The Issue Whether Respondent committed a discriminatory act based on Petitioner's disability, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Prado rented an apartment using a Housing Choice Voucher in Miami, Florida. Florida Quadel entered into a contract with Miami-Dade County in 2009. Florida Quadel, pursuant to this contract, administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program on behalf of the County. During a routine quality control review of the program's files, Ms. Prado's file was randomly selected for a more in-depth quality control review. A review of the file revealed that Ms. Prado was a single individual residing in a two-bedroom apartment, utilizing a voucher that allowed for a two-bedroom unit. There was insufficient documentation in the file to justify the need for a two-bedroom unit; therefore, paperwork requesting a reasonable accommodation was forwarded to Ms. Prado for completion. The paperwork required that Ms. Prado's health care provider indicate the medical necessity for any reasonable accommodation being requested. Ms. Prado's health care physician did not provide a statement of medical necessity for the second bedroom; therefore, Quadel made numerous additional requests for the physician to provide the necessary statement. The physician never made such a statement. Quadel then conducted an on-site inspection of the dwelling. During this inspection, Ms. Prado told the inspector that the second bedroom was used for guests. There was no indication during the inspection that a second bedroom was for housing Ms. Prado's medical equipment. Ms. Prado's voucher was amended from a two-bedroom voucher, to a one-bedroom voucher. This amendment did not require that Ms. Prado vacate the two-bedroom unit, but it did reduce the amount of subsidy Ms. Prado received. Ms. Prado filed a grievance as to this determination. At the grievance committee meeting, Ms. Prado stated that she slept in one bedroom, and the other bedroom was used when her daughter and husband visited and spent the night. Based on the absence of any documentation indicating the medical necessity of a second bedroom, coupled with Ms. Prado's own statements to Quadel, the grievance was denied. Ms. Prado then filed a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Prado presented no evidence of discrimination in the housing decision. Quadel's decision to amend the voucher from a two-bedroom unit to a one-bedroom unit was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
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 determining that Respondent did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based on Ms. Prado's disability. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 February, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether any of the respondents is guilty of unlawful discrimination against Petitioner in the rental of a dwelling, in violation of section 760.23(2), Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been an individual with a disability because he is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). He is required regularly to take medication to control the disease. At all material times, Respondent Scandinavian Properties, LLC (Respondent Scandinavian) has owned a small complex of rental units in Miami Beach consisting of one or more Airbnb units at the back of the property and two duplex units at the front of property in a two-story building. This case involves one of the two-bedroom, one-bath duplexes with the address of 7910 Byron Avenue, Unit 1 (Unit 1), which was the ground-floor duplex. At all material times, Respondent Renes has been a managing principal of Respondent Scandinavian, and Respondent Bourguigne has been an employee of a property management company retained by Respondent Scandinavian to manage the complex. In an effort to find a suitable rental unit, Petitioner employed the services of a real estate broker or associate, who contacted Respondent Renes to discuss the rental of Unit 1, which had just undergone extensive renovations of two years' duration. Petitioner was recovering from recent surgery, so, as a favor to the real estate agent, Respondent Renes agreed to rent Unit 1 to Petitioner with a background check, but not the customary face-to-face meeting that Respondent Renes required with prospective tenants. Thus, Respondent Renes had limited, if any, contact with Petitioner during the lease negotiations. Petitioner and Respondent Scandinavian entered into a 12-month lease commencing November 1, 2018 (Lease). The Lease prohibited keeping any pets, smoking "in the Premises," creating any "environmental hazards on or about the Premises," keeping any flammable items "that might increase the danger of fire or damage" on the premises without the consent of Respondent Scandinavian, destroying, defacing, damaging, impairing or removing any part of the premises belonging to Respondent Scandinavian, and making any alterations or improvements to the premises without the consent of Respondent Scandinavian, although Petitioner was allowed to hang pictures and install window treatments. The Lease required Petitioner to ensure that all persons on the premises acted in a manner that did not "unreasonably disturb any neighbors or constitute a breach of the peace" and permitted Respondent Scandinavian to adopt or modify rules for the use of the common areas and conduct on the premises. The Lease assigned to Petitioner the responsibility for maintaining smoke detectors, locks, keys, and any furniture in the unit. The Lease permitted "[o]ccasional overnight guests," who could occupy the premises for no more than seven nights per month, and required written approval for anyone else to occupy the premises. Among the rules of the complex was a prohibition against disabling smoke detectors. However, without reference to the Lease provision applicable to pets, one rule allowed one dog or one cat. Another rule assured that management would help tenants gain access to their units when locked out. Within a few weeks of the commencement of the Lease, Petitioner's visitors violated two provisions of the Lease by smoking outside and allowing a dog to run loose in the common area. Respondent Renes or Bourguigne advised Petitioner of the violations, which do not appear to have resulted in any penalties. Admitting to the presence of the dog, Petitioner testified only that the video of the dog violation, if not also the smoking violation, led him to believe that he was being watched. Petitioner's complaint of individual surveillance became an ongoing issue--in his mind. The minimal staffing and small area occupied by the small complex, as a practical matter, both precluded individual operation of cameras to trace the movements of Petitioner and his visitors in the common area and facilitated the surveillance of all, or nearly all, of the common area with relatively few cameras. The evidence fails to support Petitioner's claim that the respondents at any time conducted video surveillance particularly of Petitioner or his visitors. Subsequently, Respondent Renes or Bourguigne advised Petitioner that someone had been shouting his name outside the gate of the complex during the evening hours. This incident is not prohibited by the Lease because the person, while perhaps acquainted with Petitioner, was not his invitee onto or about the premises. Nonetheless, Petitioner's sole reported reaction to this disturbance was to demand a copy of any video--and complain when the respondents failed to comply with his demand. Another of Petitioner's visitors parked a car outside the gate in a space reserved for occupants of the Airbnbs. When, evidently in the presence of Petitioner, Respondent Bourguigne confronted the visitor, the visitor replied that he had only been parked there for 20 minutes. Respondent Bourguigne stated that she had seen the car parked in the spot for 43 minutes. Again, Petitioner's sole response was not to deal with the violation, but to complain about surveillance, evidently of the parking area. The most serious violations of the Lease were discovered on January 28, 2019, when Respondent Renes conducted an inspection of Unit 1. Respondent Renes inspected all rental units of the complex every two or three months to check for safety issues that could imperil tenants or the complex itself. In her inspection, Respondent Renes found that Petitioner had disconnected the smoke alarms and encased them in plastic tape to render them inoperative. She also found that Petitioner had crowded the unit with furniture to the point of impeding egress and constituting a fire hazard. Although not involving safety issues, Respondent Renes found that Petitioner had attached screws to metal doors and kitchen cabinets, damaging these new fixtures. Additionally, Respondent Renes noted the presence of a cat. As noted above, the rules conflicted with the Lease as to the presence of a single dog or cat. In any event, by this time, the respondents were aware that the cat, as well as a