The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by failing to reasonably accommodate her handicap, in violation of Florida?s Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of Unit No. 710 (“Unit”) in the Sixth Moorings Condominium, located in Miami, Florida. Petitioner lived there for approximately 11 years. She is not currently living in the Unit. Respondent is the condominium association responsible for the operation and management of the Sixth Moorings Condominium. In early 2010, Petitioner suffered a stroke and underwent heart surgery. It is undisputed that as a result of her illness, Petitioner is “handicapped” for purposes of the Fair Housing Act.4/ Petitioner spent several months in hospitals and nursing homes recovering from her stroke and surgeries. When she was released from these facilities, she did not resume living in the Unit. She testified that this was because she could not go up a curb or steps, and because the condominium?s elevator frequently was out of order.5/ She moved into a ground floor apartment a few blocks away from the Sixth Moorings Condominium. Petitioner is not able to perform many basic tasks, such as grocery shopping, driving, cleaning her apartment, taking out the garbage, or retrieving her mail. Consequently, she decided to invite her nephew, Charles Alsberg, to move into the Unit, where he would be only a few minutes away from the apartment in which she was residing, and thus could serve as her caretaker. Alsberg moved into the Unit in or around August 2010. Petitioner did not reside in the Unit with Alsberg. She testified that even though he is a family member, she would not live in the Unit with him because she is “an elderly woman from a different generation and [she] would not live with a young man unless he was [her] biological son.” In late 2010, Respondent?s President, John Koble, contacted Petitioner about Alsberg living in her Unit. Petitioner asked Koble to allow Alsberg to reside in the Unit so that he could serve as her caretaker, but Koble told her that because she was not residing there, Alsberg was considered an unauthorized guest in violation of the condominium?s restrictive covenants, and that he therefore must move out. Nonetheless, Alsberg continued to reside in the Unit for several more months, until he became ill and was hospitalized. Following his release in August 2011, Alsberg returned to live in the Unit. At this point, Respondent——this time, through counsel——sent Petitioner a letter stating that she was violating the restrictive covenant prohibiting unauthorized guests, and demanding that Alsberg vacate the unit. On September 13, 2011, Petitioner?s attorney sent a response letter requesting that, due to restrictions on Alsberg?s activity as a result of his illness, he be allowed to remain in the Unit for approximately 60 days. By correspondence dated September 15, 2011, Respondent agreed to allow Alsberg to remain in the Unit through November 12, 2011. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that Respondent granted her request to allow Alsberg to stay there during his recuperation. Notwithstanding this agreement, Alsberg did not vacate the Unit until sometime in early 2012, several months after the November 12, 2011 deadline. During this time, Respondent sent numerous pieces of correspondence that Petitioner characterized as “harassing” and “threatening,” regarding enforcement of the condominium?s covenants and rules. Alsberg finally vacated the Unit after Respondent sent a “final notice” letter. Currently, Alsberg is residing in an apartment approximately four blocks from Petitioner?s apartment and is serving as her caretaker. Koble testified that he was sympathetic to Petitioner?s circumstances, but it was imperative that Respondent consistently enforce the restrictive covenants for the benefit of all unit owners. Koble noted that other unit owners also wanted to allow unauthorized guests to live in their units, and that if Respondent relaxed enforcement of the covenant for Petitioner, it would be forced to do so for others. The undersigned credits this testimony. Koble also testified, credibly, that if Petitioner were residing in her unit, Respondent would have granted an accommodation of the covenant to allow Alsberg to live there for the purpose of serving as her caretaker.6/ The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not request any accommodation from Respondent that was necessary for her equal opportunity to use and enjoy the Unit; rather, the purpose of Petitioner?s request that Respondent not enforce the restrictive covenant against her was to enable her nephew to live in the Unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no unlawful discrimination by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with her dwelling based on her race or handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 51-year-old black female who relocated to Leesburg, Florida, from Port Chester, New York, in February 2012. Respondent, Richman Property Services, Inc., is the corporate