The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hardin Hammock Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Hardin"), discriminated against Petitioner, Ms. Celeste Washington (hereinafter referred to as Ms. Washington), on the basis of her race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections through 760.37, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Celeste Washington is a black adult. Hardin is a housing rental complex with 200 single- family residences. Hardin is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Hardin provides "affordable housing" to lower-income individuals and, therefore, its residents are required to meet certain income requirements in order to be eligible for a residence at Hardin. At the times material to this proceeding, Hardin was managed by Reliance Management Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as "Reliance"). At the times material to this proceeding, Salah Youssif, an employee of Reliance, acted as the property manager at Hardin. Mr. Youssif is himself black, having been born in Sudan. Ms. Washington's Charge. On or about August 29, 2002, Ms. Washington filed a Complaint with the Commission. After investigation of the Complaint, the Commission issued a Determination of No Reasonable Cause, concluding that "reasonable cause does not exist to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred" and dismissing the Complaint. On or about May 5, 2003, Ms. Washington filed a Petition with the Commission. Ms. Washington alleged in the Petition that Hardin had violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.36, Florida Statutes. In particular, Ms. Washington alleged that Hardin had "violated the Florida Fair Housing Act, as amended, in the manner described below": Washington was told that the waiting list at Hardin Hammock Estates was closed. She visited this development twice and was told the waiting [sic] was close [sic]. At that time she viewed the wating [sic] list and the majority of the names are [sic] Hispanic. Islanders do not consider themselves as Black Americans. The "ultimate facts alleged & entitlement to relief" asserted in the Petition are as follows: Hardin Hammocks has willful [sic] and [knowingly] practice [sic] discrimination in there [sic] selection practice and a strong possibility that the same incomes for Blacks & others [sic]. Black Americans rent is [sic] higher than others living in these [sic] developments. At hearing, Ms. Washington testified that Hardin had discriminated against her when an unidentified person refused to give her an application and that she believes the refusal was based upon her race. Management of Hardin; General Anti-Discrimination Policies. The residence selection policy established by Reliance specifically precludes discrimination based upon race. A human resource manual which describes the policy has been adopted by Reliance and all employees of Reliance working at Hardin have attended a workshop conducted by Reliances' human resource manager at which the anti-discrimination policy was addressed. An explanation of the Federal Fair Housing Law of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is prominently displayed in the public area of Hardin's offices in both English and Spanish. As of July 1, 2002, approximately 52 of Hardin's 200 units were rented to African-American families. Hardin's Application Policy. When Mr. Youssif became the property manager at Hardin, there were no vacancies and he found a disorganized, outdated waiting list of questionable accuracy. Mr. Youssif undertook the task of updating the list and organizing it. He determined that there were approximately 70 to 80 individuals or families waiting for vacancies at Hardin. Due to the rate of families moving out of Hardin, approximately one to two families a month, Mr. Youssif realized that if he maintained a waiting list of 50 individuals it would still take approximately two years for a residence to become available for all 50 individuals on the list. Mr. Youssif also realized that, over a two-year or longer period, the individuals on a waiting list of 50 or more individuals could change drastically: their incomes could change; they could find other affordable housing before a residence became available at Hardin; or they could move out of the area. Mr. Youssif decided that it would be best for Hardin and for individuals interested in finding affordable housing that Hardin would maintain a waiting list of only 50 individuals and that applications would not be given to any person, regardless of their race, while there were 50 individuals on the waiting list. Mr. Youssif instituted the new waiting list policy and applied it regardless of the race of an applicant. If there were less than 50 names on the waiting list, applications were accepted regardless of an individual's race; and if there were 50 or more names on the waiting list, no application was accepted regardless of an individual's race. Lack of Evidence of Discrimination. The only evidence Ms. Washington presented concerning her allegations of discriminatory treatment is that she is black. Although Ms. Washington was refused an application for housing at Hardin,3 the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Washington's race played any part in the decision not to give her an application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Celeste Washington's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 20th day of November, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rosa M. Cabrera is of Puerto Rican descent and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons protected from discrimination based on national origin under the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes, (2009). On September 17, 2009, she filed a complaint for housing discrimination against the management of Costa del Sol, LLC. Respondent, Monica Londono, is employed by Morgan Whitney, Inc., the company that manages Costa del Sol, a sixteen-unit apartment complex at 7425 Byron Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. Ms. Cabrera lived at Costa del Sol for 4 years. In her complaint, she alleged discrimination in the conditions and services provided to her as a tenant based on her national origin. The Housing Authority of Miami Beach inspected Ms. Cabrera's unit annually as required for units subsidized under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, also known as Section 8. On March 23, 2009, a notice was mailed to Ms. Cabrera to inform her that her annual inspection was scheduled for April 10, 2009, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Mr. Cabrera was not there, on April 10, 2009, when the inspector arrived, so a