human, routinely shared Unit 1 with Petitioner, and the respondents had impliedly consented to these cohabitations. Again, Petitioner's reaction to the Lease violations found by Respondent Renes on January 28 was not to address the problems. Instead, he objected to the inspection as singling him out. By letter delivered to Petitioner on February 14, 2019, Respondent Scandinavian advised that he was in violation of the Lease for allowing an unauthorized person and a cat to occupy the unit, for wrapping the smoke detectors in plastic, for damaging the unit's fixtures by attaching screws into the metal doors and kitchen cabinets, and by cluttering the interior of the unit so as to impede internal movement. The letter demands that Petitioner correct the violations within seven days, or else Respondent Scandinavian would terminate the lease. Respondent Bourguigne's main involvement with this case involves an incident that occurred on the evening of February 15, 2019, when Petitioner locked his keys in his unit and was unable to unlock the door or otherwise enter the unit. Petitioner called the office, but Respondent Bourguigne, who responds to such requests during her normal working hours of Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., did not receive the call until the following morning when she listened to messages. Respondent Bourguigne promptly called Respondent Renes for guidance, and Respondent Renes directed her to summon the complex's handyman, who, as soon as he could, which was 1:00 p.m. on February 16, drove to the complex and opened Unit 1 for Petitioner. Rather than call a locksmith when the respondents failed to respond immediately to his call to the office, Petitioner and a companion attempted to break into Unit 1 with a screwdriver at about 1:30 a.m. Although unaware of the lockout, Respondent Renes learned of the attempted break-in through an automated security system, so she called the police, who reported to the scene and, after briefly interrogating Petitioner, determined that no crime had taken place. Petitioner wrongly concluded that Respondent Renes had been watching him in real time and called the police, knowing that the apparent perpetrator was really Petitioner and no crime was taking place. While locked out of his unit, Petitioner had also sent emails to Respondent Renes. In one of them sent on February 16, Petitioner advised for the first time that he was diagnosed with HIV and dependent on medication that was locked in his unit. Respondent Renes testified that she did not see these emails until days later. At minimum, it is clear that, prior to February 16, no respondent was on notice of Petitioner's disability, so the seven-day notice letter delivered two days earlier could not have been motivated by a discriminatory intent. Despite the seven-day deadline contained in the letter of February 14, by email or text dated February 21, Petitioner advised Respondent Renes that, by 2:00 p.m. on February 22, he "will have remedied each of the … listed [violations]." This was one day past the deadline. Because Petitioner failed timely to meet the conditions of the February 14 seven-day notice letter, Respondent Scandinavian commenced an eviction proceeding on February 22 and, after a hearing, obtained a judgment ordering the eviction of Petitioner. Petitioner failed to prove any discriminatory intent on the part of any of the respondents in their dealings with him, any incidental discriminatory effect in their acts and omissions, or any failure or refusal to accommodate Petitioner's disability. To the contrary, as to discrimination, Respondent Renes chose to forego eviction and instead give Petitioner a chance timely to remedy the Lease violations; when Petitioner failed to do so, Respondent Scandinavian proceeded to evict Petitioner. Nor has any act or omission of any respondent had a discriminatory incidental effect on Petitioner. Lastly, the availability of Respondents Renes and Bourguigne or other employees of Respondent Scandinavian to open units to locked-out tenants and occupants was reasonable and in no way constituted a failure to accommodate Petitioner's disability, for which Petitioner never requested or, on these facts, needed an accommodation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding the respondents not guilty of the charges set forth in the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Philip Kim, Esquire Pensky & Kim, P.A. 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 401 North Miami, Florida 33181 (eServed) Jack Wilson 17560 Atlantic Boulevard, Apartment 515 Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 (eServed) Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Kimberly and Richard Interrante, were subject to a discriminatory housing practice by Respondent, Trevesta Homeowners 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted. Association, Inc., based on a disability, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Trevesta is a community of homes located in Palmetto, Florida. Trevesta is subject to rules and regulations of the Association. Petitioners own a home in Trevesta. Petitioners purchased their house in 2018. Living with Petitioners is Jonathan Austin. Jonathan is not related to Petitioners, but is currently in a relationship with Petitioners' daughter. Jonathan suffers from several mental health conditions including anxiety, bipolar disorder, and similar mood-related disabilities.3 Ms. Interrante, who testified on behalf of Petitioners, disclosed that Jonathan's mental issues are related to a benign brain tumor. Ms. Interrante further explained that, based on his mental health conditions, Jonathan suffers from severe anxiety and has difficulty coping with stress. During tense situations, Jonathan struggles to communicate, think clearly, or focus on tasks. Because of the high anxiety he experiences, Jonathan is not employed. Consequently, although Jonathan is now a young adult, he spends most of his time inside Petitioners' home. Respondent does not dispute that Jonathan suffers from a mental disability. 2 By requesting a deadline for filing post-hearing submissions beyond ten days after the final hearing, the 30-day time period for filing the recommended order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 A person has a disability (or "handicap") under both the Florida and F0ederal Fair Housing Act if he or she has "a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities." § 760.22(3)(a), see also 42 USC §3602(h). To help cope with anxiety and stress, Jonathan relies on the comfort he receives from his cat named "Ace." Ace is Jonathan's registered Emotional Support Animal. Ace is a Tuxedo cat with a black and white coat. Jonathan adopted Ace as a kitten. Ace is now five years old. Ms. Interrante expressed that Ace "absolutely" helps Jonathan manage his mental anxiety. Jonathan offered that Ace keeps him grounded. Ace's presence has also helped reduce the amount of medication Johnathan takes. Ace lives with Petitioners (and Jonathan) in their home. Ace is an indoor cat and freely roams around the house. The entryway to Petitioners' house currently consists of a single front door. The front door opens onto a small 6' by 6' alcove that leads to a walkway that runs along the front yard. The impetus for Petitioners' action is Jonathan's fear that Ace will escape through their front door. At the final hearing, Jonathan testified that he experiences overwhelming anxiety the moment he hears the front door open. Jonathan voiced that he worries daily about Ace's safety. He remains on constant guard against the possibility that Ace will unexpectedly slip away from the house. Ms. Interrante expressed that Jonathan's concern with Ace breaking free from their home is real. Ace's natural curiosity causes him to watch the front door. Once in the past, Ace actually crept through the front door and outside into the alcove. Ace was caught before he ventured further. Ace has never fully escaped from Petitioners' house. Ms. Interrante expressed that if Ace escaped, Jonathan would suffer an extremely traumatic emotional reaction. Therefore, to help alleviate Johnathan's distress, Petitioners seek to modify their front entranceway to ensure that Ace remains in the house. Petitioners specifically desire to construct a "two-door" entry system. Basically, Petitioners hope to either install a screen door onto the front door, or to screen in the front alcove and affix a separate screen door. Petitioners believe that the addition of a secondary barrier will prevent Ace from slipping through the (single) front door when it is ajar. Ms. Interrante urged that the modification will ease Jonathan's mental distress. Jonathan will be comforted knowing that when one door is opened, the other will always be closed. That way, Ace would not unexpectedly dart into the wild. Ms. Interrante testified that Petitioners are willing to bear all the costs to install a screened door and/or enclosure. On April 6, 2020, Petitioners submitted an Architectural