owner/manager of Laurel Oaks Apartments (Laurel Oaks) located at 131 Bayou Circle in Leesburg, Florida. Amy Lewis is the Community Manager of Laurel Oaks. Petitioner rented a two-bedroom apartment unit from Respondent from February 24, 2012, until she moved to Orlando, Florida, on December 3, 2012. Petitioner?s daughter, Sushon Dillard, occupied the apartment with Petitioner during her tenancy at Laurel Oaks. Petitioner spoke with Ms. Lewis via telephone to inquire regarding the availability of a unit at Laurel Oaks while Petitioner was still residing out of state. Petitioner applied for tenancy at Laurel Oaks by faxing her application to Ms. Lewis. Petitioner?s application was accompanied by a copy of her award letter documenting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments as proof of income. On February 24, 2012, Petitioner signed a lease for Laurel Oaks unit #103, paid a security deposit, and moved into the unit. Petitioner has a current clinical diagnosis of “schizophrenia, paranoid.” She also claims to be diagnosed bi- polar with Tourrete?s Syndrome. While Petitioner presented no documentation of the additional diagnosis, her testimony on this issue is credible and is accepted by the undersigned. Petitioner was first hospitalized for treatment of an unspecified mental illness at Bellevue Hospital in New York in 1982. She apparently lived without significant incident for the next 26 years. Petitioner had a “breakdown” in 2008, while living in Arizona, and another “breakdown” that same year in New York, for which she was hospitalized at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, and later transferred to Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. Petitioner reports that since April 2008, she has “spent time in numerous mental institutions in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and New York.” Petitioner?s most recent incident occurred in August 2012, while she was living at Laurel Oaks. She was taken by police to a local facility named “Life Stream” where she was treated for a number of days, then returned home to her apartment at Laurel Oaks with her daughter. Petitioner appeared calm and controlled at the final hearing. She testified that she is taking her medications and doing very well. Petitioner claims that when she moved into the unit at Laurel Oaks, it was not cleaned, was “infested with dead roaches,” and the washing machine was filthy. Petitioner?s daughter testified there were dead roaches even in the dishwasher. Petitioner also bases her allegation of discrimination on Respondent?s accusation in April 2012, that Petitioner had not paid a $300 security deposit prior to occupying her apartment. When Petitioner paid her April rent, Trifonia Bradley, an employee in the office at Laurel Oaks, informed Petitioner she still owed a $300 security deposit. Petitioner responded that she had paid the deposit on February 24, 2012. Although the evidence was not clear as to the specific date, Petitioner later met with Ms. Bradley and brought in her receipt showing the $300 had been paid in February. After that meeting, Petitioner received a phone call from Ms. Lewis apologizing for the error and stating something to the effect of “we are all good.” Petitioner believes Respondent was attempting to take advantage of her disability and trick her into paying the deposit again. At final hearing, Petitioner and her daughter presented evidence and testimony regarding additional alleged discriminatory acts by Respondent. Petitioner alleged that someone employed by, or otherwise acting on behalf of Respondent, sabotaged her automobile; harassed her by requesting her daughter fill out a separate rental application in order to live with her; harassed Petitioner about her request for accommodation based on her disability and claimed she had not demonstrated that she was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; threatened to tow away her car because it was inoperable; and stole money from her apartment. Each of these additional alleged acts occurred after September 21, 2012, the date on which FCHR issued its determination of no cause, and was not investigated by FCHR. Petitioner is intelligent and articulate. Her exhibits were well-organized and contained copious documentation of the alleged discriminatory acts occurring after September 21, 2012. Her documentation included correspondence with Laurel Oaks? management, notices which were posted on the apartment door, copies of numerous forms and applications, and a police report. In contrast, Petitioner offered no tangible evidence regarding the condition of the property upon occupancy other than her testimony, which was not persuasive. She introduced no photographs, no written complaint, and no correspondence with the manager or other employees of Laurel Oaks regarding the condition of the apartment. In fact, she offered no evidence that she brought the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks? management. Given the totality of the evidence, including the demeanor of the Petitioner and Ms. Dillard, the undersigned finds that either the unit was not unclean or Petitioner did not bring the condition of the unit to the attention of Laurel Oaks upon occupying the unit. Further, the undersigned finds that Laurel Oaks erroneously requested the security deposit in April 2012, and corrected the error after reviewing Petitioner?s documentation. The mistake was not an act of discrimination based either on race or disability.2/
