rejected. In a letter dated August 30, 2009, directed to the President of the Association and sent by certified mail, Mr. Wergeles stated: As you are aware a floodlight was installed over the Clubroom side door by Lingo Electric on August 26. 2009. This light is defused and is shining directly into my bedroom and lanai. I am asking Tregate East Condominium Association, Inc. to block all light that is coming in my bedroom and lanai from this floodlight. I have had serious problems sleeping for many years that are directly related to my disability.[3] As you are aware I am disabled and this light coming in my bedroom and lanai are exacerbating my sleeping problem. There is a security light almost directly above this floodlight that covers the entire area. The floodlight that is over the clubroom side door is defused and multiplies the light that is emitted from it. Your immediate attention to the resolution to this situation would be greatly appreciated.[4] At some point subsequent to Mr. Wergeles' request that the light be blocked from his window and lanai, the Association, through its attorney, requested that Mr. Wergeles provide detailed information regarding his medical condition from his treating physician, and he was asked to sign a release so that the Association could obtain his medical records. In response to the Association's request, Mr. Wergeles provided a letter dated September 24, 2009, from "Scott B. Elsbree," written on the letterhead of Gulf Coast Medical Specialists, PLLC, and directed to "To Whom It May Concern." The letter stated in pertinent part: Mr. Wergeles has been under my care since October 2006. He is physically disabled, and he has severe sleep problems. He requires a healthy and appropriate sleep environment, away from loud noises and bright lights. Any accommodation you can make in that regard would be greatly appreciated.[5] The letter contained no designation identifying Mr. Elsbree as a licensed health care professional, and his name did not appear on the letterhead of Gulf Coast Medical Specialists, PLLC. Mr. Wergeles also provided the Association with a letter confirming that he had received Social Security disability benefits since January 2000. On September 14, 2009, a code enforcement officer employed by Sarasota County, Florida, issued a Notice of Code Violation and Order to Correct Violation, in which the Association was ordered to correct all exterior lighting to ensure that it was "concealed behind an opaque surface and recessed within an opaque housing" such that "it shall not be visible from any street right-of-way or adjacent properties."6 The Order directed the Association to correct any violations on or before October 14, 2009. Sometime between September 14, 2009, and October 14, 2009, when the Sarasota County code enforcement officer inspected the Tregate East Condominium property, Lingo Electric removed the original light from over the side door of the clubhouse and replaced it with one conforming to the Sarasota County Code.7 According to Mr. Wergeles, he had problems sleeping before the light over the side door of the clubhouse was installed, and the light made these problems worse. He related that he felt terrible because of the lack of sleep, was clumsy, and had migraine headaches and stomach problems. Mr. Wergeles described his sleeping problems as severe from the time the light was installed until it was removed and replaced with a shaded light. Mr. Wergeles vacated Unit 223 of the Tregate East Condominium development on or about November 6, 2009. Mr. Wergeles stated that the only relief he requested as a result of his complaint against the Association was a "fair shake." He did not claim any quantifiable damages arising out of his complaint of discrimination on the basis of handicap. In addition to the complaint in the instant case, Mr. Wergeles filed discrimination complaints against the Association with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or the FCHR in 2006, 2007, and 2009. In all four complaints, Mr. Wergeles alleged, among other things, that the Association had discriminated against him on the basis of handicap.8 Summary and findings of ultimate fact The creditable evidence presented by Mr. Wergeles was insufficient to support a finding of fact that he was handicapped at the times pertinent to this proceeding. In his testimony, Mr. Wergeles stated only that he was disabled. He provided no further explanation, referring instead to the letter from Mr. Elsbree and to the letter from the Social Security Administrative affirming that he had received disability payments since January 2000. The letter from Mr. Elsbree contained no information about his medical credentials or the nature of the care he provided to Mr. Wergeles. In addition, even assuming that Mr. Elsbree was a licensed physician who had treated Mr. Wergeles for a medical condition, there is no information in the letter from which it can be determined that Mr. Wergeles had a "handicap" for purposes of sustaining a claim of discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act. The letter stated only that Mr. Wergeles "is physically disabled," a statement that provides no indication of the nature of Mr. Wergeles' medical condition or the manner in which it substantially limited a major life activity.9 Furthermore, although Mr. Elsbree asserted that Mr. Wergeles had "severe sleep problems," the sleep problems were described as a condition from which Mr. Wergeles suffered in addition to his disability.10 The letter from the Social Security Administration affirming that Mr. Wergeles received disability benefits does not include any information beyond the mere fact that