Modification Request Form to the Association seeking approval for an "addition or modification" to their "entry way enclosure." With their request, Petitioners attached plans for a screened-in enclosure, with a separate door, to be installed within the overhanging roof structure outside their front door. Petitioners also included information documenting Jonathan's disability. Petitioners wrote that, "we need this modification because without it [Jonathan] is unable to fully use and enjoy his home to the same degree as people without disabilities." On April 9, 2020, the Association's Property Manager, Allan Heinze, notified Petitioners that the Association would not approve their request to modify their front door because "your listed alteration is not permitted in Tevesta HOA. Front screen enclosure[s] are not permitted per the guidelines." On May 6, 2020, the Association's Design Review Committee formally denied Petitioners' request stating that "[s]creened enclosures are not permitted." In follow up correspondence with Petitioners, the Association's attorney explained that Petitioners' request lacked documentation establishing "a relationship between the disability and the need for the accommodation." The attorney further stated that this information could come in the form of a "statement or opinion of a physician, therapist, counselor, etc." At the final hearing, Ms. Interrante conveyed that she has tried to obtain support for the modification from a psychiatrist or mental health counselor. She relayed, however, that Jonathan's current psychiatrist, Dr. Brock Hollett, who evaluated Jonathan in the spring of 2020, resisted her request to personally appear at the hearing over concerns that his testimony would interfere with his doctor-patient relationship with Jonathan. Instead, Ms. Interrante offered several letters which she represented Dr. Hollett prepared on Jonathan's behalf. In a letter dated June 21, 2020, Dr. Hollett wrote that, in his opinion: Jonathan could benefit from having a screen door placed on his front door. Following the final hearing, Petitioners filed an additional letter they received in April 2020 from Wendy Fisher, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, a behavioral health consultant who had examined Jonathan. Ms. Fisher expressed that Ace "is necessary for the emotional health of Jonathan because his cat's company will provide support and will mitigate the symptoms that his [sic] is experiencing." Ms. Fisher further advised that: I strongly recommend that Jonathan's cat be allowed to reside with him in his home in his community and that accommodations can be made to allow him to do so. Ms. Fisher did not address the specific modifications Petitioners seek for their front entrance.4 Jonathan confirmed that he has discussed his anxiety over losing Ace with a mental health counselor. Jonathan represented that his counselor 4 The written letters from Dr. Hollett and Ms. Fisher are out-of-court statements and clearly hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, "[h]earsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions." § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Consequently, the undersigned makes no findings that modifying Petitioners' front door is necessary for Jonathan to fully enjoy the premises based solely on Dr. Hollett's and/or Ms. Fisher's written comments. agreed that his anxiety and stress would benefit from additional security on the front door. Finally, in response to questions at the final hearing, both Ms. Interrante and Jonathan were extremely skeptical that they could train Ace not to approach the front door when it is opened. They declared that their prior attempts to train Ace did not prove successful. Further, while Ms. Interrante agreed that her back door opens onto a screened-in porch with a "two-door" entry system, she asserted that it was impractical for family or friends to only enter or exit her home through the rear door. Moreover, Ms. Interrante doubted that redirecting foot traffic to the back door would alleviate Jonathan's fixation on the possibility that Ace might escape through their front door. To explain its decision, the Association presented the testimony of Allan Heinze, Property Manager for Trevesta. Mr. Heinze acknowledged that the Association received Petitioners' modification request on April 6, 2020. Mr. Heinze recounted that he made the initial decision on April 9, 2020, to deny the request due to the fact that the Association's governing rules and regulations do not permit front screen enclosures on any houses within the community. Mr. Heinze explained that, upon buying a house in Trevesta, homeowners become subject to the Association's Architectural Guidelines, Standards & Criteria (the "Guidelines"). The Guidelines specifically state: Q. Front Entryway/Storm Doors: Screen enclosures, storm doors or screen doors are not allowed for front entrances. Wicker, wood or wrought iron tables and chairs may be used in the front porch/entryway. Plastic stackable furniture is not permitted. Mr. Heinze further testified that, following his initial denial, the Association attempted to resolve Petitioners' modification request. Mr. Heinze relayed that the Association's attorney contacted Petitioners, via email, to discuss the details of their request. Mr. Heinze remarked that, based on his understanding of the concerns of the Association's legal counsel, Petitioners failed to articulate a sufficient "nexus" between the specific modification they sought and Jonathan's disability. Mr. Heinze explained that the Association was interested in any information that would substantiate (1) Jonathan's disability; (2) the modification Jonathan needs to address his disability; and (3) how that specific modification would improve Jonathan's life. Mr. Heinze asserted that the Association is ready and willing to consider any information and/or documentation Petitioners provide from a qualified medical provider. However, without details that establish the necessary nexus between Jonathan's disability and Petitioners' need for a screened enclosure outside their front door, Mr. Heinze maintained that the Association did not possess enough evidence to justify deviating from the Association's Guidelines. Regarding the letters from Jonathan's mental health professionals, Mr. Heinze commented that, while they show that Jonathan might "benefit" from having a screened-in front door, the written statements did not adequately demonstrate why a "two-door" system is medically necessary for Jonathan to fully enjoy Petitioners' home. Finally, despite the Association's denial of Petitioners' request to modify their front door, Mr. Heinze admitted that there are a few similar front entranceway enclosures in the Trevesta community. However, Mr. Heinze asserted that the Association never approved these additions. On the contrary, the homeowners who altered their front doors or alcoves did so in direct violation of the Association's Guidelines. Mr. Heinze exclaimed that, to his knowledge, the Association has never approved a formal request from a homeowner to enclose a front entryway. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Association discriminated against Petitioners by failing to permit them to modify their home based on a disability. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the Association committed unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order concluding that Respondent, Trevesta Homeowners Association, Inc., did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners and dismissing their Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Interrante Richard Interrante 6530 Devesta Loop Palmetto, Florida 34221 S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. Scott H. Jackman, Esquire Cole, Scott and Kissane, P.A. 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 400 Tampa, Florida 33607 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (850) 488-7082, Extension 1006