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. 2012H0289. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, 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 27th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent Perry Carrell ("Respondent") failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Petitioner Jean Rath’s ("Petitioner") disability and discriminated against Petitioner because of her disability in violation of Florida’s Fair Housing Act; and, if so, the relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact In 2005, Respondent purchased condominium unit 604 in Tiara Towers, located at 3120 North Highway A1A, Fort Pierce, Florida 34949. Respondent purchased the condominium unit as his primary residence. In 2013, Respondent decided to rent the unit to Petitioner. In May 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written residential lease agreement for Petitioner to lease the premises from Respondent from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2015. Pursuant to the lease, Petitioner was obligated to pay monthly rent to Respondent in the amount of $1,850.00. Petitioner’s tenancy was subject to the rules and regulations of the condominium association. The association’s rules do not allow for tenants to have pets. In addition, the association requires all leases be in writing. The written lease between Petitioner and Respondent expired on June 30, 2015. A properly executed second written lease was never executed by Petitioner and submitted to the association. Nevertheless, Petitioner continued residing at the premises on a month-to-month basis. Petitioner is disabled and requires a service animal because of her disability. Over the course of the tenancy, the association became concerned about Petitioner’s violation of its rules, including the lack of documentation of Petitioner’s dog as a service animal, and the lack of a new written lease after the initial lease expired on June 30, 2015. In an effort to assist Petitioner in keeping the dog, Respondent gathered information to demonstrate the qualifications of Petitioner’s dog as a service animal and provided the documentation to the association on Petitioner’s behalf. Based on the lack of a new written lease and the absence of sufficient documentation as to the service animal, the association fined Respondent $2,000.00. Respondent provided Petitioner with a termination of lease and demand to vacate notice on May 28, 2016. The notice of termination was based on the fines by the association against Respondent for not having a timely signed lease in place, and the association’s belief that sufficient documentation had not been presented to support the dog as a service animal. Petitioner vacated the unit on or about July 1, 2017. Respondent did not re-lease the unit and sold the unit on March 22, 2017. During the appeal process, the fine of $1,000.00 related to the service animal was rescinded by the association. Respondent paid the $1,000.00 fine related to the lack of a written lease, and has not requested reimbursement from Petitioner. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged Respondent did not discriminate against her on the basis of her disability, and that Respondent advocated to the association on her behalf. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not fail to reasonably accommodate Petitioner’s disability or discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of her disability.
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 27th day of February, 2018, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Jean Rath 422 Southeast Naranja Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Glenn J. Webber, Esquire Glenn J. Webber, P.A. 101 Southeast Ocean Boulevard, Suite 203 Stuart, Florida 34994 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent Versailles Plaza Condo Association, Inc., ("Respondent") failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Petitioner Marcella Zambrano's disability in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act, and, if so, the relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Marcella Zambrano ("Marcella") is a 28-year- old-female, who is mentally retarded and suffers from cerebral palsy. Marcella weighs 260 pounds, has the mental age of a two-year-old, cannot speak, has difficulty walking, and frequently falls down when she attempts to walk. Marcella attended the final hearing in a wheelchair, and she has obvious physical and cognitive impairments. Marcella requires the use of a wheelchair due to her very limited mobility. She