The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint alleging handicap discrimination against Respondents in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2020), was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”); and (2) whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was timely filed with FCHR.
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 2020, Petitioner filed a fair housing discrimination complaint with FCHR, alleging that Respondents, Brennan Realty, Inc., Joseph P. Brennan, Kathleen Brennan, and Thomas Brennan, discriminated against her based on a handicap. According to her housing discrimination complaint, Petitioner rents an apartment at 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4, Coral Gables, Florida, 33134, “which is subject to rules and regulations of Respondent[,] Brennan Realty, Inc., owned by Respondent[,] Thomas Brennan, and Respondent Registered Agent Joseph P. Brennan, and landlord Respondent[,] Kathleen Brennan.” Petitioner alleged that Respondent Brennan Realty, Inc., sent notices for her to vacate the premises after she made a maintenance request to property owners Kathleen and Joseph Brennan for repairs and a reasonable modification to install grab bars inside of her shower to assist her and prevent falls. Petitioner further alleged “she provided medical documentation to the Respondents which also stated that it is medically necessary for [her] to have the grab bars installed as well.” Petitioner further alleged Respondents Kathleen Brennan and Joseph Brennan “still [have] not installed the grab bars and [are] requesting for her to vacate the premises.” As such, “[Petitioner] believes that Respondents subjected her to discriminatory terms and conditions based on her physical disability.” In May 2019, July 2019, and August 2019, Petitioner received notices informing her that her lease would expire on September 1, 2019; that the lease would not be renewed; and that she needed to vacate and surrender the premises by no later than September 1, 2019. On September 9, 2019, an eviction complaint was filed against Petitioner in Miami-Dade County Court. On September 12, 2019, Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred, at the latest, on September 12, 2019, when Petitioner was served with the eviction complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner had one year from September 12, 2019, in which to file her housing discrimination complaint with FCHR. However, Petitioner did not file her complaint with FCHR until October 29, 2020. Therefore, Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was untimely. Even if Petitioner’s housing discrimination complaint was timely filed with FCHR, her Petition for Relief was not timely filed. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged she received FCHR’s no cause determination on January 13, 2021. The no cause determination expressly provides that if Petitioner “does not agree with this determination, [she] may request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief with the FCHR within 30 days of the date of service of this Notice.” However, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was not filed with FCHR until February 26, 2021. Therefore, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief was untimely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 April Denise Dukes 937 Southwest 5th Street, Apartment 4 Miami, Florida 33130 Vanessa Marie Bertran, Esquire Vanessa M. Bertran, P.A. 55 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in an unfair and discriminatory housing practice in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, section 760.20 et seq., Florida Statutes (2010).1/
Findings Of Fact Ms. Billingsley is an African-American woman; thus, a member of a protected class. The Housing Authority is a government entity of the City of Winter Park, Florida, that provides affordable, public assistance housing for elderly, disabled, and low-income families and individuals. Applicants for the public housing are required to fill out an application that requests information identifying the applicant's income source, Social Security number, addresses for the past five years, and the size of the apartment that the applicant is seeking to rent. The applicant is then placed on a waiting list for an available apartment. Generally, an applicant is informed that the wait for housing is between six to 12 months. The time on this waiting list can be affected by whether or not an applicant meets the criteria for a preference in granting the housing and transfers of existing tenants within the housing complex. Ms. Hinckley, the Housing Authority's executive director, credibly testified that the Housing Authority provides preferences for working families and families with disabled members. In order to qualify for a working-family preference, an applicant must have worked at least 20 hours a week for six of the last 12 months. Ms. Hinckley credibly explained that before an applicant is moved into a housing unit, the Housing Authority will conduct a home visit and verify the applicant's employment for the working preference. In addition to preferences, Ms. Hinckley explained that the amount of time an applicant is on the waiting list can be affected by transfers within the housing complex. The Housing Authority allows a family to transfer within the housing complex based on need, before accepting new families from the waiting list. For example, a family living in a two-bedroom apartment would be allowed to transfer to a larger three-bedroom apartment before an applicant from the waiting list would be allowed to move into the housing complex. On August 27, 2008, Ms. Billingsley applied with the Housing Authority for a three-bedroom apartment. She indicated in her application that she was eligible for the working-family preference. Ms. Billingsley was then placed on the waiting list and given a working-family preference. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Hinckley conducted the home visit with Ms. Billingsley concerning her application. Between December 2009 and Spring 2010, the Housing Authority began renovations of the rental unit bathrooms. During this time, the Housing Authority was unable to accommodate Ms. Billingsley for a three-bedroom apartment. Moreover, the Housing Authority honored transfers within the housing complex before offering Ms. Billingsley a housing unit. On April 9, 2010, the Housing Authority contacted Ms. Billingsley and informed her that a three-bedroom unit would be available in May of 2010. The Housing Authority then sought to verify Ms. Billingsley's working status. Unfortunately, Ms. Billingsley had recently been discharged from employment. The Housing Authority contacted Ms. Billingsley and asked her to provide proof of employment. On May 12, 2010, Ms. Billingsley informed the Housing Authority that she was not employed, but that she was looking for work. Based on the fact that Ms. Billingsley was not working at the time in late April 2010, she was no longer eligible for the working-family preference. As a result, the Housing Authority did not rent the available unit to Ms. Billingsley. Ms. Billingsley has not provided the Housing Authority with any subsequent proof of employment. Moreover, the Housing Authority has not been able to verify her recent claim that she has been employed by Toys-R-Us. Ms. Billingsley did not introduce any evidence, either direct or indirect, showing that the Housing Authority discriminated against her based on her race or that the Housing Authority had a racial preference for Hispanics.
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 Petitioner, Fannie Billingsley's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 21st day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race, sex, or handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Vincent Hall ("Hall") is a middle-aged black man. Although he alleges that he is handicapped, Hall failed to produce any evidence during the final hearing concerning his alleged disability——or even to identify it.1 Respondent Miami-Dade Housing Agency ("Housing Agency") is a department within Miami-Dade County (the "County"), which is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.2 The County is the public housing authority ("PHA") within its territorial jurisdiction. As the PHA, the County, through its Housing Agency, administers several federally funded housing programs, including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ("Section 8"). The County is subject to, and must comply with, the Ann-Marie Adker Consent Decree ("Consent Decree"), which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered in 1998. The Consent Decree requires the County to give certain preferences in housing programs to eligible black public housing residents who qualify as "mobility pool members." Hall is a former resident of Smathers Plaza, one of the County's public housing developments. (Hall lived in Smathers Plaza for a period of time in 2000, leaving voluntarily in November of that year, at which time he relocated to Palm Beach County, where he continued to reside as of the final hearing.) As a former public housing resident, Hall is a mobility pool member. On December 3, 2007, Hall executed a form called an "Application for Assistance Under the Ann-Marie Adker, Et. Al. Vs. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Miami-Dade County Consent Decree," whose purpose is evident from its title. Hall submitted this application to the Housing Agency's Applicant and Leasing Center. By letter dated May 2, 2008, the Housing Agency instructed Hall to appear at the Applicant and Leasing Center on May 15, 2008, for an appointment intended to begin the process of verifying Hall's eligibility for assistance under the Consent Decree. Hall attended this meeting, during which he completed additional paperwork, including a form entitled "Change of Address/Family Size or Special Unit Requirements." One of the questions on this document asked: "Does the Head of Household or other member of the family have a disability?" Hall answered, "No." By signing the document, which Hall did on May 15, 2008, Hall declared "that the information presented [herein] is true and accurate." Despite having disclaimed the existence of any disability, Hall requested that he be provided a live-in aide. Hall was furnished the documents necessary to apply for "reasonable accommodations" such as an aide, which documents included a certificate to be signed by a physician attesting to the disability, but Hall never returned the completed forms. Accordingly, the Housing Agency could not provide Hall a reasonable accommodation and had not done so as of the final hearing. The Housing Agency did, however, authorize the issuance of a Section 8 voucher for Hall, which he picked up on August 21, 2008. The voucher gave Hall 60 days (extendible to a maximum of 120 days) within which to locate an owner willing to participate in Section 8. As of the final hearing, Hall had not found a unit. The County's fair housing center, operated by Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. ("HOPE, Inc.") stood ready to assist Hall if he sought help in returning to Miami-Dade County to live. Unfortunately for him, Hall had not taken advantage of the counseling available through HOPE, Inc. 