door handle notice and a letter mailed the same day notified her that the inspection was rescheduled for April 13, 2009. About the same time, Ms. Cabrera said she had trouble with her hot water heater. On April 13, 2009, the unit failed inspection. The inspector found that a bedroom air conditioner was not cooling properly, that a sink stopper was missing, and that a closet door mirror was cracked. A re-inspection was scheduled for May 11, 2009. On April 22, 2009, Ms. Cabrera was offended and apparently turned away, what she said was, a group of six people who came to make repairs without giving her prior notice. On May 11, 2009, the same defects were noted and, on May 29, 2009, the Housing Authority abated the rent and terminated its contract for the unit with Costa Del Sol effective June 30, 2009. Ms. Cabrera was scheduled to meet her Section 8 case worker, Housing Authority Specialist Felipe Roloff, to "start the moving process" at 4:00 p.m., on June 5, 2009. Ms. Cabrera did not keep the appointment and it was rescheduled for June 16, 2009. On June 9, 2009, however, an "abate-cure" inspection was conducted and the unit passed. On July 21 and 23, 2009, Ms. Cabrera contacted Mr. Roloff to tell him that her refrigerator was not working and the landlord was given 24 hours to repair or replace it. When a handyman came alone to make repairs, Ms. Cabrera was afraid to let him in her apartment fearing sexual battery. So Ms. Londono accompanied the handyman when they attempted to deliver a refrigerator. They were unable to exchange the refrigerators because Ms. Cabrera had changed the locks without giving the manager a new key a violation of the terms of her lease, and she would not unlock the door. Ms. Cabrera's son arrived home at the same time and he also did not have a new key. At his suggestion, the refrigerator was left in the hallway for him to exchange it with the one in Ms. Cabrera's apartment later. Ms. Cabrera claimed, without any supporting evidence, that Ms. Londono publicly embarrassed her by calling her a "fucking Puerto Rican bitch" and a "ridiculous old lady." Ms. Londono, who is also of Puerto Rican descent, denied the allegation. Someone, Ms. Londono believes it was Ms. Cabrera, called the Miami Beach Code Compliance Division, to report that the refrigerator was left in the hallway and it was hauled away as household waste. Ms. Cabrera said the refrigerator left in the hallway was in poor condition. Ms. Londono, according to Ms. Cabrera, called the police and accused her of stealing the refrigerator. There is no supporting evidence of their accusations and suspicions about each other. When she finally got a replacement refrigerator, Ms. Cabrera said it was missing one of the crisper drawers. Ms. Cabrera believed she was being discriminated against in receiving poor services and also when Ms. Londono required her to move a plant from the hallway, but did not make another tenant move his motorcycle from the area where it was parked. Ms. Londono notified Mr. Roloff of Ms. Cabrera's lack of cooperation, and that she intended to collect August rent and to withhold a portion of the security deposit to cover the cost of the missing refrigerator. On August 5, 2009, the Housing Authority issued to Ms. Cabrera a Notice of Termination of Housing Assistance effective September 30, 2009. The Notice cited her failure to allow the landlord to enter to make necessary repairs and her failure to report the income of her son who was living with her. When the rent was not paid on August 5, 2009, Ms. Londono delivered a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate to Ms. Cabrera's unit. Ms. Cabrera did not vacate. Eviction proceedings were begun in September. Ms. Cabrera was evicted on November 22, 2009. After Ms. Cabrera moved the report of the inspection of the unit indicated that, among other damage, it was infested with fleas, supporting Ms. Londono's previous claim that Ms. Cabrera was leaving her window open to allow cats to come and feed in her unit, in violation of Section 8 rules. Ms. Cabrera's claim of discrimination based on national origin is not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Face and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 12th day of March, 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 Rosa M. Cabrera 7851 Northeast 10th Avenue, Apt. 26 Miami, Florida 33138 Monica Londono Morgan Whitney, Inc. Costa del Sol, LLC 1385 Coral Way, Penthouse 403 Miami, Florida 33145
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by refusing to rent her an apartment because she is legally blind and relies upon a service dog to ambulate independently.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lourdes Guzman (“Guzman”) is legally blind and relies upon a service dog (also referred to as a guide dog or “seeing eye” dog) to ambulate independently. Respondent Charles Harris (“Harris”) owns an eight-unit apartment building (the “Property”) located in Bay Harbor Islands, Florida. Harris, who is retired, holds the Property for investment purposes and lives on the rental income it generates. In or around April of 2002, Harris placed an advertisement in the newspaper seeking a tenant for one his rental units. Guzman saw this ad, was interested, and made an appointment to see the Property. A short time later, Guzman and her live-in boyfriend José Robert (“Robert”) met Harris and Paul Karolyi (“Karolyi”) late one afternoon at the Property. (Karolyi is a tenant of Harris’s who helps out at the Property; Guzman and Robert viewed him as the “building manager,” which was apparently a reasonable perception.) During their conversation, the prospective renters mentioned that they owned a dog. Upon hearing this, Harris explained that he had just finished renovating the advertised unit because the previous tenant’s dog had destroyed the rug and caused other damage to the premises. Thus, Harris told Guzman and Robert, he was not interested in renting this unit to someone with a dog. Robert then informed Harris that: (a) Guzman’s sight was impaired; (b) the dog in question was a service dog; and (c) Harris was legally obligated to let Guzman bring the dog into the unit, should she become Harris’s tenant, as a reasonable accommodation of her handicap. Once he understood the situation, Harris acknowledged that a service dog was different and stated that he would not refuse to rent the unit to someone with a service dog. Accordingly, Harris gave Guzman and Robert a rental application, which Guzman later completed and returned to Harris. After receiving Guzman’s application, Harris checked her references and discovered that Guzman’s two most recent landlords considered her to be a poor tenant. While Guzman