he was found eligible for disability benefits. It, therefore, provides no more basis for determining the nature and extent of Mr. Wergeles' asserted disability than Mr. Elsbree's letter stating that Mr. Wergeles "is physically disabled." Even assuming that the evidence presented by Mr. Wergeles was sufficient to support a finding of fact that he was handicapped, he failed to present sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of fact that the Association, or any member of the Board of Directors, knew or should have known that he was disabled. The only creditable evidence Mr. Wergeles presented on this point established merely that, prior to filing the complaint at issue in the instant case, he filed complaints against the Association in 2006, 2007, and 2009 alleging that it had discriminated against him on the basis of, among other things, a handicap. Mr. Wergeles did not present any evidence establishing that the Association conceded that he was handicapped with respect to any of these complaints or that there had been a final administrative or judicial adjudication that he was handicapped. Because Mr. Wergeles failed to present any creditable evidence establishing that he was handicapped, he failed to establish that the accommodation he requested of the Association, removal of the light over the side door of the clubhouse, was necessary.
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 filed by James Wergeles. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 3rd day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has been the subject of a discriminatory housing practice.
Findings Of Fact Several years prior to 2007, Petitioner, Wanda Hutcheson, leased one side of a duplex apartment from LGMS. The apartment was located on 3359 Greenbrier Circle, in Gulf Breeze, Florida. During the time that LGMS owned the property, the property manager found her to be a responsible tenant who paid her rent on time. Indeed, the manager felt that she had improved the look and value of the property because she had done extensive landscaping in her front yard. The increase in value was not shown by the evidence. At the time, Petitioner’s landlord knew that she had a mental disorder known as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). In part, the extensive yard work done by Petitioner was due to her OCD. She regularly watered her yard with the shared sprinkler system that served both apartments in the duplex. However, the electricity for the water pump that operated the sprinkler system was hooked into the electrical system for the apartment adjoining Petitioner’s apartment. The sprinkler system was operated by a switch located either by or in the electrical box for the adjoining apartment and the electrical box for her apartment. Petitioner was frequently in the area of those boxes. Respondent, Sand Dunes Property, LLC (Sand Dunes), is a limited liability company owned and operated by Respondents, Robert and Justin MacFarland. In 2006, Sand Dunes purchased several parcels of rental property from LGMS, including the apartment leased by Petitioner. In February 2006, prior to Sand Dunes’ purchase of the property, the MacFarlands visited the premises they were about to purchase and met Petitioner. At that time, Petitioner told the Respondents that she had OCD. She neither requested nor indicated the need for any special accommodations from the Respondents regarding her lease. The evidence did not show that the Respondents knew or were aware that OCD could be a disability that might significantly interfere with a person’s life activities. To them, Petitioner did not seem mentally disabled and appeared able to carry out her daily activities. She appeared to live her life as any other person might. In fact, among other things, Petitioner drove a car, occasionally worked cleaning houses, performed yard work, had the electrical part of her apartment’s sprinkler system transferred to her electrical system, paid her lease and cared for other people’s children. Around March 2006, subsequent to the purchase of the property by the Respondents, Peter Bouchard moved into the apartment next to Petitioner’s apartment. Shortly after he moved in, Petitioner was watering her yard with the sprinkler system. Mr. Bouchard saw her and turned off the sprinkler system. He told her he did not believe in watering the grass and that he did not want his yard watered. He told her that as long as the pump was hooked to his electrical box that she could not use the sprinkler system since he was paying for the electricity used in its operation. He suggested that she could have the pump transferred to her electrical box if she wanted to continue to use the system. Petitioner called Respondents and left a message about the need to transfer the electrical connection for the sprinkler system to her electrical box and to make sure it was alright for her to pay to have the system transferred. The evidence did not show that she related the details of Mr. Bouchard’s actions to Respondent’s. She did not receive a response to her message and eventually paid for the system to be transferred to her electrical box. At some point, even though she did not own the sprinkler systems components, she removed the sprinkler heads from Mr. Bouchard’s side of the yard. She capped the pipe where the heads had been and filled the hole. She did not tell anyone that she had removed the sprinkler heads, but kept the sprinkler heads in her apartment. Additionally, during March 2006, Petitioner complained to Santa Rosa Animal Control about Mr. Bouchard’s two dogs being abused by him and barking. She also complained about the two dogs of the neighbor