The Issue Whether Respondent committed the discriminatory housing practice alleged in Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint and Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Benjamin M. Esco, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Second Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Andrea Crump 9601 Collins Avenue, Apt. 906 Bal Harbour, Florida 33154
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint alleging handicap discrimination against Respondents in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2020), was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”); and (2) whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was timely filed with FCHR.
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 2020, Petitioner filed a fair housing discrimination complaint with FCHR, alleging that Respondents, Brennan Realty, Inc., Joseph P. Brennan, Kathleen Brennan, and Thomas Brennan, discriminated against her based on a handicap. According to her housing discrimination complaint, Petitioner rents an apartment at 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4, Coral Gables, Florida, 33134, “which is subject to rules and regulations of Respondent[,] Brennan Realty, Inc., owned by Respondent[,] Thomas Brennan, and Respondent Registered Agent Joseph P. Brennan, and landlord Respondent[,] Kathleen Brennan.” Petitioner alleged that Respondent Brennan Realty, Inc., sent notices for her to vacate the premises after she made a maintenance request to property owners Kathleen and Joseph Brennan for repairs and a reasonable modification to install grab bars inside of her shower to assist her and prevent falls. Petitioner further alleged “she provided medical documentation to the Respondents which also stated that it is medically necessary for [her] to have the grab bars installed as well.” Petitioner further alleged Respondents Kathleen Brennan and Joseph Brennan “still [have] not installed the grab bars and [are] requesting for her to vacate the premises.” As such, “[Petitioner] believes that Respondents subjected her to discriminatory terms and conditions based on her physical disability.” In May 2019, July 2019, and August 2019, Petitioner received notices informing her that her lease would expire on September 1, 2019; that the lease would not be renewed; and that she needed to vacate and surrender the premises by no later than September 1, 2019. On September 9, 2019, an eviction complaint was filed against Petitioner in Miami-Dade County Court. On September 12, 2019, Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred, at the latest, on September 12, 2019, when Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner had one year from September 12, 2019, in which to file her housing discrimination complaint with FCHR. However, Petitioner did not file her complaint with FCHR until October 29, 2020. Therefore, Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was untimely. Even if Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was timely filed with FCHR, her Petition for Relief was not timely filed. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged she received FCHR’s no cause determination on January 13, 2021. The no cause determination expressly provides that if Petitioner “does not agree with this determination, [she] may request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of service of this Notice.” However, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was not filed with FCHR until February 26, 2021. Therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was untimely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 April Denise Dukes 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4 Miami, Florida 33130 Vanessa Marie Bertran, Esquire Vanessa M. Bertran, P.A. 55 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioners’ failure to appear at the scheduled telephonic final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Upon receipt of the Petitions for Relief at the Division, Initial Orders were issued on October 24, 2012, requiring Petitioners to coordinate a joint response to provide certain information within seven days or to file a unilateral response if a joint response was not possible. Neither Petitioners nor Respondents responded to the Initial Order in either case. Case I was initially set for final hearing on December 17, 2012, by video teleconference at sites in Pensacola and Tallahassee, Florida. Case II was initially set for final hearing on December 27, 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. Prior to consolidation of the cases, Respondent Hamilton requested a continuance of the final hearing scheduled in Case I. Hamilton’s correspondence, which was taken as a motion, represented that Hamilton had attempted to contact Petitioners to determine whether they would agree to a continuance, that Hamilton had left a voice message with Petitioners, and that Petitioners had not responded. At the direction of the undersigned, the Division also attempted to contact Petitioners to determine their position on the requested continuance. Division personnel also left voice messages with Petitioners. On December 10, 2012, Michael Edwards contacted Division staff, identified himself as Petitioners’ son, stated he had received the messages, and represented that Petitioners had no objection to a continuance. Further, Mr. Edwards explained that a continuation would be needed because Myrna Edwards was recovering from major surgery and McArthur Edwards was suffering with complications from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Having received confirmation that Petitioners did not oppose continuance, and would likely have been unable to attend the final hearing as scheduled, the undersigned entered an Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance on December 10, 2012. The Order required Petitioners to confer with Respondents’ counsel and advise as to the status of the matter no later than January 30, 2013. Further, Petitioners were required to include in the status report mutually-agreeable dates for scheduling the final hearing if Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. The cases were consolidated on December 17, 2012, thus the Order was binding in both cases. Neither the original Notice of Hearing nor the Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance mailed to Petitioners was returned as “undeliverable.” On January 30, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed a status report representing that Bristol had not been contacted by the Petitioners to coordinate the status report as directed in the Order. Further, Bristol represented that it had attempted to reach Petitioners by phone the previous day and had left a voice message, but had received no return call from Petitioners. Despite the fact that Petitioners did not comply with the Order, the undersigned requested Division personnel to contact Petitioners to determine whether Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. Division staff called Petitioners’ residence and left messages for Petitioners to contact the Division regarding this case. The Division received no return call. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned scheduled the case for telephonic final hearing on February 28, 2013. Telephonic hearing was chosen to afford Petitioners, now residing out of state, every opportunity to be heard on their complaints. The undersigned also issued an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions (Order) requiring the parties to confer no later than seven days prior to the final hearing to determine whether the matter could be resolved amicably and to exchange witness lists and copies of proposed exhibits. Neither the Notice of Telephonic Hearing nor the Order mailed to Petitioners was returned “undeliverable.” On February 20, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed its witness list and served proposed exhibits on all other parties. On February 21, 2013, the same Respondents provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed its witness and exhibit lists and provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. Petitioners filed neither a witness list nor an exhibit list and did not provide the undersigned with any proposed exhibits. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Notice of Attempt to Comply in response to the undersigned’s Order. The Notice documents Respondents’ unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioners to confer and exchange witness lists and proposed exhibits. On February 22, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Close the Case. The Motion represented that Petitioners had not contacted Respondents as required by the Order to confer and exchange witness lists and exhibits. The Motion was denied. The final hearing commenced as scheduled, via telephone, on February 28, 2013. Respondents Hamic and Bristol entered appearances. Petitioners did not appear. The undersigned allowed 20 minutes from the noticed hearing time, 9:30 a.m., for Petitioners to make an appearance. None was made. Respondent Hamic offered Exhibits 1 through 41 into evidence, which were received without objection. Respondent Bristol offered Exhibits B-1 through B-8 into evidence, which were received without objection. No witnesses were called. The proceedings closed at approximately 10:00 a.m. No transcript of the proceedings was made.
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 Petitioners McArthur and Myrna Edwards’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 6th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact In January 2008, Petitioner filed a “Housing Discrimination Complaint” with FCHR and/or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The complaint alleged that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon her race (black) and religion (Christian) in its servicing of her home mortgage loan. On or about March 27, 2008, a “Determination” was issued finding no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner. On April 18, 2008, FCHR sent a “Notice of Determination of No Cause” to Petitioner by certified mail No. 7007 1490 0002 5958 0931. Petitioner received the Notice on April 22, 2008, according to the certified mail receipt included in the case file. The Notice advised Petitioner that “FCHR has determined reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.” The Notice further advised Petitioner that she could request an administrative hearing, and clearly stated that any such request “must be filed with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Notice.” A “Petition for Relief, in blank” was sent to Petitioner along with the Notice. On May 23, 2008, FCHR received a completed “Petition for Relief” form from Petitioner. The form was signed by Petitioner and dated May 20, 2008. Petitioner stated in her response to the Order to Show Cause that she “never received any paperwork on the above case” and that “the only paperwork that [she] received was on or a about June 9, 2008.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2008.