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 the County and, specifically, its Housing Agency, did not commit any prohibited act vis-à-vis Hall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Housing Agency not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Hall no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2009, 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 8th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin or race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") is a middle- aged white man of (in his words) "Spanish and Italian" descent who at all times relevant lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent Indian River County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat"), is a nonprofit charitable corporation that makes interest-free loans to qualified applicants for the purchase of affordable housing, which the buyers, in return, must help build or renovate. In or around December 2018, Rodriguez submitted a "pre- screening" application for a Habitat home. By letter dated January 3, 2019, Habitat informed Rodriguez that, according to the information he had provided, he fell "within the income guidelines." This meant that Rodriguez could progress to the next step (group orientation) of the multi-step application process. As it happened, however, he did not make it all the way. In a letter dated February 19, 2019, Habitat told Rodriguez that his application could not be approved because his monthly income was insufficient to cover the estimated debt service. Rodriguez presented no evidence at hearing suggesting that Habitat had denied his application for any reason other than the one given to him, namely that "you [Rodriguez] do not earn enough to support a mortgage." Rodriguez was not satisfied with this rationale and arranged to meet with a Habitat employee named David Willis to discuss the matter. Rodriguez believes that Mr. Willis was rude and disrespectful to him. Further, Rodriguez testified that, during their conversation, Mr. Willis used the phrase, "you people." Clearly, this is a potentially offensive remark, and Rodriguez was, in fact, offended by it. When pressed, however, Rodriguez admitted that he did not consider the comment to have been a slur against Spanish or Italian people; rather, he took it as a more focused insult——against, for example, disputatious people. In any event, there is no evidence that Mr. Willis intended to disparage an ethnic or racial group. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Habitat's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Rodriguez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus. Thus, 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 Habitat 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 Habitat not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Rodriguez no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2019, 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 15th day of August, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of discrimination based on her sex or handicap in leasing her apartment from Respondent in violation of Sections 804d and 804d or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and the Florida Fair Housing Act, Chapter 760.23(2) (4), Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resided at Respondent’s Thacker I property for at least a year prior to her move to Respondent’s Pinewoods Place Apartments located at 5929 Pinewoods Place, Milton, Florida 32570. Petitioner moved to Pinewoods, Apartment 25, around March or April of 2003. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent had any material problems with each other during her residency at Thacker I. Her move to Pinewoods resulted from her request to move to a larger apartment. Pinewoods is a large complex managed by Respondent. Some of the units are subsidized by HUD. A list of tenants in the Pinewood complex reflect 58 tenants. Of the 58 tenants, 34 are female. Eleven of the tenants have a disability. In fact, Respondent contracts with providers who serve the disabled to provide apartments to their clients and provides such apartments regularly. Respondent accommodated Petitioner’s request to move to Pinewoods by not requiring a full year’s lease since she had already completed a year at Thacker I and by allowing Petitioner to transfer her deposit from the Thacker I apartment to the Pinewoods apartment. Because of these accommodations, Petitioner was permitted to lease her Pinewoods apartment on a month-to-month lease with an additional deposit of $95. Respondent also accommodated Petitioner in her move by leaving her rent amount the same as it was at Thacker I. Thus, Petitioner paid $400 a month rent instead of the normal $450 a month rent paid by other tenants in comparable apartments. Petitioner did not visit Unit 25 prior to her move to Pinewoods because it was occupied. No other units were available for her to inspect prior to her move. Additionally, HUD inspected the Unit 25 prior to Petitioner’s move and found no violations and that the apartment met HUD standards for being mechanically sound and safe. There was no evidence of any representations made by Respondent to Petitioner regarding Unit 25, and Petitioner did not introduce any evidence of such misrepresentations. Clearly, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions of misrepresentations about her apartment or her assertion that she looked at her Unit or a model, her