who lived behind her, Jodi Henning. Both of these incidents were investigated by Animal Control and no abuse was discovered. In fact, the dogs never barked or only barked for a short time when the investigator visited the duplex on two occasions. Petitioner’s actions appeared to be in retaliation for Mr. Bouchard’s refusal to permit her to use the sprinkler system. Finally, at some point, Petitioner while on her front porch saw Mr. Bouchard’s son walking to his apartment. She told the boy that she would cause Mr. Bouchard’s dogs to be removed for abuse and then would have him removed for the same reason. The comment upset both the boy and Mr. Bouchard. On April 3, 2006, Sand Dunes mailed a written offer to enter into a new lease with Petitioner. The offer was made to Petitioner because her lease would terminate on May 30, 2006. The offer was conditioned upon an increase in the monthly rent on Petitioner’s apartment. The offer stated, “Please let us know by May 1st of your decision so that we may set up an appointment to review and sign your new lease agreement.” The intent of the letter’s language was to not be contractually bound until a new lease was signed by the parties. There was no evidence that Respondents treated any other potentially continuing tenant differently. Around April 4, 2006, Mr. MacFarland left a message for Petitioner regarding a maintenance check on her apartment’s air conditioner. Petitioner returned the call and left a message that she could not be present at the time suggested and asked that the work be performed at another time. Petitioner received the written offer of renewal on April 5, 2006, and attempted to accept the offer by leaving a message on Respondent’s telephone. After the first message, Petitioner left town to attend a family function out of state. Around April 6, 2006, air-conditioning maintenance checks were performed on nine of ten units owned by the Respondents in the Greenbrier area. Around April 6 or 7, 2006, Respondents were contacted by Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Bouchard complained about Petitioner to the MacFarlands. He told them that Petitioner had stolen the sprinkler heads out of his side of the yard and that she turned off the electricity to his apartment. He showed them a photograph of the unlocked electrical box to his unit. He also relayed to Respondents that Petitioner had repeatedly accused him of abusing his dogs, not properly vaccinating his dogs and had repeatedly reported him to Animal Control for animal abuse and barking dogs. Apparently, Mr. Bouchard complained enough about Petitioner to Respondents to make them believe that Respondent was a particularly disruptive and vengeful tenant. At some point, Respondents became aware of Jodi Henning’s problems with Petitioner. Ms. Henning lived in a different complex from Petitioner. However, her backyard adjoined Petitioner’s backyard. She called the Sheriff's Department on Ms. Hutcheson on a few occasions for problems she had with Petitioner. None of the incidents amounted to an arrest. During an evening in March 2005, Ms. Henning’s dogs were inside with her. They had not been outside. Ms. Henning answered the door. Petitioner, who was quite angry, complained about Ms. Henning’s dogs and told her that she had made an enemy of Petitioner and that she would make Ms. Henning’s life miserable. Ms. Henning called the Sheriff’s Department. The 911 operator asked if Petitioner was drunk. Ms. Henning said that Petitioner was not drunk, but just crazy and mean. Petitioner was told by law enforcement personnel that Santa Rosa County Animal Control should be contacted if she had an issue with a neighbor's dog. She then filed a complaint with Santa Rosa County Animal Control about Ms. Henning’s dogs. Petitioner made a similar complaint in April 2006. Neither complaint was found to have merit by the investigator for Animal Control. Additionally, Ms. Henning felt that she could not go out in her yard without Petitioner coming out to watch her. Petitioner never engaged in any physically, aggressive behavior. However, Ms. Henning felt she became threatening to the point she was afraid. Petitioner had told both Ms. Henning and Mr. Bouchard that she had OCD. However, based on their observation of her, neither thought that Petitioner was disabled by her condition. They both thought that she was simply nosy and mean. On the other hand, there were former neighbors who thought Petitioner was a nice person and a good neighbor. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that these neighbors’ opinions were known to the Respondents during the time the offer to lease was outstanding. Mr. MacFarland obtained copies of "call reports" received by Animal Control regarding Ms. Henning and Mr. Bouchard's dogs. Those reports consisted of complaints in March 2005 about Ms. Henning's two dogs, and in March 2006 concerning Ms. Henning's two dogs and Mr. Bouchard's two dogs. On April 10, 2006, Respondents sent a letter on Sand Dunes' stationary revoking the earlier offer to lease her apartment after expiration of her lease. Based on the Respondents limited knowledge about Petitioner during the time the offer to lease was outstanding, their conclusion was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory. Thereafter, the Respondents were entitled to rely on the expiration of the lease by its terms and the peaceful return of the premises. Petitioner received the revocation letter around April 12, 2007, when she returned home from out of state. No explanation was given in the letter for the withdrawal of the offer to lease. Petitioner called Mr. MacFarland on the date she received the revocation