Findings Of Fact Based on the undisputed facts included in pleadings filed in this proceeding and on the documentary evidence attached to the Association's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 16, 1999, Ms. Thornhill filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which she accused the Association of housing discrimination on the basis of handicap and coercion. The complaint was apparently based on the Association's attempts to make Ms. Thornhill remove a set of steps leading from the terrace of her apartment. In June 1999, the Association filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Thornhill in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, styled Admiral Farragut Condominium Association v. Maria Thornhill, Case No. 99-15567 CA 22. On or about September 21, 1999, Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, filed Defendant, Maria Thornhill's Answer to Complaint. Included in the answer was a Counterclaim filed by Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, against the Association, in which she sought injunctive relief and damages against the Association pursuant to Section 760.35(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ She asserted in the Counterclaim that she had filed a discrimination complaint against the Association with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had been referred to the Commission and that this complaint was still pending before the Commission. Ms. Thornhill alleged in the Counterclaim that the Association had engaged in housing discrimination against her on the basis of her handicap because it had refused to accommodate her disability by giving her permission to retain the steps she had installed leading from the terrace of her apartment. Ms. Thornhill also alleged that the Association had "authorized or acquiesced in a series of actions intended as harassment and retribution" against Ms. Thornhill for having filed a housing discrimination complaint. The factual and legal bases on which Ms. Thornhill requests relief in the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission and in the Counterclaim filed in circuit court are virtually identical.
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 administrative complaint filed by Maria T. Thornhill to enforce rights granted by the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.30 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 November, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is handicapped within the meaning of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Sections 760.20 – 760.37, Florida Statutes) or the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 USCA § 3601 et seq.).1 Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in violation of either Act by refusing to waive its no pets policy, which would require Petitioner to remove his “emotional support animals” (two cats) from his condominium unit. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for his refusal to remove his cats from his condominium unit.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner owned and resided in Unit 206 of the condominium building managed by Respondent. Petitioner is a male, born February 5, 1951. Respondent is the Board of Directors of the condominium building in which Petitioner resides. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had the following written policy (the no pets policy), which it routinely enforced2: 12. No Unit [sic] owner or lessee shall acquire a pet to be maintained in his or her unit, or shall such persons already possessing pets replace them when such pets die or are otherwise disposed of. No unit owner or lessee shall keep visiting pets in their unit. Petitioner bought Unit 206 in January 1999 and has since then lived alone in that unit with two cats. These cats have received no special training and have no special attributes. These cats were born to a cat that Petitioner and his late mother kept as a pet. Since his mother’s death in 1996, Petitioner has viewed these cats as his surrogate family. Respondent and Petitioner have engaged in a dispute regarding Petitioner’s alleged violation of its no pets policy that began in 1999 and is on-going. This dispute has involved multiple forums, with the current proceeding being the latest development. Respondent has received complaints from other residents of the condominium building that an unpleasant odor comes from Petitioner’s unit and that fleas have been found in the vicinity of his unit. On December 23, 2003, Dr. Seth Gottlieb, Petitioner’s physician, wrote the following: “To: Whom It May Concern:” William Kleinschmidt is a patient of mine. Mr. Kleinschmidt has a long-time severe physical disability and it is medically necessary that he his [sic] emotional support companion animals – his cats, to control the frequency and severity of his physical disability. By letter to Respondent’s president dated January 10, 2004, Petitioner asserted the following: While I realize that the Board and I disagree as to the interpretation of the condominium rules regarding pets, as my interpretation is based on the plain reading of the language within the common meaning of the said words, is that if a potential unit owner already has pets, they are acceptable and that no replacement pets will be brought in after the purchase. I may add that as a pre-condition to purchase of my unit, the board DID [sic] agree to my companion animals for my physical disability – the witnesses are both the buyer and the seller real estate brokers and others. I am requesting a special waiver of the pet rules as the board currently views them be made in my situation due to my disability. Please find attached a letter from my physician Seth Gottlieb, M.D., certifying that my companion animals are “medically necessary” for my disability. Please advise me in writing whether or not we have a special waiver as a reasonable accommodation. Although Respondent had been trying to force Petitioner to remove his cats from his unit since 1999, the letter of January 10, 2004, was the first time that Petitioner asserted that he was disabled and it was the first time he requested a waiver of the no pets policy to accommodate his disability. Prior to that letter, Respondent did not know and had no reason to know that Petitioner believed himself to be disabled. On April 19, 2004, Dr. Gottlieb wrote the following: “To: Whom It May Concern:” William Kleinschmidt is my patient, who has a significant emotional disability, as well as a long history of significant asthma. His asthma unfortunately has not been currently under good control. William clearly has a significant emotional component to his asthma, that is, his asthma is easily exacerbated by emotional triggers. William has companion animals which greatly help his emotional status. If he is not able to keep these companion animals there is a great likelihood that the emotional distress this will bring will significantly worsen his asthma. Therefore, it is medically necessary for William to have these emotional support animals to control the severity and frequency of his asthmatic disability. Dr. Gottlieb has no special training in psychiatry or psychology, and he did not treat or diagnose Petitioner’s anxiety. Dr. Gottlieb recommended to Petitioner that Petitioner seek professional help from a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist. Petitioner refused to follow that recommendation. Petitioner has multiple allergens, one of which is cat dander. Dr. Gottlieb recommended to Petitioner that Petitioner seek professional help from an allergist. Petitioner refused to follow that recommendation. Dr. Gottlieb’s letters of December 23, 2003, and April 19, 2004, were written at Petitioner’s request and were based on statements made to him by Petitioner and on his observations of Petitioner. Dr. Gottlieb testified that he had never known Petitioner to be without his cats and he had no way of knowing what the consequences would be if Petitioner was unable to keep his cats. Dr. Gottlieb’s testimony does not establish that it is medically necessary for Respondent to waive its no pets policy as a reasonable accommodation of Petitioner’s handicapping conditions. Petitioner is a person with a handicap within the meaning of the Acts.3 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has suffered from persistent asthma and emotional problems. There was no expert testimony as to the nature and extent of Petitioner’s emotional problems, but it is clear from the evidence that his emotional problems are debilitating. Petitioner is receiving no treatment for his emotional problems. Petitioner is receiving treatment from Dr. Gottlieb for his asthma. His asthma responds to medication prescribed by Dr. Gottlieb, but his asthma is not controlled by that medication and he suffers periodic asthma attacks of undetermined frequency and severity. Petitioner failed to establish that his two untrained cats are necessary for him to have equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling within the meaning of either of the Acts. Petitioner’s cats are pets and while they undoubtedly provide emotional support as any pet should, they are not service animals4 and they have no special training that would enable them to assist Petitioner to overcome limitations imposed by his handicaps. Whether Petitioner’s cats help him avoid anxiety attacks, which could, in turn, trigger an asthma attack, is speculative. Petitioner asserts that two incidents prove that Respondent harassed him and retaliated against him because of his refusal to remove his cats from his unit. The first incident occurred in 2001 while Respondent was attempting to serve Petitioner with a subpoena during an arbitration proceeding. Because Respondent had difficulty serving a subpoena on Petitioner, Respondent had the arbitrator issue an order authorizing Respondent to have a locksmith open the door to Petitioner’s unit so the subpoena could be left in the unit. On September 21, 2001, Respondent hired a locksmith who unlocked the front