cannot be left alone for very long, and she is unable to wheel herself in a wheelchair. Petitioner Liliana Zambrano is Marcella's mother and primary caregiver. Liliana Zambrano weighs 135 pounds, and pushes Marcella in the wheelchair. The wheelchair weighs approximately forty pounds, and it is difficult for Liliana Zambrano to transport Marcella in the wheelchair. Petitioners reside in a third-floor unit at the Versailles Plaza Condominium in Miami, Florida. Respondent is the condominium association for the condominium complex. Petitioner Liliana Zambrano has two assigned parking spots for her unit within the complex's resident parking lot. Petitioners reside in the last unit on the far-east side of the residential building in which their unit is located. There is only one entrance from the parking lot into the condominium building in which Petitioners' unit is located. The entrance to the building is located in the middle of the building. The distance from Petitioners' assigned parking spot to the entrance of the building is approximately 50 yards. The distance from the entrance of the building to Petitioners' unit is approximately another 50 yards. Thus, the total distance from the assigned resident parking spot to Petitioners' unit is approximately 100 yards. Marcella attends a day program at the Association for Retarded Citizens ("ARC") from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., three days a week. In order to get to the program, a bus arrives at the front of the condominium complex to pick her up. A gate is located at the front of the condominium complex. The bus stops to pick Marcella up just outside the gate. In order to get Marcella to the bus in the mornings, Liliana Zambrano must push her in the wheelchair from their apartment through the entrance of the building, then from the entrance of the building through the parking lot, and then from the parking lot through the front gate. Once Petitioners reach the gate, Liliana Zambrano must activate a hand-held remote-controlled device for the gate to open. When the gate opens, Liliana Zambrano must then push Marcella's wheelchair to get her out of the complex and to the bus. No ramp is located in the vicinity of the gate. This mode of transporting Marcella is repeated in the opposite direction in the afternoons when the bus returns to the complex to drop Marcella off from the ARC program. Petitioners requested that Respondent provide them a reasonable accommodation due to Marcella's handicap by re-assigning at least one of their parking spots closer to the entrance of the building. Petitioners further requested that Respondent provide them a reasonable accommodation for Marcella's handicap by allowing the ARC bus to enter the building's drive-way to drop her off in the afternoons. Respondent offered Petitioners a new parking spot outside the fenced-in condominium parking lot in an area typically reserved for visitors of the complex. In order to transport Marcella to and from the parking space proposed by Respondent as an accommodation, Liliana Zambrano would be required to push Marcella's wheelchair through a spring-loaded gate that will not open or close automatically. Moreover, Petitioners would have to negotiate two curbs, which are each five to six inches high. Furthermore, the space is in a high traffic area directly in front of a fire hydrant. As to the request regarding access for the bus, Respondent refused to allow the bus to enter the complex through the gate. The evidence adduced at the final hearing established that Marcella is a handicapped person because she has physical and mental impairments which substantially limit one or more life activities, and she has developmental disabilities. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent knew of Marcella's handicap, that reasonable accommodations were requested and are necessary to afford Petitioners an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling and facilities, and that Respondent refused to provide the reasonable accommodations for Marcella's disability by failing to assign Liliana Zambrano a designated accessible parking spot closer to the entrance of the building and by failing to allow the ARC bus to enter the complex. Respondent failed to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by FCHR requiring that Respondent: provide Petitioners with an accessible parking space closer to the entrance of the building; allow the ARC bus to enter the complex through the gate; and award Petitioners' counsel their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. If there is a dispute regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and costs, remand this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of determining the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2014, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“the Commission”) has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Commission conducted an investigation of GHA’s allegations. That investigation determined that GHA had not been