disputes the veracity of some of the information that was provided to Harris, at hearing she admitted that much of what he learned was true. The following rental history is based on Guzman’s admissions. Town & Country Apartments. From October 2001 until January 24, 2002, Guzman lived at the Town & Country Apartments in Bay Harbor Islands, Florida. Her landlord was T & C Associates, Ltd. (“T & C”). At least six times during this 16-month period, Guzman failed to timely pay her rent and was required to pay a late fee. She also received at least five statutory “three-day notices” warning that her failure to pay the overdue monthly rent within 72 hours would trigger an eviction proceeding.1 T & C sued to evict Guzman after she failed to pay the rent due for December 2001. Consequently, when Guzman vacated the Town & Country Apartments on January 24, 2002, she did so pursuant to a writ of possession. Guzman claims that she chose to be evicted as an expedient means of breaking her lease with T & C. The Sahara. After being evicted from the Town & Country Apartments, Guzman moved into a unit at the “Sahara”—— which Guzman described at hearing as a “motel”——pursuant to a short-term lease. Guzman’s landlord at the Sahara was Allen L. Kaul (“Kaul”). Guzman lived at the Sahara for about two months.2 Guzman had some sort of dispute with Kaul, and when she moved out of the Sahara she took the keys to the unit she was vacating and the remote control device that opened a gate to the premises; these items were never returned to Kaul. These facts convinced Harris that Guzman was not an acceptable risk. He notified Guzman that he would not rent to her due to her “poor credit history.” Ultimate Factual Determinations Harris rejected Guzman’s rental application, not because of her handicap or service dog, but because he discovered, through a reasonable process of checking references, that Guzman had recently been evicted from one apartment and vacated another under suspicious (or at least questionable) circumstances, taking with her some personal property of the landlord’s that she never returned. There is no credible, competent evidence that Harris rented his apartments to non-handicapped persons having rental histories similar to Guzman’s. Nor does the evidence support a finding that Harris invoked Guzman’s negative rental history (the material aspects of which were undisputed) as a pretext for discrimination. In short, Harris did not discriminate unlawfully against Guzman; rather, he rejected her rental application for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Guzman’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 1st day of May, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race or sex in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alicia Valentine ("Valentine") is an African- American woman who currently resides in Chicago but lived in Miami, Florida, at all relevant times. Respondent Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. ("Catholic Charities"), is a Florida nonprofit corporation that provides social services in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe counties. At no time relevant to this action did Catholic Charities sell, lease, rent, finance, broker, or manage real property, including dwellings of any nature. At all relevant times, Valentine leased Apartment No. 1410 at 1451 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $2,000.00 per month from her landlord, Park Place at Brickell, LLC. Before contacting Catholic Charities and setting in motion the events that led to this action, Valentine had lost her job, exhausted her unemployment compensation payments, and wound up having no income. Unable to pay rent, Valentine applied to Catholic Charities, on or around January 27, 2016, for emergency rental assistance to avoid losing her apartment. Catholic Charities runs an Emergency Services program that provides cash payments to individuals to help them pay one month's rent in crisis situations. The program limits rental assistance to a single payment of up to $1,000.00 per applicant, which may be received only once every 12 months. Catholic Charities has written eligibility criteria that an applicant must satisfy to qualify for emergency rental assistance. The eligibility criteria require that the applicant have an eviction notice; justification of need; proof of income (showing ability to continue paying the rent after assistance); some form of identification; and a Social Security card. Catholic Charities denied Valentine's request for emergency rental assistance because she failed to meet all of the eligibility requirements. Specifically, Valentine did not provide an eviction notice, nor, perhaps more important, did she provide proof of income. Thus, Valentine failed to demonstrate that she had the ability to pay the balance of her $2,000.00 monthly rent——or any subsequent month's rent——if provided the maximum $1,000.00 in emergency assistance. It is undisputed, moreover, that Valentine never personally appeared at Catholic Charities' office to verify her identity, although, in fairness to Valentine, there is some uncertainty as to whether Catholic Charities communicated to Valentine that she was required to provide proof of identification in person. The fact that Valentine did not appear in person to verify her identity is, however, ultimately immaterial, for even if she had, her application still would have been denied based on the failure to satisfy other eligibility criteria, e.g., proof of sufficient future income. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Catholic Charities' decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Valentine, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Valentine. There is no persuasive evidence that Valentine met the written eligibility criteria for emergency rental assistance. There is no persuasive evidence that Catholic Charities sold, leased, rented, financed, or managed real property. There is competent, persuasive evidence that Valentine did not qualify for emergency rental assistance and was denied on that basis. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Catholic Charities did not commit any prohibited act.