apartment was not misrepresented to her prior to her move to Pinewoods, and no discrimination on the basis of sex or handicap occurred. Sometime after her move, Petitioner began to complain about her apartment. The evidence was vague regarding most of her complaints, and Petitioner declined to testify about many of her allegations. For instance, there was a vague complaint about leaves being blown into her yard from the sidewalk when the maintenance crew would clear the sidewalk of leaves. However, this method of clearing the sidewalk occurred throughout the complex and was not directed toward Petitioner. Likewise, there was a vague complaint about the trash lady disturbing Petitioner’s morning coffee by performing her assigned duty of picking up trash around the apartment complex. Again, there was no evidence of any activity being directed at Petitioner based on her sex or handicap. At some point, Petitioner complained to Respondent about her dryer vent not working properly. After several complaints and in an effort to resolve Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent’s maintenance person put an interior box-style lint trap, in her Unit. Respondent stated he felt this was the best solution because a member of the maintenance staff used the same type lint trap at his home. Petitioner, for a variety of reasons, was not satisfied with Respondent’s solution and vented the dryer to the outside herself. There is some dispute over whether Petitioner’s repair was safe or done correctly. There is no evidence that indicates Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex or handicap. Petitioner also complained about the sliding glass doors being fogged and wanted them replaced. Respondent explained that the doors were safe and that 55 other residents have fogged glass doors. Respondent refused to replace the glass doors. The next day Petitioner complained to HUD about the fogged glass door being “non-operable.” Because of the complaint, Robert Youngblood from the HUD office in Milton met Respondent’s maintenance staff at Petitioner’s apartment and discovered that the slider had been knocked off its track. Mr. Youngblood reported to Respondent that it was very clear the door had been sabotaged because he had just inspected that same door just days before because of a prior complaint. Respondent fixed Petitioner’s door again. Additionally, the sliding glass door that Petitioner complained about was inspected by both Santa Rosa Glass and Milton Glass. Petitioner also kept an untagged vehicle in the parking lot and threatened to sue if it were towed. All the Pinewoods’ leases contain a provision that untagged vehicles are not permitted on the premises and will be towed. In order to avoid the vehicle being towed, Petitioner switched the tag from her tagged vehicle to her untagged vehicle and back again as notice was given to her. Petitioner again felt this action was discrimination. Again there was no evidence to support Petitioner’s claim. On January 5, 2006, a little more than two years after she moved to Pinewoods, Petitioner complained, when she came to the office to pay her rent, that her garbage disposal did not work. The staff person who took Petitioner’s rent sent a maintenance person that day to look at Petitioner’s garbage disposal. The maintenance person looked at the alleged disposal location and discovered that Petitioner did not have a garbage disposal. There was no plumbing for one. The evidence showed that many units did not have a garbage disposal and that disposals were removed from each unit as they broke down. Petitioner insisted that she should have a garbage disposal since there was a switch on the wall for one. Because of her actions concerning the garbage disposal, Petitioner was given a Notice of Non-Renewal, dated January 6, 2006. Petitioner refused to pay any rent and refused to vacate the apartment based on her belief that Respondent had discriminated against her based on her sex and handicap. She maintained this belief even though she testified that “everybody had problems getting things fixed.” Indeed, her only witness corroborated that men and women, handicapped and non-handicapped have trouble getting things fixed. No reason was given for the non-renewal. Respondent testified that he was tired of Petitioner’s actions and deceitfulness. Petitioner chose to withhold her rent when it was due in February 2006, so that Respondent would bring eviction proceedings against her. Respondent eventually brought eviction proceedings against Petitioner. At the eviction hearing, Petitioner told the judge she wanted to be evicted so it would become public record. Respondent was awarded possession of the premises. After Respondent was given possession, the next morning he received a copy of a letter to the judge requesting that he rescind his decision and requesting another judge. Petitioner has since moved to another apartment. As with the other incidents described above, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex or handicap. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed a discriminatory housing practice by "lock[ing] [Petitioner] out of [his] apartment" at the Arena Hotel, as alleged in Petitioner's housing discrimination complaint, and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) provide Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a black male. Since 2000, he has maintained a residence at the Arena Hotel (Establishment), a rooming house (with 22 rooms) located in Miami, Florida. Respondent is the former owner of the Establishment. He purchased the Establishment approximately three years ago. At the time of the purchase, there were only a small handful of blacks residing in the Establishment (including Petitioner). The percentage of black residents increased significantly during his ownership. Respondent lived in Israel when he owned the Establishment (as he does now). Every several months he traveled to Miami and visited the Establishment. Respondent had an on-site manager to take care of the day-to-day affairs of the Establishment for him. Respondent also had a brother living in the area on whom he could call to check on the Establishment. The brother, Gil Terem, worked for Majestic Properties, Inc., a Miami-based real estate brokerage firm. Gil Terem assisted in Respondent's sale of the Establishment. From the time Respondent purchased the Establishment until the time he sold it, Petitioner regularly complained to management and various governmental agencies about the conditions in his room and the common areas. Petitioner's complaints were not the only ones management received during this time frame. There were also complaints from residents of the Establishment who claimed that Petitioner was acting aggressively and harassing them. On November 6, 2002, government inspectors conducted an inspection of the Establishment. Later that same day, November 6, 2002, City of Miami police were called to the Establishment by management to look into an allegation of harassment made against Petitioner. Gil Terem was on the premises of the Establishment when the police arrived. Respondent was not present. He was in Israel. Upon their arrival, the police confronted Petitioner and spoke with him. Although the police did not arrest Petitioner or take him into custody, Petitioner was under the impression, following his discussion with the police, that he was not free to reenter his room and that he had to vacate the premises. He therefore left the Establishment without returning to his room. Notwithstanding what Petitioner may have believed, there was no intention to evict him. Petitioner pursued legal action in Miami-Dade Circuit Court alleging that he was illegally removed from his room in the Establishment. On December 4, 2002, in the case of David Powell v. Majestic Properties, Inc., Case No. 02-27703CA30, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Levenson issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief, which read as follows: This cause having come on to be heard on Dec. 4, 2002 on Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, its is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby, granted. A temporary restraining order is in effect pending the setting of a further hearing. [Plaintiff] is allowed to return to his residence. Following the entry of this Order, Petitioner returned to his room in the Establishment. Because there was a new lock on the door that had been installed during his absence, he was not able to enter the room until Gil Terem came by with a key to let him in. Subsequent to his return to the Establishment, Petitioner initiated various judicial and administrative actions, including the instant one,1 claiming that Respondent and others conspired to unlawfully discriminate against him by depriving him of the opportunity to enjoy the privileges of residing at the Establishment. The record evidence is insufficient to establish that Petitioner was in any way discriminated against on the basis of race or handicap or that any adverse action was taken against him in retaliation for his claiming that he was the victim of housing discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that no "discriminatory housing practice" has been committed and dismissing Petitioner's complaint based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner because of handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Shelley M. Wright ("Wright") was a graduate student at Florida International University ("FIU") in Miami, Florida. Wright has a physical disability that affects her mobility, and, as a result, she uses a wheelchair or scooter to get around. There is no dispute that Wright falls within a class of persons protected against discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"). Respondent Servitas Management Group, LLC ("SMG"), manages Bayview Student Living ("Bayview"), a privately owned student housing community located on FIU's campus. Bayview's owner, NCCD — Biscayne Properties, LLC, leases (from FIU) the real estate on which the project is situated. Bayview is a recently built apartment complex, which first opened its doors to students for the 2016-2017 school year. On November 20, 2015, Wright submitted a rental application for a single occupancy efficiency apartment in Bayview, fitted out for residents with disabilities. She was charged an application fee of $100.00, as were all applicants, plus a "convenience fee" of $6.45. Much later, Wright would request that SMG refund the application fee, and SMG would deny her request, although it would give her a credit of $6.45 to erase the convenience fee on the grounds that it had been charged in error. Wright complains that this transaction was tainted with unlawful discrimination, but there is no evidence of such, and thus the fees will not be discussed further. Wright's application was approved, and, accordingly, she soon executed a Student Housing Lease Contract ("First Lease") for a term commencing on August 20, 2016, and ending on July 31, 2017. The First Lease stated that her rent would be $1,153.00 per month, and that the total rent for the lease term would be $12,683.00. Because Wright was one of the first students to sign