acting as Ms. Duff’s attorney and that the assistance provided to Ms. Duff was mostly clerical in nature. The investigation also determined that GHA suffered no harm related to housing. As a result, the Commission determined that it had no jurisdiction over GHA’s claim. On November 18, 2016, the Commission issued a “Notice of Determination of No Jurisdiction.” In addition to notifying GHA of its decision, the Commission advised GHA that it could challenge its determination by requesting an administrative hearing. GHA filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission on January 30, 2017, and took issue with the Commission’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction over this matter. With regard to the Commission’s determination that GHA was not Ms. Duff’s attorney, GHA stated the following: Patrick Coleman did admit that he was not an attorney, however Patrick Coleman confirmed on several occasions that he and GHA have in fact been Ms. Kelly Duff’s representative by means of a Power of Attorney since May 11, 2016. Please see the attached Power of Attorney signed by Ms. Duff. Patrick Coleman of GHA admitted to not performing traditional phone testing or in person testing at the respondent[‘s] property – that is correct. However, GHA has stated that their Testing Investigation process included an investigation of the respondent’s housing process, including: the Concord Rental Agreement, the Service Animal Addendum, an in depth review of the Concord Rents website and their published documents, and a review of the Reserve at Brookhaven website followed by a review of their published materials. It was GHA’s investigation, recovery, and scrutiny of the Service Animal Responsibility Addendum that uncovered the potentially discriminatory language which prompted an inquiry regarding the Respondent’s policy addressing assistance animals in the pool area. As for the Commission’s determination that GHA’s assistance to Ms. Duff was mostly clerical in nature, GHA stated that it assisted Ms. Duff with protecting her “Fair Housing Rights” in the following ways: (1) interviewed Ms. Duff in order to verify that she was a bona fide victim of discrimination; (2) provided Ms. Duff with fair housing education via a webinar; (3) wrote two reasonable accommodation requests for Ms. Duff; (4) worked with Ms. Duff’s physician in order to draft a letter describing Ms. Duff’s disability and her need for an assistance animal; (5) wrote, reviewed, and approved all written communications from Ms. Duff to Respondent; (6) interviewed Ms. Duff’s employer; (7) wrote and filed Ms. Duff’s fair housing complaint; and (8) represented Ms. Duff during every phone interview conducted by the Commission. The Commission referred the instant case to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) on January 30, 2017. On February 14, 2017, the undersigned sua sponte issued an “Order to Show Cause” requiring GHA to “show cause on or before March 1, 2017, why the instant case should not be dismissed based on a lack of standing.” GHA did not file any response to the Order to Show Cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Gratus Housing Advocates’ Petition for Relief due to a lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Patrick Coleman Gratus Housing Advocates, Inc. 3513 Provine Road Mckinney, Texas 75070 Brookhaven Development Land LTD Suite 101 700 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789 Andrew Kemp-Gerstel, Partner 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling; or provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“the Act”), section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2019).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female residing in Tallahassee, Florida, who purports to have diagnoses of depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), and a learning disability. Petitioner offered no evidence regarding how her diagnoses affect her daily life. Petitioner originally signed a lease with Respondent to rent apartment F201 at Sabal Court Apartments, 2125 Jackson Bluff Road, Tallahassee, Florida, from November 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018. Petitioner moved into the apartment with her two minor children on November 2, 2017. Petitioner testified her two minor children also have ADHD. On October 24, 2018, Petitioner renewed her lease for the apartment for the term of November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019. Petitioner testified that, during the term of both leases, she experienced problems with the apartment; including mold in the bathroom, bed bugs, ants, roaches, spiders, and cracked flooring. Most distressing to Petitioner was the air conditioning unit, which Petitioner alleges was filthy and failed to cool the apartment. Petitioner testified she submitted several requests for the unit to be serviced, but it was never repaired to good working condition. Petitioner complained that the apartment was too hot—frequently reaching temperatures in excess of 80 