door to Petitioner’s unit by drilling the lock on the door. A representative of Respondent thereafter entered Petitioner’s unit and left the subpoena for Petitioner inside the unit. An armed police officer was present when the door was opened and when Respondent’s representative entered the unit, left the subpoena, and exited the unit. These events occurred before Respondent had any reason to believe that Petitioner considered himself disabled or that he considered his cats to be emotional support animals. Respondent established that it was acting on advice of counsel and pursuant to the arbitrator’s order on September 21, 2001. Petitioner failed to establish that the events of September 21, 2001, were done to harass him or retaliate against him for asserting his rights under either Act. The second incident occurred in October 2003, when Respondent failed to give Petitioner proper credit for a maintenance assessment Petitioner had made. As a result of the error, Respondent wrote Petitioner a dun letter which reminded Petitioner that the failure to pay maintenance assessments could result in the imposition of a lien against his unit. Respondent failed to properly credit Petitioner’s payment as the result of a bookkeeping error. Respondent corrected the error as soon as Respondent’s bookkeeper discovered it. Soon thereafter, Respondent provided a written explanation of the error to Petitioner and apologized to him for the error. Petitioner failed to establish that the events of October 23, 2003, were done to harass him or retaliate against him for asserting his rights under either Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of, May 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, or provision of services in connection with the rental of a dwelling from Respondent, based on her race, in violation of section 804(b) or 804(f) of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and manages the Country Club Woods residential community in Starke, Florida. Country Club Woods is a racially-mixed community. The current residential mix includes 29 African-American families and 6 white families. County Club Woods receives low-income housing subsidies in the form of tax credits through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Some residents qualify for federal Section 8 housing subsidies. Petitioner is African-American. On February 4, 2011, Petitioner signed a lease agreement for a home in Country Club Woods. Rent was $698.00 per month. The home was vacant, and power and water had been turned off. Respondent asked Petitioner to activate power and water so that repairs and unit preparation could be performed, and she did so. Petitioner?s rent for February was partially prorated to account for the period during which she did not occupy the unit. The lease agreement required that all occupants of the house be listed, and provided that “[n]o other occupants are permitted.” Guests were limited to stays of no more than 14 consecutive days. Due to the status of Country Club Woods as an affordable housing community, it is subject to restrictions on the income and criminal history of its residents. Therefore, all permanent occupants are required to undergo income and background screening to ensure that the low income housing tax credit rules are being met. The failure to do so could jeopardize the tax credits. When she signed the lease, Petitioner knew what the lease required regarding the occupancy of the house. Petitioner listed Aulettia Russ and Aarian Russ, her daughter and son, as occupants with her in the home. After the lease contract was signed, Respondent performed a few repairs and updates to prepare the unit for Petitioner. Mr. Sam Baker, who performed maintenance services for County Club Woods, fumigated the house and painted some of the interior walls. He performed a minor repair to the roof, which consisted of applying tar around the cracked rubber boot of the roof drain vent. Mr. Baker moved a stove into the house from another unit because there was no stove when the lease was signed. He also replaced the toilet with a new one. Petitioner moved into the unit on February 16, 2010. She was joined by her fiancé, Kevin Sampson, and her older son, Kelsy Roulhac, neither of whom were listed as occupants. Mr. Sampson was on probation for several felony offenses. Both Mr. Sampson and Mr. Roulhac were residents for the entirety of Petitioner?s tenancy. At no time during the tenancy did Petitioner seek to add Mr. Sampson or Mr. Roulhac to the lease. Petitioner testified that Rebekkah Baker, the property manager, knew that Mr. Sampson was a permanent occupant, but had no objection. Ms. Baker denied that she consented to his occupancy, given that it would have been a violation of Country Club Woods policy against leasing to persons with a criminal history in the past seven years. Given the consequences of failing to meet the occupancy and background screening requirements, Ms. Baker?s testimony is credited. When Petitioner moved in, there were still problems with the unit. Problems noted by Petitioner included a broken dishwasher, mildew on a number of surfaces, dead insects -- likely from the fumigation -- in the cabinets, a hole in the foyer wall caused by the adjacent door?s doorknob, a ceiling stain from the roof leak, a missing shower head, a broken light fixture, and a missing smoke alarm. In addition, the carpet was stained and in generally very poor condition. Petitioner resolved the mildew problem by cleaning the affected surfaces with Tilex. Petitioner?s son, Mr. Roulhac, got rid of the dead insects and cleaned the cabinets. Petitioner replaced the showerhead on her own. Shortly after she moved in, Petitioner notified Respondent that her roof was leaking. Mr. Baker went to the house, advised Petitioner?s daughter that he was there to fix the roof, and went onto the roof. He determined that the leak was occurring at the location of his previous repair. He completed the repair by re-tarring the roof drain vent boot. Petitioner testified that the roof continued to leak after heavy rains. She indicated that she made a subsequent complaint via a message left on Ms. Baker?s telephone answering machine. Ms. Baker testified that she received no subsequent complaints, and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent received any subsequent complaints regarding the roof. Mr. Baker performed no further repairs. Petitioner complained that the dishwasher was holding water. She testified that Respondent never came to fix the dishwasher. Both Mr. Baker and Ms. Baker testified that Mr. Baker was tasked to repair the dishwasher, but upon arriving at the house was denied entry, with the explanation that the dishwasher had been fixed by a friend, and the problem resolved by removing a plastic fork that had clogged the drain. From the time Petitioner moved in, until the time she vacated the home, Mr. Baker fixed the hole in the foyer wall and the broken light fixture. In addition, Mr. Baker came to the house to fix the refrigerator, which was a problem that was not on the original list. From the beginning of her tenancy, Petitioner complained of the carpet. The carpet was badly stained and worn. In addition, the carpet contained a dye or some other substance that aggravated Aarian Russ?s asthma. It was Petitioner?s desire to have the carpet replaced before the time of her daughter?s graduation. Respondent agreed to replace the carpet, and had employees of a flooring company go to Petitioner?s house to measure for new carpet. The flooring company employees were allowed entry to the house by Petitioner?s daughter. They measured the rooms, except for Petitioner?s bedroom, which was locked. Respondent advised Petitioner that the measurements of the bedroom of an identical unit could be provided to the carpet company. It is not known if that was done. Due to difficulties on the part of the flooring company, the new carpet was not installed before Petitioner vacated the unit. There was no evidence offered to suggest any relationship between the failure to install new carpet and Petitioner?s race. Petitioner complained that she had not been given notice that the flooring company employees were coming, and complained that Respondent had not performed a background check on the workers. She argued that she was entitled to have a background check done on anyone providing services before she would have to allow them into her home. There is no relationship between Petitioner?s complaints regarding the lack of a background check on the workers and Petitioner?s race. The lease agreement provides that “[m]anagement will make repairs . . . after receipt of written notice.” Respondent occasionally prepared work orders describing the nature of the problem at a unit, and the work done to resolve the problem. However, the evidence demonstrates that written work orders were likely the exception rather than the rule. It appears that most problems were reported by verbal requests, and resolved by Mr. Baker?s maintenance and repairs. Most