letter. She was very distraught and tearful. During the long conversation, the only explanation Respondent recalled from Mr. MacFarland as to why Respondents withdrew their offer was that he did not like her. Petitioner also was told to communicate with their lawyer, Keri Anne Schultz, Esquire. Petitioner went to Ms. Schultz's law office to discuss the situation with her. Ms. Shultz was not in the office. Petitioner was told by the receptionist that she could not wait in the office for Ms. Schultz to return. Ms. Hutcheson wanted to write Ms. Schultz a note regarding renting the duplex. Mr. Bordelon, Ms. Schultz's partner, threatened to call the police if Petitioner remained at the office. Petitioner left the office. Thereafter, the only communication from the MacFarlands or their attorney was legal notices to vacate the premises. Petitioner did attempt to send them information on OCD. The evidence was not clear whether the Respondents received the information or reviewed it. Petitioner refused to vacate the premises and an eviction action was filed in June 2006. A hearing was held in the Circuit Court in June and July of 2006. By court order dated August 17, 2006, Respondents were awarded possession of the property on August 31, 2006, at 11:59 p.m. Unfortunately, Petitioner, due to ill health, did not begin to vacate the premises until a few days prior to forcible removal. She was not finished moving on September 5, 2006, five days after the Respondents were to be put in possession of the property. The Respondents had the Sheriff’s Deputy remove Petitioner from the premises, telling her that she should have been out a long time ago. The MacFarlands, with a little help from Mr. Bouchard, removed the rest of Petitioner’s possessions to the curb. During the removal, the bottom of a box Mr. Bouchard was carrying came undone and some of the contents fell onto the pavement. One jar of food was broken. All of these events were very distressful to Petitioner. Upon learning that she would be evicted, Petitioner began seeing Dr. Bingham in May 2006. Eventually, she was involuntarily committed for a short time and has been seeing Dr. Bingham every two or three weeks for the last year. The apartment remained vacant for several months after the eviction. Eventually, Mr. Bouchard moved into the unit at a lower rate of rent than he paid for his old apartment but higher than the amount Petitioner would have paid if the new lease had taken effect. As indicated, between February 2006 and April 2006, Mr. and Mrs. MacFarland's only contact with Petitioner was a visit to her duplex apartment with the realtor selling the property and some voice mails exchanged between them concerning the sprinkler and air conditioning systems. Respondents had little knowledge regarding Petitioner. Even though the evidence demonstrates that Respondents could have acted more kindly and could have better informed themselves about the circumstances of Petitioner, there was no evidence that the withdrawal of the offer to renew was made based on an intent to discriminate against Petitioner because of her mental disability. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Upon 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 December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 7th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Melissa A. Posey, Esquire Melissa A. Posey, P.A. 201 East Government Street, Suite 36 Pensacola, Florida 32502 Robert and Justyn MacFarland Sand Dune Properties 7173 Blue Jack Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents engaged in prohibited conduct against Petitioner by discriminating against him based on his race and/or national origin in the terms and conditions, privileges, or provision of services or facilities in the sale or rental of real property in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Commission on Human Relations is the state agency charged with investigating complaints of discriminatory housing practices and enforcing the Fair Housing Act. It is also charged with investigating fair housing complaints filed with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq. Petitioner, Emmanuel Agbara, is an adult, black male, who is of Nigerian decent. On or about September 18, 2008, Petitioner submitted an offer to purchase Condominium 406 in Orchid Springs Village. Because the real property sought to be purchased was a part of a condominium, there were several contingencies imposed by the declaration of condominium and associated house rules. Respondent, Orchid Springs Condominium, No. 200, Inc., is a non-profit corporation charged with the management of the condominium. Incidental to this responsibility, in conjunction with Bay Tree Management Company, the board of directors has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of the sale of a condominium to a third party. In the event the board of directors or Bay Tree Management Company disapproves of the sale, the condominium documents outline a procedure wherein the proposed sale can be pursued by the property owner and prospective buyer (Petitioner herein). After Orchid Springs advised Petitioner that it had not approved his sale, this alternative was not pursued. Orchid Springs is a part of a mixed-use development of condominiums, patio homes, and private [single-family] residences and is diverse in terms of religion, national origin and income. Prospective buyers, and the Petitioner herein, were required to complete an application that inquired into the prospective buyer's background, intended use of the property, and required three character references. In addition, prospective buyers were required to pay for