degrees—for her and her children to sleep at night. On August 7, 2019, Petitioner executed a lease renewal form, requesting to renew her lease for an additional 12 months—through October 31, 2020. On September 23, 2019, Respondent posted a Notice of Non-Renewal of Lease (“Notice”) on Petitioner’s apartment door. The Notice notified Petitioner that her tenancy would not be renewed and that she was expected to vacate the premises on or before October 31, 2019. Petitioner testified that she did not know why her lease was non- renewed, but believed it to be additional mistreatment of her and her family by Respondent. In response to the undersigned’s question why Petitioner believed Respondent’s treatment of her to be related to her handicap, or that of her children, Petitioner replied that she does not believe that the non-renewal of her lease, or other issues with Respondent’s management, was based on either her handicap or that of her children.
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 Petition for Relief from a Discriminatory Housing Practice No. 202021115. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2020, 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 11th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Dastha L. Crews Apartment A 2125 Pecan Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Joni Henley, Assistant Manager Sabal Court Apartments 2125 Jackson Bluff Road Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Todd A. Ruderman Green Oaks Tampa, LLC Suite 218 3201 West Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on race regarding the renting of an apartment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns more than 25 residential rental properties in the State of Florida, including the duplex located at 8472 and 8474 Barrancas Street, Navarre, Florida, which he purchased approximately three years ago. In January 2011, Respondent placed an advertisement in the newspaper for the rental of both sides of the duplex, and put a "For Rent" sign in the front yard. On January 27, 2010, Respondent entered into a lease agreement for the rental of Unit 8472 with Jeffery White, who is Caucasian. Respondent had to evict Mr. White for non-payment of rent. Mr. White was cited for leaving garbage and other things stacked around the home. When he moved out around August 2010, Mr. White left Unit 8472 filthy on the inside and out. Petitioner, Karen Davis, was the next person to have a lease on this property, approximately five months later. On January 7, 2011, Ms. Davis, who is African-American, was looking to rent a home and saw Respondent's advertisement in the newspaper for the duplex on Barrancas Street. Ms. Davis called Respondent and set up an appointment to view the duplex the same day. Ms. Davis and her mother, Sylvienne Pearson, arrived at the property before Respondent, so they walked around the duplex and looked through the windows while they waited. Respondent showed Unit 8472 to Mses. Davis and Pearson. They learned that the hot water heater had insulation coming out of it, the front door knob did not have a lock, the refrigerator was pulled out from the wall, and the unit appeared not to have been cleaned or prepared for a new tenant since the last tenant had moved out. A storage room in the back of the duplex had to be pried open because it was filled with furniture that had been left by a previous tenant. There was garbage around the outside. Respondent indicated that the home was available "as is." Unit 8472 needed to be cleaned and a hole in the door repaired. Respondent told Ms. Davis that he would deduct the reasonable cost of having the carpet cleaned from the rent. Ms. Pearson asked if they could take a look at the adjoining unit, 8474, which she learned was also available to rent. Respondent told Ms. Pearson that the carpet was damaged, and he would not show it to them because he was not going to rent it until the repairs had been made. After viewing Unit 8472, Ms. Davis called her friend, Brigitte Brahms, who is Caucasian and works part-time as a real estate agent. Ms. Brahms did a search on the property and determined that there was not a lien or foreclosure on it. Ms. Davis described to Ms. Brahms that the front door lock was not working, a lot of belongings were left from a previous tenant, garbage was in the yard, the hot water heater had insulation coming out of it, and that Respondent was not willing to fix any of these items. Respondent's only qualification for a potential tenant in his rental properties is that the tenant has some money. Once Ms. Davis presented Respondent with $350, he determined that she was qualified, and agreed to sign the lease with her. He told Ms. Davis that she would save $80 if she moved into Unit 8272 right away. After Ms. Davis signed the lease and gave him $350, Respondent gave Ms. Davis the keys to the unit. Ms. Davis told Respondent that she did not have all the money required for the rent, and that she would have to get some of it from her family. The next morning, January 8, 