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 Catholic Charities not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Valentine no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are, one, whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin, religion, or handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, two, whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to acts of intimidation, coercion, or retaliation as a result of Petitioner's exercise, or attempted exercise, of a protected housing right.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner William Kleinschmidt ("Kleinschmidt") owns a unit in the Three Horizons North Condominium. He purchased his condominium in 1999 and has resided there continuously since that time. Respondent Three Horizons North Condominiums, Inc. ("Three Horizons"), manages the property of which Kleinschmidt's condominium is a part. Kleinschmidt and Three Horizons have been involved in a long-standing feud stemming from Kleinschmidt's possession of cats in violation of the condominium's "no pets" policy. Three Horizons has tried since 1999 to compel Kleinschmidt's compliance with the "no pets" policy. The dispute over Kleinschmidt's cats came to a head last year, when a formal administrative hearing was held on Kleinschmidt's first housing discrimination complaint against Respondent. See Kleinschmidt v. Three Horizons Condominium, Inc., 2005 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 883, DOAH Case No. 04-3873 (May 25, 2005), adopted in toto, FCHR Order No. 05-097 (Fla.Com'n Hum.Rel. Aug. 23, 2005)(Kleinschmidt I). Among other allegations, Petitioner charged in Kleinschmidt I that Three Horizons had unlawfully refused to waive the "no pets" policy to permit his possession of "service animals" (i.e. cats) as an accommodation of his emotional handicap. Kleinschmidt lost that case. Kleinschmidt presently alleges that Three Horizons has discriminated against him on the basis of handicap, national origin, and religion. The undersigned has had some difficulty making sense of Kleinschmidt's allegations. As far as the undersigned can tell, Kleinschmidt alleges that: (1) members of the condominium association's board of directors (and especially the board's treasurer, Ruth Pearson, whose German ancestry Kleinschmidt assumes makes her a Nazi sympathizer hostile to Jewish persons such as himself) have made disparaging comments about him; (2) when he applied to purchase his condominium back in 1999, Three Horizons charged him a $100 screening fee, which should have been only $75; (3) Three Horizon's agents illegally broke into his unit on September 21, 2000, and again on September 21, 2001, stealing personal property each time; (4) before he purchased his unit, Three Horizons agreed to waive the "no pets" policy, which agreement Respondent now refuses to honor; and (5) Three Horizons has engaged in ongoing (but unspecified) acts of intimidation, coercion, and retaliation. There is not a shred of competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could possibly be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Three Horizons did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Three Horizons not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Kleinschmidt no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 21st day of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Cordell John, (Landlord) discriminated against Petitioner, Denise Johnson- Acosta (Johnson) on the basis of her or her daughter’s alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Johnson is a Hispanic woman. She has asthma and other medical conditions. Johnson has a teenage daughter, Ashley Denise Rivera. Ashley has a seizure disorder and has bipolar disorder. Johnson is engaged to Alexis Pons. The Landlord is an African-American male. He owns the property located at 13847 Beauregard Place in Orlando, Florida (the Property). The Property is a single-family residential townhouse. At some unspecified time during calendar year 2012, Johnson approached the Landlord expressing an interest in leasing the Property. At that time, another tenant was living in the Property but was in the process of moving out. The Landlord showed Johnson the Property. Johnson expressed her complete satisfaction with the Property and that she would like to lease it (and possibly buy it in the future). At first sight, Johnson liked everything about the Property except for the back yard. On September 10, 2012, the Landlord emailed a Rental Application to Johnson. The email advised Johnson that there would be a $50 application fee which must be paid when the application was delivered. In response to the email, Johnson confirmed that she wanted to view the Property on the upcoming Thursday. On September 11, 2012, Johnson filled out the Rental Application and provided it to the Landlord for review. The application listed Johnson as the primary tenant and Ashley and Pons as additional residents. The application also noted that Johnson had a pet, a petite Chihuahua, which would be living in the unit. After reviewing the application, the Landlord notified Johnson via email that he would need pictures of the Chihuahua. He also asked how much the dog weighed. The Landlord also told Johnson that the rent would be $1,250 per month and that a $200 nonrefundable pet fee must be paid. Johnson replied that the dog weighed four pounds. She was concerned that the Landlord was now quoting $1,250 per month when earlier discussions had indicated the rent would be $1,200 per month. Johnson thanked the Landlord and agreed to provide a picture of the dog. The Landlord replied to Johnson that when pets are involved, the rent is increased slightly. Johnson and the Landlord had a conversation on September 17, 2012. By email dated September 18, 2012, Johnson told the Landlord that she had decided to withdraw her application because of “multiple misunderstandings” between the parties. At some point thereafter, Johnson decided to go through with the lease after all. On October 20, 2012, Johnson did a walk-through inspection of the Property. By way of her signature on the walk-through check list, Johnson agreed that the living room, kitchen, dining room, both bathrooms, both bedrooms, and all other portions of the Property were satisfactory. The only caveat was that there was stain on a counter in the kitchen area. Johnson said she would “advise at time of move” as to her feelings about the parking areas and the patio/terrace/deck area. On November 2, 2012, Johnson and the Landlord entered into a binding Residential Tenancy Agreement. Johnson initialed each page and signed the agreement. The agreement was witnessed by two individuals. On or about that same date, Johnson gave the Landlord several money orders: A $250 money order for the pet deposit; $50 for Pons’ application fee, and $880 for prorated rent for November. Johnson did not complain about the pet deposit at that time. Johnson moved into the Property on or about November 2, 2012. About two months later, on January 1, 2013, Johnson mailed a letter to the Landlord via certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter advised the Landlord that Johnson would be moving