a lease, she won some incentives, namely $500.00 in Visa gift cards and an iPad Pro. The First Lease provided that she would receive a $200.00 gift card upon lease execution and the balance of $300.00 upon moving in. As it happened, Wright did not receive the gift cards in two installments, but instead accepted five cards worth $500.00, in the aggregate, on August 20, 2016. There were two reasons for this. One was that SMG required lease holders to appear in-person to take possession of the gift cards and sign a receipt acknowledging delivery. Wright was unable (or unwilling) to travel to SMG's office until she moved to Miami in August 2016 to attend FIU. The other was that SMG decided not to use gift cards as the means of paying this particular incentive after integrating its rent collection operation with FIU's student accounts. Instead, SMG would issue a credit to the lease holders' student accounts in the amount of $500.00. Wright, however, insisted upon the gift cards, and so she was given them rather than the $500.00 credit. Wright has alleged that the untimely (or inconvenient) delivery of the gift cards constituted unlawful discrimination, but the evidence fails to sustain the allegation, which merits no further discussion. In May 2016, SMG asked Wright (and all other Bayview lease holders) to sign an amended lease. The revised lease made several changes that SMG called "improvements," most of which stemmed from SMG's entering into a closer working relationship with FIU. (One such change was the aforementioned substitution of a $500.00 credit for gift cards.) The amended lease, however, specified that Wright's total rent for the term would be $13,836.00——an increase of $1,153.00 over the amount stated in the First Lease. The explanation was that, in the First Lease, the total rent had been calculated by multiplying the monthly installment ($1,153.00) by 11, which did not account for the 12 days in August 2016 included in the lease term. SMG claimed that the intent all along had been to charge 12 monthly installments of $1,153.00 without proration (even though the tenant would not have possession of the premises for a full 12 months) and thus that the First Lease had erroneously shown the total rent as $12,683.00. As SMG saw it, the revised lease simply fixed this mistake. Wright executed the amended lease on or about May 10, 2016 (the "Second Lease"). Wright alleges that this rent "increase" was the product of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or both. There is, however, no persuasive evidence supporting this allegation. The same rental amount was charged to all occupants of the efficiency apartments, regardless of their disabilities or lack thereof, and each of them signed the same amended lease document that Wright executed. To be sure, Wright had reason to be upset about SMG's revision of the total rent amount, which was not an improvement from her standpoint, and perhaps she had (or has) legal or equitable remedies available for breach of lease. But this administrative proceeding is not the forum for redressing such wrongs (if any). Relatedly, some tenants received a rent reduction through the amended leases SMG presented in May 2016, because the rates were reduced therein for two- and four-bedroom apartments. As was made clear at the time, however, rates were not reduced on the one-bedroom studios due to their popularity. Wright alleges that she subsequently requested an "accommodation" in the form of a rent reduction, which she argues was necessary because she leased a more expensive studio apartment, not by choice, but of necessity (since only the one- bedroom unit met her needs in light of her disabilities). This claim fails because allowing Wright to pay less for her apartment than every other tenant is charged for the same type of apartment would amount to preferential treatment, which the law does not require. Wright makes two claims of alleged discrimination that, unlike her other charges, are facially plausible. She asserts that the handicapped parking spaces at Bayview are unreasonably far away for her, given her limited mobility. She further asserts that the main entrance doors (and others in the building) do not afford two-way automatic entry, and that as a result, she has difficulty exiting through these doors. The undersigned believes it is possible, even likely, that the refusal to offer Wright a reasonable and necessary accommodation with regard to the alleged parking situation, her problems with ingress and egress, or both, if properly requested, might afford grounds for relief under the FFHA. The shortcoming in Wright's current case is the absence of persuasive proof that she ever presented an actual request for such an accommodation, explaining the necessity thereof, for SMG's consideration. There is evidence suggesting that Wright complained about the parking and the doors, perhaps even to SMG employees, but a gripe, without more, is not equivalent to a request for reasonable accommodation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of SMG's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Wright, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Wright. There is no persuasive evidence that SMG denied a request of Wright's for a reasonable accommodation at Bayview. 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 SMG 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 SMG not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Wright no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2017, 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 27th day of September, 2017.