2011, Ms. Davis called Respondent to ask to see Unit 8474. Respondent's wife answered the telephone and indicated that Unit 8474 had already been promised to someone else. A short time later, Ms. Brahms, posing as a potential tenant, called Respondent, and asked about the availability of Unit 8474. Respondent indicated that it was available, and Ms. Brahms told him that she would call back later. Ms. Davis went to Ms. Brahm's house and called Respondent again on speakerphone while Ms. Brahms listened. Respondent again told Ms. Davis that Unit 8474 was not available because it had already been rented, and he would not show it to her. An hour later, Ms. Brahms called Respondent to verify that Unit 8474 was available, and Respondent offered to show it to her the same day. Mses. Davis, Pearson, and Brahms went to the duplex before the appointment with Respondent and walked around Unit 8472 so Ms. Brahms would be able to compare it with Unit 8474. Ms. Brahms noted that Unit 8474 was in much better condition than Unit 8272; everything was cleaned up; the unit had been vacuumed; the kitchen was set up properly; the storage unit was empty; and there was no garbage left out in the yard. The carpet was stained and there was a small strip of carpet that was missing between the master bedroom and the living room, but Respondent did not indicate that he would change the carpet or make any repairs. The problems with Unit 8474 were minor in comparison with the problems with Unit 8472, and Unit 8474 was in much better condition than Unit 8472. Respondent did not tell Ms. Brahms that there was anything that had to be repaired before he would rent Unit 8474 to her, and he did not indicate that it was being held for someone else. Instead, when Ms. Brahms asked if Unit 8474 was available to rent, Respondent indicated that she could rent it that very day. January 8, 2011, knowing that Respondent had shown Unit 8474 to Ms. Brahms after refusing to show it to her, Ms. Davis told Respondent that she was no longer interested in renting Unit 8472; tried to return the key to him; and requested a refund of the $350 deposit. Respondent refused, so Ms. Davis sent the key to him in a letter on January 13, 2011, again requesting the refund of the $350 deposit. Respondent has never returned Ms. Davis' $350 deposit. Ms. Davis never actually moved into the duplex. After she decided not to rent Unit 8472 from Respondent, he next rented the unit to a Caucasian on February 25, 2011, then later to another Caucasian followed by a Hispanic tenant. Towards the end of January 2011, Ms. Davis located another rental and moved in on February 1, 2011. Since she never moved into Respondent's duplex, she paid $80 to keep her furniture in storage for a month until she found a new place to live. She paid a $400 deposit and a $300 pet fee for two dogs. Respondent provided several reasons for not showing Unit 8474 to Ms. Davis. Respondent testified that Ms. Davis never asked to see Unit 8474. Instead, he alleges that she simply asked if it was empty, to which Respondent indicated that it was empty and available for rent, but that the unit needed several repairs, and it had not been cleaned. However, Respondent later testified that the previous tenants had left Unit 8474 in such a condition that it only required minor "TLC" from him and was ready to be rented. Additionally, Respondent admitted that he was willing to show Unit 8474 to Rita Davis (no relation to Petitioner), who is Caucasian, despite the fact that he had not repaired the carpet or cleaned Unit 8474. Respondent stated that he had agreed to hold Unit 8474 for an unidentified person until Monday, January 10, 2011, but admitted that he had not received a deposit to hold the unit. Respondent explained that many times he has allowed his tenants to transfer to another one of his properties, even months later, without penalty or charges of any kind. Respondent admitted he did tell Ms. Brahms that Unit 8474 was available for rent and showed it to her, but states that had she actually offered to rent it, he would have told her that it still needed work that she would have had to complete herself. Also, she would only have been allowed to rent that unit if the other person for whom he was holding it did not come up with a deposit. Respondent testified that if a prospective tenant is likely to get into one of his rental properties and tear it up, he will not rent to that person. No evidence was produced to prove that Ms. Davis had a prior record of not caring for apartments or places where she lived.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent discriminated against Karen Davis in violation of section 760.23(1) and (4), Florida Statutes; prohibiting further unlawful housing practices by Respondent; and directing that Respondent submit a cashier's check to Karen Davis within 10 business days from the date of the final order in the amount of $430.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Tinsley 3014 Shearwater Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