out of the Property on or before January 14, 2013. The letter cited several bases for the decision to move out, including: Air condition vents were “visibly covered with dust and dark surroundings”; Johnson and her daughter have severe allergies; Johnson has acute asthma and bronchitis; and The dwelling is unlivable. Johnson also claimed many violations of Florida law by the Landlord concerning the lease, including: Taking a deposit for a pet when that pet was in fact a companion dog. (Johnson submitted a letter into evidence from a behavioral health care employee. The letter, dated some five months after Johnson vacated the unit, said that Ashley would benefit from having a companion dog as she did not have many friends. There was no evidence that the Chihuahua was ever registered or approved as a companion dog.); Smoke alarms which were not in working order; Electrical breakers tripping throughout Property; Unreimbursed expenses, e.g., for changing locks; Failure to put Pons on the lease agreement despite doing a background financial check on him; and Harassment from Bank of America employees trying to collect the Landlord’s mortgage payment for the Property. In the letter stating she would be moving, Johnson expressed her sorrow that the housing situation did not work out. She then set forth the amount of deposit money she believed should be returned to her. In response, she received a letter from the Landlord’s counsel advising that her security and pet deposits had been forfeited. On January 4, 2013, the Landlord posted a notice on the Property door demanding payment of outstanding rent within three days. In lieu of payment, Johnson could vacate the premises within three days. Johnson vacated the premises. On January 14, 2013, Johnson did an exit walk-through of the Property, along with the Landlord, his mother, and Pons. At the completion of the walk- through, Johnson turned over the keys for the Property to the Landlord. Johnson claims discrimination on the part of the Landlord because he failed to recognize or accept the companion dog, failed to put Pons on the lease agreement, and failed to make accommodations for Johnson’s claimed health conditions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Denise Johnson-Acosta in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 3rd day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cordell John 2921 Swoops Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Denise Johnson-Acosta Post Office Box 453347 Kissimmee, Florida 34745 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents Bonavida Condominium Association, Inc., Lorne Rovet, and John McNamee discriminated against Petitioners Carlos Rodriguez and Monica Bontempi in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of their national origin; and retaliated against Petitioners on account of their having exercised any right granted under the Florida Fair Housing Act, in violation of sections 760.23(2) and 760.37, Florida Statutes (2018); and, if so, the relief to which Petitioners are entitled.1
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners are husband and wife who, until recently, worked and lived in their country of origin, Argentina. Petitioners are headstrong, well- educated, and very proud of their Argentinian national origin. While living in Argentina, Rodriguez worked as a renowned physicist and research professor and Bontempi as a physician and renowned immunologist. After successful careers in Argentina, Petitioners retired and moved from Argentina to Aventura, Florida, where, in 2015, they purchased Unit 1505 at Bonavida. Petitioners own the condominium unit through Tina Trust, LLC, named after their native country of Argentina. Bonavida is a multi-cultural condominium community governed by an association, which, in turn, is governed by a board of directors. At all times material hereto, the board has been comprised of individuals of many different cultures, backgrounds, and countries of origin. Many of the individual board members are headstrong, which often led to confrontational interactions, disputes, and bickering among board members relating to various matters of association business. Rovet has been a unit owner at Bonavida since 2009 and McNamee since 1985. Rovet is not retired and works full-time as an accountant. McNamee retired following a distinguished career in law enforcement in New York City. "The Three Musketeers" Join the Board Together in 2018 For several years, Petitioners, Rovet, and McNamee were good friends and socialized together. In 2016, Rodriguez was president of the board. By the end of 2016, a dispute arose regarding Rodriguez's presidency and he was removed as president. However, Rodriguez remained on the board as a director for unspecified periods of time during 2016 and 2017. By the end of 2017, Rodriguez was no longer on the board. However, Rodriguez, McNamee, and Rovet were dissatisfied with the prior management company at Bonavida and condition of the property, so they agreed to become more active in the association. To this end, McNamee asked Rodriguez to join the board with him and Rovet. In January 2018, Rodriguez, McNamee, and Rovet joined the board together determined to collectively combat the problems at Bonavida. McNamee became vice president, Rovet became treasurer, and Rodriguez was a director. At the time, Petitioners, McNamee, and Rovet, were still good friends. In fact, Rodriguez, McNamee, and Rovet fondly referred to each other as "the three musketeers" in reference to their plan to combat the problems at Bonavida. Deterioration of the Relationship and the July 30, 2018, Board Meeting Not long after joining the board together in January 2018, the friendship between Petitioners, McNamee, and Rovet deteriorated. A dispute arose between Petitioners, McNamee, and Rovet over the management of the board and how to address the condition of the property. These disputes are gleaned from a review of numerous emails exchanged between Rodriguez, McNamee, and Rovet on June 22, 2018. On June 25, 2018, on the heels of these emails, a Bonavida board meeting was held. During the meeting, Rodriguez became angry, took the floor, and to McNamee's and Rovet's surprise, challenged McNamee's and Rovet's qualifications to be on the board. Rodriguez argued that McNamee and Rovet were not full-time residents of Bonavida (McNamee was a resident of New York and Rovet was a resident of Canada); and, therefore, they were not qualified to be on the board. Bonavida's condominium attorney was present at the June 25, 2018, board meeting and the matter was addressed and resolved at the meeting in favor of McNamee and Rovet. Nonetheless, after the meeting, Rodriguez unilaterally