of Petitioner?s requests for repairs and maintenance were made verbally. At some point, due to the number of items, Petitioner provided Respondent with a list of items for repair. There is no evidence that any repairs at Petitioner?s home were documented with a work order. In any event, there was no evidence that the failure to document the work, which was common, was the result of Petitioner?s race. Petitioner did submit seven work orders in evidence. Six of the work orders reflected repairs made by Respondent to the homes of African-American families upon verbal requests. One of the work orders reflected repairs made by Respondent to the home of a white family upon a verbal request. Petitioner questioned why none of her repairs were memorialized in work orders. The work orders do not substantiate that Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her race, and in fact serve to indicate that Respondent provided maintenance services equally, without any consideration to the race of the person requesting such services. Petitioner complained that Mr. Baker did not have “credentials,” and questioned him regarding any education or licenses that qualified him to perform maintenance, including electrical work. Whether qualified to do so or not, Mr. Baker performed maintenance for all of the residents of Country Club Woods, regardless of their race. There is no relationship between Petitioner?s complaints regarding Mr. Baker?s credentials and Petitioner?s race. Beginning in April, 2011, Petitioner began to fall behind on her rent. Petitioner was paid bi-weekly, though how that affected her ability to plan for monthly rental payments was not clearly explained. On April 21, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the $279.60 balance of the April rent payment be made. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. However, the copy of the notice put in evidence includes the notation from Ms. Baker that “[p]romised to pay balance w/ May 2011?s rent.” On May 9, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the rent payment be made. The amount in arrears was calculated to be $1,077.60, which included a late fee. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. However, the copy of the notice put in evidence includes the notation from Ms. Baker that “pd. $698 on 5/11/11.” On June 1, 2011, Ms. Baker posted a notice on Petitioner?s door demanding that the rent payment be made. The amount in arrears remained at $1,077.60. Petitioner denied having seen the notice. On July 27, 2011, Respondent provided a notice to Petitioner indicating that due to unauthorized occupants and $1,975 in unpaid rent, Petitioner had until August 1, 2011, to vacate the premises, or Respondent would commence eviction proceedings. Petitioner admitted to having received that notice. Respondent?s resident history report indicates that by the time Petitioner vacated the home on August 31, 2011, her rent was $2,075.60 in arrears. Some of that was due to assessed late charges, but the majority reflected unpaid rent. When Petitioner vacated the unit, Petitioner?s security deposit was applied, the remaining arrearage was assigned to a collection company, and Respondent?s books were cleared. Ms. Sheila Palmer and Ms. Tynesha Epps testified at the hearing. They have been residents of Country Club Woods for 16 years and for 1 year and 3 months, respectively. Both are African-American. Both testified that they had never been refused maintenance at their homes, and that Respondent was responsive to their requests for maintenance which were generally verbal. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Epps was aware of any instance in which management of Country Club Woods had discriminated against any tenant due to their race, though neither personally knew Petitioner. Ms. Headrick, Ms. Baker, and Mr. Baker each testified that they never denied or limited repair and maintenance services to any resident of Country Club Woods account of their race. They each testified convincingly that race played no factor in their duties to their tenants. Ultimate Findings of Fact There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that Respondent failed or refused to provide services to Petitioner under the same terms and conditions that were applicable to all persons residing in the Country Club Woods community. There was not a scintilla of evidence that, in providing services to Petitioner, Respondent deviated from its standard practice of providing maintenance services to all residents of Country Club Woods regardless of their race, income, or any other reason. The evidence does support a finding that Petitioner materially breached the terms of the lease agreement, both by allowing undisclosed persons to reside at the house, and by failing to timely pay rent. Petitioner?s race had nothing to do with the timing or manner in which maintenance and repair services were provided to her by Respondent, and it is expressly so found. The evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012H0004. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of February, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Eulinda M. Russ Post Office Box 902 Starke, Florida 32091 Sean Michael Murrell, Esquire Murrell Law, LLC 4651 Salisbury Road South, Suite 503 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Lakeview of Largo Condominium Association, Inc., et al. (Lakeview or Respondent), violated chapter 70, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances, as alleged in the discrimination complaint (Complaint) filed by Francis Dandrea (Mr. Dandrea or Petitioner); and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the relevant stipulated facts and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing. The parties agree that the Federal Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), the Florida Fair Housing Act (sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, (2019)),2 and “the Pinellas County Code mirror one another, so the same legal arguments apply to all counts of the Complaint.”(*) The Lakeview campus consists of 12 to 14 acres of land and six residential buildings with approximately 60 condominiums in each building, for a total of 312 units. There are laundry facilities (a washer/dryer unit) on each floor for residents to use. Residents are not allowed to use laundry facilities found on the different floors of each building, but must use the facilities on their floor. If the laundry facilities on their floor are in use, 1 At the hearing, the parties jointly offered an additional exhibit, Exhibit Q, which was admitted into evidence. 2 Unless stated otherwise, all Florida statutory citations will be to the 2019 version of the Florida Statutes. No legislative changes have been made to sections 760.20 through 760.37 since 2013. residents must wait until the laundry facilities are available. In 2004, Petitioner was 71 years old, and his wife, Dolores Dandrea, was 70 years old when they purchased Lakeview Condominium No. 6113. On April 13, 2004, Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea executed the following statement: I have read the frequently asked questions and answer sheet and understand my responsibilities as an owner.3 Lakeview’s Rules and Regulations (the “Rules”), Section VIII, paragraph three provides: “No new washer or dryer installations will be permitted within the units as of January 1, 1994 Upon the sale of the unit, washers and/or dryers within the unit must be removed.”(*) The Rules do not provide who (buyer or seller) is to remove the washer and dryer upon sale of a condominium unit. (*) Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea resided in Condominium No. 6113 for nine years. In those nine years, Petitioner testified he had never thought about the Rules, specifically about the washer/dryer unit, as they were “very close” or “right next door” to the first floor laundry facility. In 2013, Condominium No. 6110 was listed for sale. Petitioner either knew or became aware that there was a washer/dryer unit in that condominium, a main purchasing point for Petitioner. On March 29, 2013, Petitioner executed an “AS IS” residential contract for the sale and purchase of Condominium No. 6110. The contract clearly listed additional personal property included in the sale: refrigerator(s); microwave oven; washer; dryer; and blinds. It is undisputed that the washer/dryer unit was installed prior to the Dandrea’s purchase of Condominium No. 6110. (*) An “Estoppel Letter”4 requested by the title company provided there were no violations against Condominium No. 6110 at the time of the sale. 3 As part of Lakeview’s screening process, all new residents have to acknowledge a “55+ Community Frequently Asked Questions and Answer Sheet DBR Form 33-032.” 4 The “Estoppel Letter” provides that the buyers are “Francis and Dolores D’Andrea”. Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea moved from Condominium No. 6113 into Condominium No. 6110 in late April or early May 2013. A washer/dryer unit was in Condominium No. 6110, as specified in the purchase agreement. Petitioner’s current unit (Condominium No. 6110) is a dwelling within the meaning of the Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 3602(b), because it is within a multi-unit building occupied as a residence by several families. (*) On October 24, 2018, Lakeview’s community association manager, Frank Fundora, notified Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea of their non-compliance with the Rules regarding the presence of the washer/dryer unit in Condominium No. 6110. (*) On January 22, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, sent the Dandreas a letter that “required” them to attend a Lakeview Compliance Committee hearing to explain their position as it related to the washer/dryer unit in their condominium. The hearing was held on February 6, 2019.5 On February 21, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, advised the Dandreas that they were found in non-compliance of the Rules by the Compliance Committee. (*) That violation was reported to the Lakeview Board of Directors (Board), who requested the washer/dryer unit be removed from Condominium No. 6110 within 14 days of the letter. Additionally, the Dandreas were notified that the non-compliance (the failure to remove the washer/dryer unit) would lead to a monetary fine of up to $100 per day to a maximum of $1,000. (*) The Dandreas did not remove the washer/dryer unit from Condominium No. 6110. On March 14, 2019, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of Lakeview, notified the Dandreas of the fine assessment of $100 per day for the violation of the 5 The January 22, 2019, letter provided the hearing would be on February 5, 2019, however the February 21, 2019, Lakeview letter to the Dandreas provided the hearing took place on February 6, 2019. Rules, up to a maximum of $1,000 fine, consistent with chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The fine was placed on Petitioner's account in an amount of $1,000 on March 22, 2019. (*) Petitioner, via letter to the Board dated April 19, 2019,6 requested a reasonable accommodation from the Rules pursuant to the Act. (*) The letter provides7: Dear Sirs, I respectfully request a conversation with you asap [sic] about reasonable accommodations at our condo complex…[sic] I am enclosing letters from our doctors stating that we should not get rid [of] our washer/dryer due to our medical complications and conditions. Respectfully, Francis Dandrea Along with the April 19, 2019, reasonable accommodation request, Petitioner submitted supporting documentation from medical professionals setting forth the medical conditions of both Petitioner and Mrs. Dandrea as the basis for the reasonable accommodation request. (*) The parties stipulated that the medical documentation below was provided in Petitioner’s request for a reasonable accommodation. That documentation provided: 11/06/2018 To whom it may concern, Francis Dandrea suffers from generalized arthritis in addition to medical diagnoses of emphysema and intermittent atrial fibrillation. His wife is limited functionally by polymyalgia rheumatic. Removing the washer/dryer from their condo would creat [sic] a physical hardship and is not recommended. 6 The certified letter was “signed for” by Mr. Fundora on April 22, 2019. 7 This letter was written in all capital letters. The text is provided in sentence format. Please share this communication with the patient. Signed by: /es/ JOHN H HULL, MD GERIATRICS & EXTENDED CARE 11/07/2018 05:41 Analog Pager: [Omitted] Digital Pager: [Omitted] And: 12/12/2018 To Whom It May Concern: Mrs. Dolores D’Andrea is under my medical care for 5 years. She asked me to write this letter. She has multiple medical conditions. It came to my attention that recently washer and dryer was [sic] required to be removed from her unit. Patient has urinary incontinence. It is absolutely important for her to have washer and dryer nearby, so she can wash her clothes because of frequent accidents. Also she has polymyalgia rheumatica, and it is very difficult for her to walk down the hall to a washer and dryer units that located down the hall in apartment area. [sic] It would be medically necessary for her to have washer and dryer in her apartment. If any questions, please feel free to call my office 727-584-7706. Sincerely, Helen Brvenik, M.D. Petitioner testified to his multiple infirmities: osteoarthritis; atrial fibrillation; and a bulging disc. Petitioner also provided that he had had surgery on both knees (“not replacements”), and he had to give up golf three years ago. Petitioner also testified that his wife has neurological problems, including double vision for which she had surgery, and anxiety issues. On April 24, 2019, two days after receipt of Petitioner’s request for a reasonable accommodation, Mr. Fundora, on behalf of the Lakeview Board, informed the Dandreas that Lakeview had denied the requested accommodation. Further, the Board voted to give the Dandreas until May 8, 2019, to comply with the Rules by removing the washer/dryer unit. If the Dandreas refused to do so, their right to use the common recreational facilities would be suspended. (*) Petitioner did not remove the washer/dryer unit, and on May 8, 2019, Lakeview suspended Petitioner's rights to the common recreational facilities. (*) Petitioner filed the Complaint against Lakeview with the PCOHR on May 13, 2019. (*) On September 8, 2019, the PCOHR issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause and Charge of Discrimination. (*) Those individuals who testified at the hearing either are friends of Petitioner, serve (or have served) on Lakeview’s Board, or are employed by Lakeview. However, none of them are health care professionals, and their observations are just that, observations without any medical training or knowledge of Petitioner’s health issues. Mr. Fundora testified that Lakeview did not have a process in place for the type of reasonable accommodation requested by Petitioner. However, Lakeview had, in the past, received reasonable accommodation requests for emotional support animals, large vehicles, and motorcycles. Those requests have been handled on a case-by-case basis.8 A request for additional medical information to support or discredit the requested accommodation for Petitioner (or Mrs. Dandrea) was never sought. There is no dispute that Lakeview objected to the Dandreas retaining the washer/dryer unit. Lakeview’s denial of the request for a reasonable accommodation within two days of the request appears to be solely based on observations made by non-medically trained residents or Board members who 8 At least one request for an emotional support animal was approved, while another was denied when the supporting documentation was found to be fabricated. had seen Petitioner (and Mrs. Dandrea) walking around the Lakeview complex at some time. These witnesses attempted to give opinions from their observations, yet they were not qualified to do so as they did not know if the requested accommodation was medically necessary. Lakeview has not articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for withholding the reasonable accommodation request. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that having the washer/dryer unit within Petitioner’s condominium is a reasonable accommodation; and necessary to afford Petitioner (and Mrs. Dandrea) the opportunity to the use and enjoy their home.
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 Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2011)1/.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondents Hoyt and Nancy Davis (the Davises) own a residential property located at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, Florida (the Property). The Property is utilized exclusively as a rental. Respondent Florida Coastal Jacksonville Realty, Inc. ("Florida Coastal") and its principal John McMenamy ("McMenamy") acted as listing agents for the Property (collectively, the "Broker Respondents"). Mr. McMenamy and his company have managed the rental of the Property for approximately six years. In association with their listing of the Property, the Broker Respondents were responsible for advertising, showing, accepting applications for and assisting in the selection of tenants for the Property. At the time of the events in question, the Property was being offered for lease at a rate of $1,450 per month. Generally, due to its location within a St. Johns County golf community and proximity to good schools, the Property rents easily and quickly. The Rental Applications On May 14, 2010, Petitioner Jaime Terry (Mrs. Terry) contacted McMenamy regarding the Property. McMenamy instructed Mrs. Terry on the rental application process. On the afternoon of Sunday, May 16, 2010, Petitioners submitted via e-mail their rental application, dated May 15, 2010. On their application, the Petitioners disclosed that they had previously declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was