a "background" check. On September 20, 2008, Petitioner traveled from his home in Maryland to meet with Respondent, John Carroll, president of the condominium board of directors. As they met, an inspection of the condominium unit was being conducted by a home inspection professional. Petitioner anticipated that he would meet with Carroll and two other board members for the personal interview required by the condominium documents as a prerequisite for board approval. The two board members were not available to meet with Petitioner during his September 20, 2008, visit. During the course of the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, it became apparent that Petitioner anticipated being an "absentee landlord." Carroll advised Petitioner that the owner/residents had various problems with renters, including recent police activity incidental to a drug laboratory in one of the rented condominium units. Carroll also related that four of the absentee owner units were in foreclosure and that placed an economic burden on the remaining owners. During the discussion between Petitioner and Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether he could do the three-board member interview by telephone. Mr. Carroll advised him that a telephone conference might be arranged, but that one board member could not do it alone. On October 8, 2008, Petitioner submitted his Association Application. As a part of the application process, Petitioner certified that he had been supplied copies of the Articles of Declaration of Condominium Ownership and By-Laws of Orchid Springs Village, No. 200, Inc.; the Service and Maintenance Agreement; and the manual, "Condominium Living--The Seville." The Association Application includes the following language: "[A]pplicant purchasing Condominium certifies that he/she has . . . read [and] agrees to abide by" the foregoing documents. The Association Application states that "[i]mmediately after submission of the application, Applicant is requested to arrange with the President for a personal interview with at least [three] Board Members present. Such personal interview is a firm requirement [and] may not be waived." Following receipt of a prospective buyer or renter's Association Application, the tasks of conducting the customary background and criminal checks are divided among board members. In this instance, Mrs. Thibodaux, now deceased, did the background check; and Mrs. Douglas did the criminal background check, which, apparently, was a local records check utilizing the county records available through the internet. Testimony reveals that Mrs. Thibodaux reported that she had some problems with two of Petitioner's character references and that the Social Security number he provided was incorrect. This testimony is discounted as Mrs. Thibodaux is dead and not available to testify, and there is no indication that Petitioner's Social security number is incorrect. In addition, two of Petitioner's character references testified at the final hearing. Mrs. Douglas' local criminal background check revealed a January 13, 1997, arrest for battery--domestic violence. The case was "nolle prossed" after the Petitioner was placed in pre-trial diversion. Orchid Spring's critical examination and appraisal of prospective buyers and renters is apparently "slipshod," but not atypical when the prospective cost of a thorough examination that would involve an investigation of an individual's credit history and a thorough criminal and background check. Concern raised by the background and criminal check prompted Carroll to contact Petitioner and request that he come to Florida and meet with three board members for the interview required by the condominium documents. Petitioner was unable to meet with the interview committee. On November 7, 2008, Petitioner was advised by Respondents that his application had been denied. No evidence of damages was advanced by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk 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 Emmanuel Agbara 1822 Metzerott Road, No. 206 Adelphi, Maryland 20783 Rex P. Cowan, Esquire Post Office Box 857 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-0857
The Issue The issue for determination in this matter is whether Respondents engaged in acts of housing discrimination against Petitioners on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Donald Travis and Lisa Harrell, are a bi-racial couple (Mr. Travis is African-American and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons subject to protection under Florida's Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, and Ms. Harrell is white). They have two sons who are bi-racial (one is African-American and white, the other is white and Asian). Petitioners lived in Apartment 163 at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506. Respondents, John and Anne Cutler, are the owners of two four-plex apartments at 10075 West Highway 98, Pensacola, Florida 32506, including the unit occupied by Petitioners that gave rise to this matter. They are both retired educators who own and operate their apartment rental business in their retirement. In their teaching and professional careers, both have instructed students of various races and national origins. Petitioner, Donald Travis, is a veteran of Desert Storm and has been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He regularly takes medications to treat anxiety and depression. On April 4, 2008, Petitioners moved into Apartment 163, which had been recently painted, carpeted, and had a new ceiling fan and light installed in the living room. Everything went smoothly between Petitioners and Respondents for