contacted the board's attorney causing Bonavida to incur additional legal expense. Understandably, after the June 25, 2018, board meeting, Petitioners, McNamee, and Rovet were no longer friends and they did not speak to each other, although they each remained on the board. In the meantime, Rovet, as treasurer, had discovered that Bonavida's finances were in poor shape, and one of the reasons was the incurrence of unauthorized legal fees incurred by Rodriguez. The matter was noticed to be discussed during a board meeting to occur on July 30, 2020, where other fees potentially owing and due to Bonavida from other unit owners would also be discussed. The agenda for the July 30, 2018, board meeting was posted in common areas. The agenda items included "Carlos Rodriguez-Legal Fees" and various types of fees attributable to other units. The meeting commenced at 5:04 p.m., and did not conclude until 7:20 p.m. The meeting began in chaotic fashion with Rodriguez interrupting other speakers and bickering over the approval of the prior board meeting minutes. After several minutes of bickering, a vote was taken and the reading and approval of the previous meeting minutes was tabled so that the board could move forward and address the agenda items. Even after this vote, Rodriguez continued to argue about the prior meeting minutes and interrupted other speakers. At one point, an unidentified speaker chastised Rodriguez for always interrupting other speakers at board meetings, which invoked a loud applause and "thank yous," from other attendees at the meeting. The meeting then turned to the first agenda item, which was a discussion and vote on a proposal requiring Petitioners' unit to reimburse Bonavida for legal fees. As treasurer, Rovet took the floor to speak on the matter. He was immediately interrupted by Rodriguez, which resulted in further bickering until Rodriguez momentarily stopped talking. At the meeting, Rovet explained that the legal fees were incurred by Bonavida in 2017, and arose from five invoices totaling $5,332.52. Each invoice was attributable to Petitioners' unit. Four of the invoices (totaling $4,448.52) related to a conflict between the former association manager, Beth Natland, and Bontempi, in which Bontempi was accused of threatening Ms. Natland. Another invoice in the amount of $884.00 related to an attempted transfer in 2017 of Petitioners' unit from an "LLC to their trust." There was a heated and chaotic discussion on the item for almost one hour. Petitioners disagreed with Bonavida's legal authority to recover the legal fees. Following a vote, a majority of the board voted to hold Petitioners' unit responsible to reimburse Bonavida for the legal fees ($5,332.52). After the vote, no action was ever taken to seek to recover the legal fees. The legal fees have never been placed on Petitioners' unit ledger; Bonavida has not sought to collect the fees; the fees have never been paid; no lien, lawsuit, or foreclosure action was filed; and Petitioners have never been threatened with eviction or evicted. On December 10, 2018, the president of Bonavida sent Petitioners a letter stating that no action would be taken to collect any of the legal fees. Petitioners do not owe any assessments, expenses, or fees to the association and they own their unit free and clear of any mortgage liens, fees, expenses, or assessments owed to Bonavida. Notably, Petitioners have resided at the unit without interruption since they moved into Bonavida in 2015. At no time have Petitioners been denied the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling. Nevertheless, Petitioners assert that the agenda's reference to Rodriguez by name and the board's action at the July 30, 2018, meeting to recover the legal fees of $5,332.52 against their unit is based on national origin discrimination. Significantly, at no time during the meeting did Petitioners contend that the agenda or attempt to recover the legal fees was based on national origin discrimination. At hearing, Rodriguez could not explain how the attribution of the legal fees incurred in 2017 related to Petitioners' unit are based on his national origin. Rather, Rodriguez contends Petitioners could not be legally held responsible for the attorneys' fees; a point he stated at the meeting and reiterated at the final hearing. The evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that other unit owners who are not Argentinian have been identified at board meetings as being responsible for various types of fees owed to Bonavida. In sum, Petitioners failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents discriminated against them based on their national origin with respect to the meeting agenda, the July 30, 2018, board meeting, and any attempt to recover the legal fees from Petitioners' unit in the amount of $5,332.52. Emails Petitioners further assert that they were discriminated against because of their national origin based on emails authored by Rovet. On April 3, 2018, Rovet sent an email to Brenda Friend, the president of Bonavida, in which numerous other persons, including Rodriguez, were copied, stating: Great suggestion Brenda. We should only allow Brazilians into the building. My ideas would be to have everyone speak one language, like Swedish. A great rule change would be to require all residents to change their underwear every day and to wear the underwear [on] the outside of their clothing so we can check. Good work team! Rovet's April 3, 2018, email was not directed at Petitioners and does not refer to their national origin. At hearing, Rovet testified that he is a fan of movies and music, and that he often refers to various movies and songs in his communications with others in an attempt at "dry humor." Rovet testified that his reference to "Brazilians," "Swedish," and individuals with underwear outside their clothing was an attempt at humor and in reference to a "Woody Allen movie." The email was in no way intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. At hearing, Rodriguez acknowledged that Rovet is sarcastic and that it is important to consider the full context of email conversations. Petitioners also point to an email by Rovet dated April 15, 2018, which he sent to Rodriguez and other board members regarding "Violations and Enforcement Committee," stating: Before leaving there Brenda and I discussed this issue and concluded that regardless of what our rules state and what state laws state we should be reasonably aggressive against violators because we have to in order to change the culture but also because most residents will not know the rules nor take the time to learn about them. If confronted by anyone surpassing that assumption we can always withdraw from