entered in December 2007 and discharged in January 2009. Petitioners also disclosed that they were currently living with Mrs. Terry's parents. The application included a statement of the Terrys' monthly income, and also disclosed that they had three children residing with them -- aged eleven, five and two at the time. A memo attached to the application elaborated on the bankruptcy and other details of their employment and financial situation. Mrs. Terry testified that during the application process the Respondents did not solicit additional information concerning her employment history. On May 18, 2010, McMenamy ran a credit check on the Terrys using the "Online Rental Exchange." The credit report for Jaime Terry reflected a credit score of 664, while Steven Terry's assigned score was 649. However, both reports noted "conditional" approval because of the bankruptcy filing. Although the exact date is unknown, at approximately the same time that the Terrys submitted their application, another couple, Rick and Jessica Egger (the Eggers) contacted McMenamy regarding their interest in possibly renting the Property. On the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Eggers formally submitted an application to rent the Property. The Eggers' application disclosed that, unlike the Terrys', they did not have a bankruptcy in their history. In addition, the Eggers' combined monthly income was higher than the Terrys'2/ and the younger of their two children was nine years old. The credit report obtained for the Eggers reflected a credit score of 672 for Jessica Egger and 696 for Rick Egger, with an unconditional approval rating. Respondents' Tenant Selection Process McMenamy testified that in evaluating applications, potential tenants must meet certain minimum criteria. Factors he considers in assessing applicants include credit checks, criminal background checks, employment status, and rental history. However, he agreed that the evaluation process he uses is subjective. McMenamy acknowledged that bankruptcy would not automatically disqualify a potential tenant, and in fact, confirmed that he has rented to tenants who have a bankruptcy in their history. With regard to credit scores, McMenamy testified that he considered a score below 500 to be unacceptable. Mrs. Davis testified that McMenamy manages the entire process of renting the Property on behalf of herself and her husband. Once McMenamy determines the suitability of a prospective tenant, he discusses that tenant with the Davises. McMenamy does not discuss applicants with the Davises that he does not consider eligible. The Davises do not participate in the background screening process and they do not review applicants' credit ratings. However, Mrs. Davis was aware of McMenamy's process for selecting tenants, and she confirmed her understanding that applicants must meet certain minimum requirements. In selecting a tenant, McMenamy looks not only for a candidate that is financially qualified, but also one who will rent the property for a significant period of time, will take good care of the property, and will make monthly rent payments in a timely manner, according to Mrs. Davis. Denial of Petitioners' Lease Application Mr. Davis testified that he and Mrs. Davis discussed the Petitioners' application with McMenamy. At hearing, Mr. Davis recounted that conversation as follows: Cross-examination by Mr. Organes: Q. Mr. Davis, you stated that you had discussed with Mr. McMenamy the application of Steven and Jaime Terry? A. Yes. Q. And that’s a common practice with Mr. McMenamy as when he receives reasonably qualified applicants, he discusses them with you? A. Yes. Q. And that’s what he did with the Terrys? A. Yes. Q. And you said you did not tell him not to rent to them because of their children? A. That is true, we did not tell him. Q. The issue of children wasn’t discussed at all? A. No. Q. What reason did you give him to tell them why their application was being denied? A. Because of their past rental history and their bankruptcy foreclosure. Q. In general if you don’t approve of an applicant, what reason would you give for denying that applicant? A. I would give that reason, that we didn’t feel that, you know, we probably would get a better applicant and the reason we turned them down is because we didn’t feel that they were suitable for our rental. There is no evidence in this record as to precisely when the above conversation between the Respondents took place, although based upon Mr. Davis's statement that "we probably would get a better applicant" it is reasonable to infer that it was prior to the Eggers submitting their application on the evening of Thursday, May 20, 2010.3/ Early on the morning of Friday, May 21, 2010, McMenamy sent an e-mail to Ms. Terry, which read: Jaime I left a message yesterday but did not hear from you. I spoke to the owner about the application and she was concerned about not really having any rental history and the number of small children. She is a perfectionist and just had the home professionally painted. The one family who lived there had small children and there were handprints all over the walls so that it needed to be repainted. So this was her main concern and therefore does not want to rent to you and the family. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, John At hearing, Mrs. Davis maintained that the Petitioners' children were not the determining factor in the decision to deny their application. Rather, it was based on their finances and lack of rental history. Consistent with Mr. Davis's testimony, Mrs. Davis also testified that she and her husband did not instruct McMenamy to reject the Petitioners' application because of their children. After being informed that their application was denied, Petitioners immediately began searching for alternate housing. Mrs. Terry testified that their primary concern was to locate a rental in a high quality school district. Within a couple of weeks of receiving the denial e-mail from McMenamy, the Terrys located a home at 983 Lilac Loop, St. Johns, Florida. Petitioners entered into a lease for this property on June 6, 2010; the rent was $ 1,200 per month. Although the Lilac Loop home was acceptable, the Terrys considered it to be inferior to the Property, and Petitioners paid to have the home repainted and wired for cable access. The cable installation fee was $150.00. On September 22, 2010, Petitioners were notified that the Lilac Loop house was in foreclosure. Petitioners appealed to a default-law organization in an attempt to enforce their one-year lease, but were ultimately unsuccessful. As a result of the foreclosure, Petitioners were forced to seek alternative housing within the same school district, and in November 2010, leased a property at 1528 Summerdown Way, Fruit Cove, Florida, 32259. The monthly rent at 1528 Summerdown Way was $1,600 monthly. Petitioners also incurred additional expenses necessitated by hiring a moving service, in the amount of $773.50. At of the hearing, Petitioners continued to reside in the Summerdown Way rental. The Commission Investigation On August 16, 2010, the Terrys filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with HUD alleging they had been unlawfully discriminated against by Respondents based upon their familial status. Thereafter, the Commission opened an investigation of the allegation. As part of that investigation, Respondents were invited to submit written statements setting forth their version of the events at issue, and any defenses to the allegation they wished to raise. On August 19, 2010, the Davises submitted a written statement to the FCHR. In the first paragraph of that submittal the Davises stated: To Whom it May Concern: We enlisted realtor John MaMenamy to find a new tenant for our rental house at 1856 Cross Pointe Way, St. Augustine, FL 32092. Mr. McMenamy was told that we preferred not to rent to someone with more than one, if any, very small children at this particular time. The reason being we just had to have the interior of the house professionally repainted and repairs made to several areas, the walls in particular. Additionally, in light of the fact there were several highly qualified persons interested in and looking at the house concurrently. The submittal continued by identifying four former tenants of the Property, as well as the current tenants (the Eggers), all of whom had children living with them. It is found that McMenamy's e-mail of May 21, 2010, and the Davises' letter of August 19, 2010, constitute direct evidence that Respondents' decision not to rent to Petitioners was based upon their familial status. The testimony of McMenamy and the Davises that familial status was not the reason for refusing to rent to Petitioners is rejected as not credible.
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 Respondents guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against the Terrys in violation of section 760.23(1) and (2), and prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2012.