several months. Mr. Cutler had to unplug the downstairs toilet with a plunger a few times, but everything else seemed to be in working order. Both Mr. and Ms. Cutler considered Petitioners to be good tenants. As summer approached, Mr. Travis asked Mr. Cutler about installing a screen door for the sliding glass doors. This could not be done without replacing the entire sliding glass doors. When Apartment 131 became vacant, its screen door was moved to Petitioners' apartment. The screen door had a slit in it, which Ms. Cutler repaired with tape. When Apartment 132 became vacant, the good screen door from that apartment was used to replace the taped one in Petitioners' apartment. Respondents tried to keep everything in working order in Petitioners' apartment. When Petitioners' refrigerator door would not close, Respondents replaced the refrigerator. Respondents thought Petitioners were happy with their apartment. Petitioners called Respondents about a plumbing leak and said feces was running down the wall. The leak and pipe were fixed by B & G Plumbing. Petitioners were shown the water shut-off valve in case of future leaks. Petitioners believe that Respondents treated them differently from other tenants in the apartment buildings. Petitioners believe that other tenants were allowed to keep pets in their apartments while they were not. Respondents allowed tenants who had pets when they purchased the apartments to keep them, but banned pets on all future rentals. The rent for Petitioners' apartment, including water, sewer, and garbage, was $650.00. Petitioners always paid their rent on time. Petitioners asked to be moved into a better unit since they believed their unit was inferior to others in the complex. Petitioners wanted to move into Apartment 162 which, in their opinion, was in much better shape than their unit. Respondents offered to put new carpet into Apartment 162 before Petitioners moved in, but they refused. Petitioners decided to leave the apartment because they believed the maintenance was not properly performed. On December 5, 2008, the day Petitioners made known their desire to leave the apartment, Mr. Travis confronted Mr. Cutler. Mr. Cutler offered Apartment 132 to Petitioners because it was ready for occupancy after its occupants had moved out. Apartment 133 would soon be ready, and was also offered to Petitioners. Mr. Travis angrily refused to move into any apartments in the two four-plexes. He yelled at Mr. Cutler and told him he hated him. This exchange was witnessed by a neighbor, Gary Denton. Mr. Cutler offered to let Petitioners move out without penalty, and agreed to return their $650.00 deposit. Petitioners accepted the offer and received the deposit in full as well as a waiver of the first five days' rent for December and an additional four days of rent to allow them time to pack and move. Petitioners accused Respondents of renting one four-plex to whites only and the other to minorities. At the time Petitioners moved out, both four-plexes had tenants of different races. As of the date of the hearing, five of the six total units rented were to non-white tenants. Only one was rented to a white couple.
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 25th day of November, 2009, 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 25th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: John Cutler Anne Cutler 5970 Limestone Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Donald Travis Lisa Harrell 1008 West Young Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 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 issue is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Florida’s Fair Housing Act, Section 760.20-760.37, Florida Statutes (2002) (the Fair Housing Act), by evicting Petitioners and thereby allegedly breaching a rental agreement, as more fully described in the Petition for Relief. (References to statutory sections and chapters are to Florida Statutes (2002.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are Hispanic. The parties agree that Mrs. Villamizar is handicapped by a mental disability of an undocumented nature. Respondent works full-time as a fireman, and he has managed real estate on a part-time basis for over 15 years. Sometime in August, 2001, Petitioners rented an apartment from Respondent pursuant to a verbal rental agreement. The apartment is identified in the record as Apartment 5 (the apartment). The apartment is one of several in a building located at 1484 Northwest 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33125 (the building). Petitioners rented the apartment in conjunction with a rent subsidy program administered by Volunteers of America. Petitioners resided in the apartment as their primary residence until approximately February 23, 2003. At that time, Respondent evicted Petitioners pursuant to a court order issued by the County Court In and For Dade County, Florida (the County Court). Respondent evicted Petitioners for nondiscriminatory reasons. Mr. Villamizar threatened Respondent, abused alcohol and drugs, and was involved in approximately 12 police incident reports at the building. After Respondent painted the outside of the building, Mr. Villamizar painted the apartment door, the railing, and an exterior wall with a different color. Mr. Villamizar also painted, "Fuck the fire department" on the outside of the apartment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michelle Jackson, Acting Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerardo and Rodica Villamizar Post Office Box 010461 Miami, Florida 33130 Eddie Gomez 17835 Southwest 10th Court Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029