our position. This email does not refer to Petitioners and makes no reference to their national origin. In no way was this email intended by Rovet to disparage Petitioners' national origin. Petitioners also point to the following string of emails by Rovet dated May 28, 2018. At 4:38 a.m. that morning, Rovet stated: "How do you know its pee?" A couple of hours later, McNamee responded; "?? Shouldn't pee be on the pillar. I only see it on the floor therefore, if pee, it's not a male dog?" In response, Rovet sent an email to McNamee, Rodriguez, and others stating: "We need a pee detective to get to the bottom of this." At hearing, Rovet testified that he wrote the May 28, 2018, emails because a dog was allegedly "peeing" somewhere near his building. Rovet's reference to "pee detective" was in reference to the Jim Carrey movie, "Pet Detective." The May 28, 2018, emails were another attempt by Rovet at dry humor and in no way intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. Petitioners also point to an email written by Rovet on July 25, 2018, at 4:03 p.m. to McNamee, Rodriguez, and other board members, stating: "Let[']s put that in the new condo rules – all board members required to sit at same table facing same way unless they have BO and/or excess gas and are over smiling." This email does not refer to Petitioners. This email was another attempt by Rovet at dry humor and was in no way intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. Petitioners also point to an email written by Rovet on July 26, 2018, at 5:27 p.m., to Rodriguez and other board members, stating: "can't help but think of Staff Sergeant Bob Barnes in Platoon--terrible what happened to Sergeant Elias, no relation to our President, at the end." This email does not refer to Petitioners, was another attempt by Rovet at dry humor, and was in no way intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. Petitioners also point to an email written by Rovet on July 27, 2018, at 2:26 p.m., stating, "sung to the tune 'Cry For Me Argentina.' [The song title is actually 'Don't Cry for Me Argentina']." This is the only email authored by Rovet that actually mentions Argentina. This email was written by Rovet following a dispute among the board members as to how meetings and votes should be conducted. Significantly, Rodriguez interjected the issue of Argentina into the discussion in reference to the past-oppressive Argentinian government and as an example of how meetings at Bonavida should not be conducted, which prompted Rovet to write the email, "sung to the tune 'Cry for Me Argentina.'" In response to Rovet's email, Rodriguez wrote back to Rovet moments later, stating: "Please don't make fun of the death and disappearance of 30,000 people." Moments later, Rovet responded: "I love to sing. I have a right to sing and I shall sing. Can we sing together?" Later that afternoon, Rovet also sent an email, stating: "stand and sing with you John—let[']s stand and sing together a song called 'Oh That Sweet Lovely Bully Boy.'" At hearing, Rovet testified that the email "sung to the tune 'Cry For Me Argentina,'" was in reference to the song by Madonna titled: "Don't Cry For Me Argentina," which Rovet had just heard prior to writing the email. At hearing, Rodriguez acknowledged he is aware of the Madonna song; that Rovet made the statement "Cry For Me Argentina" as a joke; and that he (Rodriguez) interjected the issue of Argentina into the conversation before Rovet's email. Rovet's emails were another attempt at dry humor and were in no way intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. Petitioners also point to an email written by Rovet to Rodriguez and others on August 19, 2018, stating: "Let[']s give Arthur a piece of our hearts so he might have some peace in his heart and maybe he will respect our parking rules." This email makes no reference to Petitioners' national origin and is in no way disparaging against Petitioners based on their national origin. Petitioners also point to an email written by Rovet on September 1, 2018, to various persons regarding "Unauthorized notice at mail room," stating: Well said Elisa, the guy's real intentions have been apparent for some time. Yes I agree, he needs a shrink. A football team of them, in fact. (It's never easy as an adult if beaten as a child). Meanwhile, the fencing will go on, and that's the main thing. I don't mind Carlos around, even if his intentions are nefarious, because these little things he comes up with (a piece of paper, a missing flag and the fence permit, for example), makes us all step up our game and that's never a bad thing because there are cracks and stuff inadvertently falls in them. Almost can[']t wait for his next amusing electioneering gambit. Probably the parking system. He dislikes it. But I appreciate the feedback, even if delivered negatively, and any help he has to lend us which can serve to make us better. This email refers to Rodriguez's ongoing disputes and bickering with board members regarding various issues before the board. The email in no way disparages Petitioners based on their national origin; and, in fact, demonstrates Rovet's tolerance of Rodriguez's positions on various issues pertaining to Bonavida. Petitioners also point to an email from McNamee to Rovet and other persons on September 2, 2018, at 6:32 p.m., stating, "Try dictator instead of director?" This email does not refer to Petitioners and their national origin. Even if it referred to Rodriguez, however, it illustrates the personal dispute and bickering between McNamee and Rodriguez over the handling of board matters and in no way was intended to disparage Petitioners based on their national origin. The undersigned carefully considered all the emails received into evidence which are alleged by Petitioners to be discriminatory against them based on their national origin, even if every email is not specifically referenced herein. Suffice it to say that none of the emails demonstrate a discriminatory animus by Respondents against Petitioners based on their national origin, and, in any event, Petitioners did not suffer any injuries from the emails. In sum, Petitioners failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents discriminated against them based on their national origin with respect to any emails. McNamee's "Bullshit" Comment During the October 22, 2018, Meeting During this chaotic board meeting, an ongoing parking issue was discussed. The discussion was supposed to be very brief. After a few minutes, Rodriguez took the floor and while he was speaking on the matter and discussing a possible solution, McNamee, who was attending the meeting over a speakerphone, blurted out: "Stop the bullshit." Not to be deterred, Rodriguez spoke for several more minutes explaining his proposal. At hearing, McNamee testified that the "stop the bullshit" comment was directed at his wife, who was in the same room with him. McNamee thought his speakerphone was muted when he made the comment to his wife. McNamee further testified that the same comment had been used by Rodriguez on prior multiple occasions. The phrase "stop the bullshit" is commonly used in today's vernacular. Even if the comment was directed at Rodriguez, it had nothing to do with Petitioners' national origin. In sum, Petitioners failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents discriminated against them based on their national origin with respect to the "stop the bullshit" comment made by McNamee during the October 22, 2018, board meeting. Petitioners' Retaliation Claim Based on Emails Petitioners contend Respondents subjected them to retaliation beginning in March 2019, after the filing of Petitioners' HUD complaint. In support of their position, Petitioners again rely on various emails. On March 14, 2019, at 2:49 p.m., Rodriguez wrote to Elisa Souza and copied other board members, including Brenda Friend, regarding "Generator repair quotes," stating, Hi Elisa Please note that the most important issue was not replied by you. Are you against transparency? Are you against to having 3 bids? Respectfully Carlos At 3:05 p.m., Ms. Friend wrote to the other board members, stating: "Elisa let him 'die' wondering of that!" At 3:13 p.m., Ms. Friend wrote again to other board members: "It seems Carlos has adopted the bad so well known 'leftist' habit/strategy which is: 'Always accuse others of what you are and do.' So people (the masses) of poor intellect can believe." Ms. Friend did not testify at the final hearing, so it is unclear what she meant by the emails she authored on March 14, 2019. Nevertheless, a plain reading of the email string indicates her comments were made in direct response to emails written by Rodriguez challenging her transparency and decisions, not in response to Petitioners' HUD complaint; and, in any event, no action was taken against Petitioners in the emails. On April 9, 2019, at 1:40 p.m., the Bonavida manager wrote an email to unidentified individuals regarding an insurance carrier's approval of a law firm to defend against Petitioners' HUD complaint filed against Bonavida and two directors. In response, at 2:18 p.m., Rovet wrote "another reason not to do the pool now," which elicited an email from McNamee to unidentified persons at 7:44 p.m., stating: "After the association wins the case, can they sue for expenses incurred for defending this libelous action or does every one of us sue individually?" Merely questioning whether expenses may be recovered and referring to Petitioners' complaint as "libelous" is not retaliation. Again, no action was taken against Petitioners in these emails. On May 29, 2019, at 10:33 a.m. an unidentified person wrote to Ms. Friend and other board members, stating: Dear Ms[.] Friend I do not want you to think I'm ignoring your questions but I'm going down to speak to the manager in person about what requires permits what doesn't require permits, is there a list of things that absolutely must be inspected by County inspectors, is there a list of things that absolutely don't have to be inspected. Etc etc etc] I wish there were such a list I would love to shove it in our antagonists face ??? At 11:02 a.m., McNamee replied, stating, "Does the City of Aventura reward whistle blowers for creating revenue? The City of NY does[.]" Rodriguez takes issue with McNamee's email at 11:02 a.m. At hearing, Rodriguez acknowledged that because of his "scientific preparation and attitude," he was "obsessive on getting the permits…," and ensuring they were correct. Based on Rodriguez's own testimony, the email authored by McNamee was in reference to permits, not Petitioners' HUD complaint. In any event, no action was taken against Petitioners in the email. The undersigned carefully considered all the emails received into evidence which are alleged by Petitioners to be retaliation against them based on their HUD complaint, even if every email is not specifically referenced herein. Suffice it to say that none of the emails demonstrate a retaliatory animus by Respondents against Petitioners based on their HUD complaint, and no action was taken against Petitioners in the emails. In sum, Petitioners' failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents retaliated against them for filing their HUD complaint based on any emails. Petitioners' Retaliation Claim Based on the Cardroom Incident Finally, Petitioners contend that McNamee's inquiry to the Bonavida manager regarding a gathering of owners, including Rodriguez, at a Bonavida cardroom on December 8, 2019, is further evidence of retaliation. However, McNamee's inquiry legitimately pertained to whether Rodriguez had paid the required deposit to reserve the cardroom for the gathering. In any event, no action was taken against Petitioners. In sum, Petitioners failed to present persuasive and credible evidence that Respondents retaliated against them for filing their HUD complaint based on McNamee's inquiry to the manager regarding the cardroom.
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 6th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 4 On pages 29 and 30 of their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners assert that Respondents also violated section 760.23(3) with regard to an unspecified "chain of emails" 15 days before the July 30, 2018, board meeting and the posting of the agenda for the July 30, 2018, meeting. Under section 760.23(3), "[i]t is unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on … national origin or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." However, whether Respondents violated section 760.23(3) was not identified as an issue in the notices of hearing or at the final hearing. It is also not identified as an issue at the beginning of the parties' proposed recommended orders. Accordingly, the issue has been waived. Even if the undersigned were to address the issue, however, Petitioners' claim under section 760.23(3) fails for the same reasons their claim under section 760.23(2) fails. Respondents did not make, print, or publish, or caused to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on their national origin or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Carlos O. Rodriguez Monica Bontempi 20100 West Country Club Drive, Unit 1505 Aventura, Florida 33180 (eServed) S. Jonathan Vine, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Stuart S. Schneider, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
